tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post2671509981770578911..comments2024-03-19T04:19:18.871-05:00Comments on Atheism Analyzed: A Very Short Course On EvolutionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-57297492852102335732015-06-08T13:06:46.604-05:002015-06-08T13:06:46.604-05:001 month later and nothing changed here of course. ...1 month later and nothing changed here of course. Stan makes the same claims, without any support, and ask others to disprove his assertions. <br />Stan, where is your empirical replicable study proving that intelligent design is required for evolution? Where is your study showing that cells contain agents literally reading the information in DNA as opposed to the mainstream idea that chemistry is ruling? Why reject both Biology's and Chemistry's knowledge?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-49216723318138065362015-05-13T06:53:01.005-05:002015-05-13T06:53:01.005-05:00Bob Vong4 erroneously claims that I reject biology...Bob Vong4 erroneously claims that I reject biology. That is false, and that has been pointed out to BV before.<br /><br />Biology does, in no manner, depend upon evolution hypotheses for the uncomplicated reason that evolution does not predict, as do all reasonable sciences. Because evolution cannot predict, it has no value to the actual, real - REAL - science of biology. Biology advances daily, even every minute, now that it is assisted with computerized technology of all sorts. There is no - NO - biological experiment which starts with a specific evolutionary prediction, then builds on that prediction to produce new, objective biological knowledge.<br /><br />Bob Vong4 is asserting erroneous understandings of the fundamentals of the intellectual basis for science; of objective vs subjective knowledge; actual hypotheses and history of evolutionary propositions; and the real, empirical, objective science of biology.<br /><br />I will not respond to any more of Bob Vong4's ill considered nonsense. I have said so elsewhere, as well.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-58668817747283518042015-05-13T06:38:27.224-05:002015-05-13T06:38:27.224-05:00Bob Vong4 has been asked repeatedly for even one s...Bob Vong4 has been asked repeatedly for even one single empirical, published, peer reviewed datum which demonstrates the immutable objective truth of evolution. He has not, to this day, provided anything other than Appeals To Authority and other false appeals.<br /><br />If one looks through Bob Vong4's objections, above, one finds absolutely no incorrigible proof of any kind either FOR evolution, or that any of the objections made AGAINST evolutionary imagined meta-hypotheses are unwarranted by virtue of contradiction by actual observation of evolution, nor by proof of hypotheses using empirical techniques. <br /><br />He has provided no actual knowledge. His links are not to empirical studies but are to didactics based on unproveable and highly varible hypotheses, which are thus definitely not incorrigible, immutable, observable, objective truths which are self-evident to all reasonable men, who can observe them for themselves.<br /><br />Bob Vong4 is a TRUE BELIEVER who insists that his Truth must be accepted by all others, or else they are to be considered lesser than Bob Vong4 and the Evolutionary subjective hypothesis community. Under these conditions, one can see the religious evangelicalism that is inherent within evolution, which is not inherent in any other science, because science is not immutable, it is contingent, and honest scientists know that and pursue the questions raised by each discovery - not evangelicalism.<br /><br />Further, Bob Vong4's current understanding of evolutionary thought is at the elementary level. He insists that DNA is not a code, for example; it is exactly a code, complete with code switches (IF/THEN decisions). Further, it is well established within cell microbiology that there are coded information channels complete with transceivers at each end which double as agents for performing activities requested by the codes. There is an entire scientific category which studies these:<br /><br />http://app.aaas-science.org/e/es?s=1906&e=112496&elