tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post6783348240713540819..comments2024-03-19T04:19:18.871-05:00Comments on Atheism Analyzed: A Standardized Conversation With An EvolutionistUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger100125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-35277146252816678482015-06-01T19:51:00.049-05:002015-06-01T19:51:00.049-05:00A fascinating discussion. I'm more reassured t...A fascinating discussion. I'm more reassured than ever of the truth of a comment I heard from talk radio personality Dennis Pager:<br /><br />"Without God, man is insignificant."The Stoogemaniachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03598340795178994006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-35638854905820199142015-05-04T22:34:03.840-05:002015-05-04T22:34:03.840-05:00The third and fourth hit now go to Hugo's comm...The third and fourth hit now go to Hugo's comments, where, again, the context is lost on me. I do agree with the part mentioning the "course" on Evolution, of course, as I already pointed out, about how horrible it is. Being a liberal Christian myself, I might agree with him on a few more things, but only on the surface. The comments on Feminism, for example, are really strange and disconcerting, why is he mentioning "Feminists are insane bitches who think every heterosexual act is rape" or "P in the V is rape", I did not see that here, he sounds strange, and I did not perceive you as being that strange. I might understand why you had issues with that person. That's all I could find,<br /><br />Therefore, to reaffirm, again, my statements stand, regarding Evolution. I saw no one, here, try to address the basic facts of Evolution. Instead, it's red herring after red herring, ad hominem about me being an Atheist, just because I disagree with your, false, views on Evolution. I showed 10+ more quotes of Stan, literally, denying that Evolution happens, denying that it's true, completely rejecting it. Then, Stan uses evolutionary biologist, history of science, and other non-sequitur regarding philosophical statements, instead of addressing the core facts, the real facts, of Evolution. This latest attack on my identity was strange, and unwarranted. Of course, 'Bob Vong' is not my real name, and I don't see the point of using it, but that should not matter. The only thing I saw, when looking a bit lower on the third hit, is that he posted a link, to a YouTube video. This point to the CrashCourse channel, which I also reference in 1 of the may links, I posted above. Is that the conspiracy Theory you are going after? 1 link, in common, to one of the most well-known channel on YouTube?<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_Course_(YouTube)<br />Why not actually watch their videos, as I cannot teach, but they could, if you take the time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-5591142233503247832015-05-04T22:26:13.142-05:002015-05-04T22:26:13.142-05:00There might be nothing more, at least from your po...There might be nothing more, at least from your point of view, to say on the issue, but I am certainly not content with the, wrong, idea that this is just entertainment. Education is serious, and so is promoting false ideas. Nobody replied to my questions, above, about whom Hugo is, so I searched using the box, on top of the blog. 2 threads came up, from March 2015, with this name. The older ones are older, 2014, with Hugo Chavez, so, I assume, this is not who you think I am, obviously.<br /><br />Going over to the first thread, the context is hard to follow, but I would agree with Stan, on pretty much everything I see. The first points are clear, and I don't know Hugo's position, so I can only agree with the value of rational principles, discipline of logic, and how Atheists pretend that theist propositions have been invalidated, based on caricatures of theism, which are necessarily, false. Reading the whole thing seems way too long, though, as it goes on and on, and nothing seem to be related to evolution, which I came here to discuss. So, searching for that keyword, we get a few hits,<br /><br />The first one, "Atheists love to use the analogy of accepting gravity despite the undefined source for gravity to explain their inability to provide any evidence for evolution." is clear, and yes Atheists say that. They take the truth, yes truth, the facts, of evolution to conclude, wrongly, that it does not require an agent, and show that God must not be involved. This is wrong, as we, humans, evolved just like any other animal, but were blessed by God with a non-material soul, which cannot be accounted for, by evolution alone. No materialist theory explain, successfully, intentions, to name that 1 example.<br /><br />The second hit, much lower, jumps to the comments section. "Last, explain in detail why any theist would reject his own ability to use (1) Aristotelian logic, (2)objective empirical science, or (3) currently held factoids based on either Aristotelian logic or objective, empirical science – because of fear of a deity. To make it interesting, go ahead and try to use either/both evolution and global warming. Or any other “science” or logic or whatever you choose." The context is lost on me here, and since I may be wasting my time, already, there is no point in going above, and reading tons of lines of comments. So it seems here that, with just that short quote, I may agree with Hugo on 1 more thing, Climate Change. I know that because, here, on the blog, there is another more recent post on it. Stan posted a ridiculous tweet about historically cold winter, confusing season with climate, versus hottest year in history, a worldwide phenomenon. Here, again, the science is clear. Humans are influencing the Climate, more than just natural processes alone. It's our responsibility, and heartless Conservatives want to rid the planet of its resources, purely because of greed, and the fear of hurting their sacred cow of Capitalism. John Rhue, in the comments, said something clever "Winter is a local and a season. There is more than one season in a year.<br />God has made us on the world as trustees and we are to look after the world as part of our love of God." Though, he quoted the Quran, I would prefer to quote Christian holy men:<br />"Christians, in particular, realize that their responsibility within creation and their duty towards nature and the Creator are an essential part of their faith." - John Paul II<br />"At its core, global climate change is not about economic theory or political platforms, nor about partisan advantage or interest group pressures. It is about the future of God's creation and the one human family." - US Catholic Bishops, Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence and the Common Good, 2001<br />I also find it interesting that Robert Coble, acting as a copycat of some sort, again agrees with Stan on Climate Change, just like he did here, with Evolution. You called that Hugo my doppelganger, I guess Robert is Stan's.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-63413717782730939312015-05-03T10:33:03.072-05:002015-05-03T10:33:03.072-05:00What is this, now, who is Hugo and why would I be ...What is this, now, who is Hugo and why would I be him? The length you go through, to avoid facing your inconsistencies, this is reaching levels I couldn't imagine. Let me guess, you are accusing me of being an Atheist again... It's ad hominem all the way here, if not X-MEN ridiculous comparison, or red herring on philosophy of science. How can you write so much on something, not that special, biology, and mix up all these things, just to avoid facing the truth, the facts your reject, about evolution? you really have something to show, to prove, I wonder what, or why, why lie so much.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-35305223805785263442015-05-03T06:22:15.588-05:002015-05-03T06:22:15.588-05:00Folks,
I'm slow on the uptake sometimes, but I...Folks,<br />I'm slow on the uptake sometimes, but I finally realized that BobVong4 is actually Hugo doing one of his sockpuppets.<br /><br />The M.O. is identical: Taking a hard position which is indefensible; using the exact same fallacies over and over even after being repeatedly called out; inserting morality to support his position; ignoring all statements and evidence which go counter to his current narrative; refusing to stop, ever, no matter how obviously obtuse his current position might be. Classic Hugo hectoring. If BobV is not Hugo, then he is Hugo's doppelganger. Hugo has admitted to coming here under sockpuppets from time to time, just for his own entertainment. He is one of those sad individuals for whom disruption is his only pleasure - a vandal.<br /><br />I allow too much leniency in stopping the Hugo abuse. Hugo knows that and declares it to be his entertainment.<br /><br />Hugo: adios.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-72862978689683871542015-05-03T01:23:49.006-05:002015-05-03T01:23:49.006-05:00Your avoidance of the issue is dully noted.
You ...Your avoidance of the issue is dully noted. <br /><br />You have not, ever, justified your position, you only attacked weird philosophical nonsense about what knowledge really is, which I never argued for, nor against. You quoted people who would disagree with you, on basic FACTS of evolution, but use them to support your points, weirdly, and now pretend you explained why THEY are wrong, not you. Where are these justifications? Nowhere. You made dozens of statements dismissing evolution, completely, as noted above, yet you again pretend you explained why YOU are right, and THEY are wrong. They would all agree we KNOW evolution is true, but you keep denying that, you keep fighting for what science means, what types of science we can do, and so on, never realizing that it's your quotes, the dozens of quotes regarding evolution being false, which are the problem. <br /><br />Will you ever explain why we should believe you instead of U.C. Berkeley, no, will you ever acknowledge that scientists you quoted all agree with basic facts of evolution, no, will you ever stand by your own quotes, looks like no, again. I will never understand that, quoting people who clearly disagree with you to support your views. But I am not a teacher, and you need education, so of course, there is nothing more to discuss. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-86027771931905587062015-05-02T22:52:07.607-05:002015-05-02T22:52:07.607-05:00BobV:
This is BS and you know it. I’ve given you ...BobV:<br /><br />This is BS and you know it. I’ve given you what they say, references to their works, you ignore that. <br /><br /><i>“…you are arguing with biology, with science, with the same people you quote.”</i><br /><br />Here’s your same old excuse for not providing any science whatsoever for your beliefs:<br /><br /><i>” . Somehow, you think I, personally, should explain what they believe, what they have been working on for years.”</i><br /><br />You don’t read what I say, as this proves; so you are right: you are irrelevant.<br /><br /><i>” try to answer the questions, why do you reject the Theory of Evolution that universities around the world teach, why do you reject 'Evolution is true' as fact, why do you reject common descent, speciation, macro evolution, or whatever you feel is wrong.”</i><br /><br />I’ve answered that, maybe a dozen times – to no avail. You either don’t or can’t read for comprehension.<br /><br />Useless conversations with someone who won't address the issues of actual legitimate empirical science is a waste. <br /><br />I’ll not waste another computer cycle on your nonsense. If the others wish to waste their time on you, that's up to them. I'll not be reading your drivel any longer.<br />Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-16984554554039096662015-05-02T19:35:59.585-05:002015-05-02T19:35:59.585-05:00Stan, you are right, it is an appeal to authority,...Stan, you are right, it is an appeal to authority, and you are also right, my opinion is irrelevant, if that's what you imply. Nothing I say, none of my words, are particularly relevant. What I am trying to do, and failing at miserably, is making you realize that you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with biology, with science, with the same people you quote. So reread everything I wrote here, but forget me, and the situation won't change: you reject what scientists, experts in their field, explain to us, the public. Somehow, you think I, personally, should explain what they believe, what they have been working on for years. So, again, forget me, and try to answer the questions, why do you reject the Theory of Evolution that universities around the world teach, why do you reject 'Evolution is true' as fact, why do you reject common descent, speciation, macro evolution, or whatever you feel is wrong. These things don't come from me, again, I make no strong claims, show no unusual beliefs, you do. You are at odds with the scientific biology community, and somehow think your statements on your blog hold great value, show great insight that only materialists would reject, when you, in reality, is the uber skeptic, just like all those irrational atheists who reject God despite the evidence. I agree I have nothing more to present, I never intended to try to prove anything to you, I have been repeatedly pointing out your misunderstandings, your inconsistencies, what doesn't fit the real world of biology, which you reject because of ideology, not rational application of science. You throw challenges after challenges instead of observing your own flawed statements, your own rejection of evolutionary biology, while simultaneously quoting the people behind that science. This kind of delusional approach got way more attention already than anyone, anyone at all, should ever give you. <br /><br />Just try it: try discussing your so-called evolution course with biologists, just try and report on it. Oh wait, you won't do that, you prefer blogging, and if you hit disagreement, it will be because THEY are philosophically bankrupt people, unlike you, the light of reason on the Internet, the great Stan of Atheism analyzed who knows biology, science, the limits of science, better than anyone else. I just wish you would actually fight against the actual false claims of Atheism, instead of the real science of Evolution, you would help ur cause instead of hurting it, you're the one who's a fraud.<br /><br />As for your demand for proof, again and again, you still don't realize how silly it makes YOU look. You are asking for proof against YOUR claims, this is irrational, you are the odd ball here, not me, i just refer to scientific knowledge, which i didn't produce. But you produce YOUR content, your blog, your ideas. I am not making appeals to authority to make an argument, i am pointing to THEIR arguments. Again, loom at Berkeley's site, to use that 1 example, why should I prove their claims? Why cant you read their views and explain why yours are better? You're hiding, pretending to ask for proof when you don't care, you just block yourself. And I cant help you with that. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-52286162849992476572015-05-02T18:45:27.269-05:002015-05-02T18:45:27.269-05:00BobV,
Here's what I am talking about.
"...BobV,<br /><br />Here's what I am talking about.<br /><br /><i>" Do you guys agree that evolution, micro and macro, occured and continue today, do you agree that common descent is a fact, all mammals for example share a first mammal ancestor, do you agree that the mechanisms of evolution CAN create entirely new species, new phila, entire new groups of animal."</i><br /><br />It is clear that you cannot believe that anyone could possibly demand necessary and sufficient proof for claims, so you insist that I must agree with the FACT of the unproven and unprovable claims listed. I have repeated over and over that legitimate, provable, and disprovable scientific evidence is required for objective knowledge of a thing, SO WHERE IS YOUR OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE? All you give is your intense belief that it is true and incredulity that proof is needed, and that THEREFORE everyone else must accept it, on your word.<br /><br />Your position is purely religious, based in belief without anything other than stories which are made up to feign plausibility to satisfy the Materialistically impaired.<br /><br />There is nothing more to be said to you on this subject. Your belief is as absolute as any Islamic belief demand, including your moral high ground.<br /><br /><i>"…ask yourself: is Berkeley university wrong to have a page teaching evolution, and if yes, what's wrong with it? Why do you think you know better than people who created theses pages? "</i><br /><br />Ask yourself: "Why am I unable to refrain from Appeal to Authority, and why am I unable to even address thoughts which fall outside the accepted zone of ideological cant?" AND, “Why am I unable to provide objective evidence for the support of my dearly held belief system?”<br /><br />That is a truly sorry intellectual state to be in.<br /><br /><i>"You are right to reject evolution's basic principles, basic facts, because of word play on some philosophical truth statements?"</i><br /><br />Why are you unable to defend the presupposition of "basic facts" with actual evidence for their support? Here's why: you don't have any actual evidence. That is not wordplay. What you do have is complete faith, blind faith and nothing else. And when you are able to understand fundamental logic principles and care enough to stop using the same logic fallacies over and over and over, then you have an intellectual right to produce conversation cum evidence. But not until. Your position is rationally illegitimate, i.e., there is no rational basis being presented outside Appeals to this and that; no actual evidence. I repeat: you are an intellectual fraud.<br /><br /><i>"I swear, i am the one being trolled here, by at least 4-5 people in this thread over several days, people who reject fundamentals of EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, a real discipline with real results, real facts and real Theories. "</i><br /><br />Produce the empirical evidence which supports the factually unsupported hypotheses which you constantly and ignorantly mislabel as "facts". DO IT. Or just go away.<br /><br />DO IT. DO IT. Either do it or admit you cannot do it. <br /><br />Your consistent failure to do it is substantive proof that you cannot, and that you are the fraud as charged.<br />Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-36571099568444128422015-05-02T12:56:13.295-05:002015-05-02T12:56:13.295-05:00"Why do I continue to have this uneasy intuit..."Why do I continue to have this uneasy intuition that we are being trolled?"<br />This is MY feeling! I am talking to people who reject evolution, completely, ask silly questions about macro vs micro, ask for studies with 20 conditions to suit THEIR preference, not Biology's preference, I show 12 quotes from Stan clearly rejecting Evolution as true, yet, evolutionary biologists are quoted to support YOUR views, it's all about word games, what can really really be true vs just kind of true today, Tiktaalik is not a good option because it was replaced by BETTER options, what on Earth is going on!? Do you guys agree that evolution, micro and macro, occured and continue today, do you agree that common descent is a fact, all mammals for example share a first mammal ancestor, do you agree that the mechanisms of evolution CAN create entirely new species, new phila, entire new groups of animal. i.e. just take the very last link I posted and ask yourself: is Berkeley university wrong to have a page teaching evolution, and if yes, what's wrong with it? Why do you think you know better than people who created theses pages? Or what about the dozens of other pages like Berkeley's? or people who create exhibits at natural history museums around the world? Are they ALL wrong and YOU are right? You are right to reject evolution's basic principles, basic facts, because of word play on some philosophical truth statements?<br />I swear, i am the one being trolled here, by at least 4-5 people in this thread over several days, people who reject fundamentals of EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, a real discipline with real results, real facts and real Theories. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-91324734933539882522015-05-02T10:22:36.598-05:002015-05-02T10:22:36.598-05:00Repeated assertion of "facts" without pr...Repeated assertion of "facts" without proof or actual argument, assertion of superiority of viewpoint based on appeal to the authority of "scientists," various moral attacks on anyone who does not accept the foregoing method as valid argumentation - lather, rinse, repeat, ad nauseum. All "Sturm und Drang" with threats of ecclesiastical lightning, but nothing enlightening to a rationalist.<br /><br /><b>Why do I continue to have this uneasy intuition that we are being trolled?</b><br /><br />I tried to pack a parachute (introducing two different methods of science) for a bailout, but the participant seemed to prefer to make a free fall jump without it. He picked it up, acknowledged its existence and purpose and applicability to the exercise at hand - and then promptly jumped out the door without it.<br /><br />I'll meet you back on the ground when the plane lands.<br /><br />I, for one, have had enough to determine that progress appears to be impossible.<br /><br />Thanks for the pleasure of the mental exercise. Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-38734529113949838672015-05-02T09:07:37.417-05:002015-05-02T09:07:37.417-05:00Correction:
Anthropology, NOT Sociology.
http://a...Correction:<br />Anthropology, NOT Sociology.<br /><br />http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2010/12/anthropology-drops-its-claim-to-science.htmlStanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-906514496969042942015-05-02T08:32:05.931-05:002015-05-02T08:32:05.931-05:00And here is my position on "historical scienc...And here is my position on "historical science":<br /><br />Historical science is not empirical, it is inferential. Inference is subjective, not objective. Thus, historical science is not even contingent; it is inferred relationships which are not found but which are declared, based on found historical factoids. Being declared, it is not truth, but it frequently becomes dogma. Dogma tends toward hegemony and the use of moral shaming. <br /><br />This sequence is not a necessary feature, and is eschewed by responsible historians, but it is common, especially when it is adopted as a support structure for a popular ideology.<br /><br />Much of what is called "science" today is actually historical philosophy. One notable event was the removal of the term "science" from the description of Sociology by their professional organization.<br /><br />Still, the Appeal to Science, when used for unprovable inferred contextual relationships which cannot be demonstrated or proven in any substantive fashion, is a false use of the respectable pursuit of empirical science.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-18608455964445553362015-05-02T08:05:11.716-05:002015-05-02T08:05:11.716-05:00Folks,
Here is my position on this issue:
The enti...Folks,<br />Here is my position on this issue:<br />The entire purpose of science is to discover causes for physical effects.<br /><br />Those causes are not considered to be known, even contingently, until they are reproducible, experimentally, replicably, falsifiably, with open data for objective replication, and in modern science peer review and publication in professional journals for information dissemination to other people.<br /><br />Science produces ONLY contingent factoids, which are always and forever subject to being overturned by future findings. <br /><br />The findings of science, being physical cause/effect contingent factoids, have no moral content.<br /><br />Science progresses not by consensus but by critical analysis of theories that are currently in stasis. If that is not done, then science is over.<br /><br />Ignoring any of the above components of science leads to falseness, both of physical cause and effect, and ideology.<br /><br />I'm open to discussion of any or all of these. I can document many evolutionary scientists who support these positions.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-80445030319013849932015-05-02T07:49:48.129-05:002015-05-02T07:49:48.129-05:00” That's why I ignore a lot of what you say, b...<i>” That's why I ignore a lot of what you say, because you write complete non-sense that has nothing to do with the basic facts. You pretend that these people who mention point out flaws in evolution, as a whole, but they don't. Stephen Jay Gould, just to name him for now, fought loud and clear against Creationism and Intelligent Design, he was a strong defender of Evolution, of the Theory of Evolution, which you clearly reject.”</i><br /><br />Here’s what I reject. Try to get this straight, because I’m tired of repeating it, and I’m tired of trying to deal with your rejection of logic and rational processes. I reject any claims for science that are held to be incorrigible, immutable, unchangeable TRUTH. No responsible scientist would make the claims you make for the TRUTH of any scientific claim, no matter what it is. Further, no responsible scientist would make moral claims regarding dissent from current hypotheses, ESPECIALLY those hypotheses which cannot be replicated for potential falsification.<br /><br />So I reject everything which you claim under the banner of absolute truth (as you misuse the term “fact”), because you have no absolute TRUTH – What you have is absolute BELIEF WITHOUT PROOF.<br /><br />Here’s an example of your latest BELIEF claim, which you believe to be TRUE/FACT, but which is not either true nor fact:<br /><br /><i>” Transitional species are so plenty it's hard to sort them, and we now understand how everything is a transition, being in evolution. But my favorite example would be Tiktaalik”</i> <br /><br />Your claim that Tiktaalik is transitional is not true. In your terms, it is a lie, although not intentional. Tiktaalik was replaced by Panderichthys (in a battle of cross-accusations), and Panderichthys was replaced by pre-existing tetrapod footprints found in Zachemie, Poland which pre-date the Elpistostegalia fish by 20 million years. This is reported in Nature:<br />(Philippe Janvier & Gaël Clément, "Muddy tetrapod origins," Nature Vol. 463:40-41 (January 7, 2010).)<br />http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/full/463040a.html<br /><br />Both Tiktaalik and Panderichthys are viewed by many experts as negatively mutated creatures which can hardly either swim or walk. The “prediction” which you and others crow about is merely predicting the finding of negatively mutated creatures in certain layers – and no more than that.<br /><br />You are out of date with actual science, just as you are out of date with the opinions of evolutionists on Darwinian mechanisms by at least half a decade. Also you attribute belief sets to scientists which they do not hold regarding the immutability of their claims.<br /><br />Most egregiously, you make assertions which don’t hold up to even the slightest scrutiny.<br /><br /><i>”As for experiments for macro evolution, I am not sure what you mean, but speciation has been observed in labs, is that what you mean? Google that if you want... but i feel nothing will satisfy the criteria you impose on the field, it needs to suit you, apparently, instead of you understanding it.”</i><br /><br />This is an excuse, not an attempt at rational conversation by providing actual data for all new organs or new sematic information for creating multi-level communication systems and codes – as is required for all new “evolved” features. Instead of providing information in your defense, such as the empirical data requested, you attack attitude which you misrepresent.<br /><br />You believe without evidence and what (failed) evidence you do acknowledge, you accept blindly and uncritically. Then you come here and make accusations of “lies” and unwillingness to pursue – the exact intellectual dishonesty which you display constantly – pure projection. This is the exact intellectual dishonesty of an ideological belief in the form of a religion, complete with moral piety and moral condemnation.<br /><br />In short, it is abundantly clear that you are an intellectual FRAUD.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-18865200664119565062015-05-02T07:49:34.989-05:002015-05-02T07:49:34.989-05:00BobVong4:
”This, I believe, makes it clear, that y...BobVong4:<br /><i>”This, I believe, makes it clear, that you are completely rejecting Evolution, as a significant scientific Theory, which accurately describes the origin of life's diversity, over the past few billion years. You reject, then, for no good reasons, the following facts:<br />- Common descent is a fact<br />- The mechanisms of evolution, Mutation, genetic drift and natural selection, cause species to change over time, and come and go, which includes new features, new limbs, organs, systems, etc...<br />, summarized by the same CassioPeia project I linked to, before:<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43SskX-pEqA<br />or this 2-min summary, that happened to be in related videos,<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ksdV9HPwBY<br /><br />Yet, you pretend you know best, that these facts are irrational beliefs, and you even wrote a guide about them, voicing how evolution has nothing, but you have philosophy, and logic, and evidence, on your side. What you miss is that the details, that the specialists argue about, the ones you quoted, have nothing to do with these facts. These scientists, these biologists, evolutionary biologists, all agree with the above facts, they are true. Why do you deny them?</i><br /><br />I have repeated asked you for objective knowledge, not your opinions. You produce videos this time. Videos! I have asked you for studies, for data, for peer reviewed reports which prove your claims. What do you produce? Nothing of the sort.<br /><br />What you produce is consistently blind belief in your Appeal to Authority, an appeal to no one in particular, but to an amorphous pool of expertise – “These scientists, these biologists, evolutionary biologists” – about which you make claims for their “beliefs”.<br /><br />Further you claim that those beliefs are FACTS. You provide no proof for either of these assertions:<br /><br />1. That those claims are substantiated or substantiable under the purview of empirical science.<br />2. That those claims are deserving of FACT status.<br />3. That FACT means incorrigible, immutable Truth, as you appear to believe.<br />4. That these scientists as a group or as individuals believe, as you appear to believe, that these claims conform to 1, 2, and 3.<br /><br />Again, you provide NO PROOF. You provide only your opinion, and you couch it in terms of morality. That, then, removes you from the arena of empirical science, and places you into the arena of Fraud, and even worse, self-delusion.<br /><br />Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-52828561991687650822015-05-02T03:07:03.761-05:002015-05-02T03:07:03.761-05:00Phoenix, I pointed out, above, that I am not an at...Phoenix, I pointed out, above, that I am not an atheist, and I find it particularly annoying that people here try to insult me,using that. It's a science issue, and this blog, analyzing atheism, would do a much better job,if it were to use science against atheism, instead of against itself. Go read above, I explained how evolution is, actually, evidence more for theism, than atheism, in my opinion. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-63303414481264064172015-05-02T03:04:20.790-05:002015-05-02T03:04:20.790-05:00I didn't call you a liar, don't be offende...I didn't call you a liar, don't be offended my friend,but what you said IS a lie, but i understand it's not on purpose.<br />Regarding your requests, not sure what you want, after all these comments, and links, and how i mentioned that silly questions don't deserve attention, and your "challenges",just like Stan's, are silly, only indications of your misunderstanding, I I'm afraid. Transitional species are so plenty it's hard to sort them, and we now understand how everything is a transition, being in evolution. But my favorite example would be Tiktaalik <br />http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html<br />Because it was also a great predictions, if you read the context, it was found right where expected, great find. As for experiments for macro evolution, I am not sure what you mean, but speciation has been observed in labs, is that what you mean? Google that if you want... but i feel nothing will satisfy the criteria you impose on the field, it needs to suit you, apparently, instead of you understanding it. And if you want to reproduce very long term evolution, in the lab, to prove how dogs, and cats, let's say, share an ancestor, well that is obviously not possible, even if we know that all mammals, all, must share a common mammal ancestor. <br />More readings on macro evolution:<br />http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_48Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-33920409776329043372015-05-02T02:42:30.155-05:002015-05-02T02:42:30.155-05:00Now Bob might or might not be an Atheist but his u...Now Bob might or might not be an Atheist but his undoubted reverence to the Atheist's sacred tenet (ie.ToE) has caused him to adopt their logic wich differs from standard western logic.In Atheist logic,all propositions have been defined a priori as tautologies,unlike Aristotelian logic where the proposition indicates what might be possible.<br /><br />A typical example of an Atheist logical "deduction":<br /><br />P1.If its a fact then it's a fact<br />P2.It's a fact<br />C.Therefore it's a fact.<br /><br />Just like Bob,the Atheist (devout Evolutionist by default) does not need to provide any evidence when pressed because a) he said it's a fact,so it must be a fact (b)Google the evidence yourself and (c) If you do happen to google counter examples that refute his "facts",just ignore them or you'll be labeled a creationist.<br /><br />It's a win,win,win for the Evolutionist.Phoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02173422646774264502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-91909269221627955122015-05-02T01:10:13.785-05:002015-05-02T01:10:13.785-05:00Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide ONE exa...Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide ONE example of an undisputed unambiguous intermediate transitional form between two different species from the myriad examples enshrined in museums? Sorry, but speculative artistic drawings (as are typically shown in biology books) do NOT count as "evidence" in the scientific sense, no matter how many textbooks have those drawings.<br /><br />You continue to assert "<b>Facts! Facts! I'm the only one with facts!</b>" without providing either actual logical argument or physical evidence for your position. If your theoretical evolutionary world is populated with "facts," then by all means, demonstrate them. <br /><br />Appeals to authority are NOT facts in the relevant sense. Calling someone a liar without demonstrating the lie is nothing but Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive); it would be nice if you would find a different fallacious way to try to argue.<br /><br />Before I provided the definitions of two totally different methods of science, you were quite content to persist in your unsubstantiated opinion that "science" meant operations science based on THE scientific method. You still persist in conflating the results of the two scientific methods as equivalent <b>kinds</b> of knowledge; they demonstrably are not.<br /><br />I'm merely curious: WHY?<br /><br />Perhaps you could provide us ONE example of an empirical scientific experiment confirming evolutionary theory (macro evolution) in present time, which has predictive power and can be replicated by any unbiased observer.<br />Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-90946232799675379902015-05-02T00:27:17.258-05:002015-05-02T00:27:17.258-05:00"They do NOT produce "knowledge" th..."They do NOT produce "knowledge" that is equivalent!"<br />Who said equivalent? It's still knowledge, science based knowledge. <br /><br />"150 years later, NO UNAMBIGUOUS INTERMEDIATE (TRANSITIONAL) FORMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THE FOSSIL RECORD. That is a FACT, an "inconvenient truth" of evolutionary theory."<br />Lies, Plain and simple, you need to shut yourself from all the museum of natural history, worldwide, and from all the biologists, paleontologists, geologists, and many more fields' specialists, who can explain to you why this is wrong. Need examples or you get Google yourself? <br />As for part II, just posted, it's just, again, a complain regarding how we do science. I am not saying you're wrong, but it's irrelevant, it doesn't change what we do know, about evolutionary biology. In other words, you seem to do the same thing as Stan,ignore facts, and conclude we know nothing about evolution, nothing about common descent, even if it's been proven, not debunked, over the past 150 years since Darwin. Details on how it works are questioned, and studied, rightly so, but it makes your statement above false,no matter how you approach it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-30552647218138094912015-05-02T00:18:15.537-05:002015-05-02T00:18:15.537-05:00Part II
Operations science produces contingent fa...Part II<br /><br />Operations science produces contingent factoids that can be observed in present time, and are repeatable by anyone wishing to replicate the appropriate process using the collected data. I state that it is contingent, presuming that no other information has been discovered that invalidates the currently accepted theory. As an obvious example, think of the Ptolemaic geocentric model and the subsequent Copernican heliocentric model which forever displaced it. A thousand epicycles were insufficent to salvage the theory in the face of the Copernican model. (That did not stop the Ptolemaens from attempting to derail the Copernican revolution.)<br /><br />Origins science is predicated on informed speculation in the form of inferences to the best explanation (provided, of course, that alternative explanations which may be proposed are not ruled out <i>a priori</i> by fiat). It is not based on present day experimentation and is NOT empirical science. The knowledge gained by this process can NEVER reach certainty (probability p = 1). It cannot be empirically tested and is not repeatable. You simply cannot create an experiment, run it to conclusions and have a theory that predicts similar results if the process is repeated.<br /><br />One of the things I learned through experience that models, ALL MODELS, incorporate certain things and leave out certain things. <b>The actual value of a model is crucially dependent on what is left out, not what is included.</b><br /><br />In the case of evolutionary theory, it is impossible to set up an empirical experiment and repeat what has supposedly occurred in the evolutionary process. In the first place, it would require a duplicated planetary system replicating the conditions existing at the time of the first advent of life. It would have to "evolve" under observation over deep time-billions of years. I think it should be obvious even to a "true believer" that this kind of one-to-one model is simply impossible to create and execute.<br /><br />I leave out Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as it would be applied to such a model. One has no way of knowing (or even guessing) what impact the presence of observers would be on such a model. We have no way of observing without impacting the experiment which supposedly occurred prior to our existence as observing beings. Time travel appears to be out of the question.<br /><br />There SWAGs and there are WAGs. I'll leave it as an exercise as to which is produced by operations science and which is produced by origins science.<br />Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-4184496249179778342015-05-02T00:16:05.113-05:002015-05-02T00:16:05.113-05:00Part I
@BobVong4:
Please note this from YOU:
&q...Part I<br /><br />@BobVong4:<br /><br />Please note this from YOU:<br /><br />"<b>So you do doubt the facts, for no reason, you reject knowledge of evolutionary history, based on today's observations, knowledge which is no different than any other scientific knowledge.</b>"<br /><br />You specify "for no reason" and yet you have been given reasons why it is rejected.<br /><br />You have been given the definitions of two totally different scientific methods, yet you persist in the fallacy of equivocation between those two methods. They do NOT produce "knowledge" that is equivalent!<br /><br />I do not have any knowledge (in the empirical sense) of evolutionary history; neither does anyone else, no matter what authority is attributed to them, nor do you.<br /><br />Evolutionary history, being historical, cannot be based on today's observations, and cannot even in principle be tested and verified in present time. The putative process of evolution is NOT OBSERVABLE IN PRESENT TIME. That is why operations science CANNOT be used to support evolutionary theory. It requires origins (historical; forensic) science to postulate evolution.<br /><br />Knowledge gained via these two totally different scientific methods is completely different. <br /><br />Operations science produces theories which are predictive; once captured in a theory, it can predict that the same results will occur if the same process is repeated using the same data as the original experiments. Nothing postulated by origins science is predictive in any sense.<br /><br /> For example, Charles Darwin is on record that the fossil record would amply bear out his evolutionary theory; sufficient intermediate forms would be found to support the theory beyond a reasonable doubt. 150 years later, NO UNAMBIGUOUS INTERMEDIATE (TRANSITIONAL) FORMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THE FOSSIL RECORD. That is a FACT, an "inconvenient truth" of evolutionary theory.<br />Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-59884224381410123652015-05-01T17:49:47.596-05:002015-05-01T17:49:47.596-05:00Btw, I was curious to read more about the usage of...Btw, I was curious to read more about the usage of the word 'law' in biology. There are lots of interesting things to read...<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/Biologys-First-Law-Complexity-Evolutionary/dp/0226562263<br />http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/24573-biology-s-first-law-the-tendency-for-diversity-and-complexity-to-increase-in-evolutionary-systems<br />https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18310184/evolutionary-theory/vol-01/Vol.1%2CNo.1%2C1-30%2CL.%20Van%20Valen%2C%20A%20new%20evolutionary%20law..pdf<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leigh_Van_Valen<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollo%27s_law_of_irreversibility<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance#Mendel.27s_laws<br /><br />But, I do concede, it's simpler to just mention 'facts', or 'Theory', when we talk about groups of facts, contingent on new findings but so strong that it will not change our fundamentals views of the Theory of Evolution. Common Descent, again, for example...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-3042257877568913372015-05-01T15:14:47.255-05:002015-05-01T15:14:47.255-05:00Actually, you said
"explanation of how life e...Actually, you said<br />"explanation of how life evolved (if it did), shares common ancestors, etc. It is that categorical difference that makes all the difference in the world. It cannot be subsumed into a single category as just KNOWLEDGE under the general (undistinguished) term SCIENCE."<br />So you do doubt the facts, for no reason, you reject knowledge of evolutionary history, based on today's observations, knowledge which is no different than any other scientific knowledge. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com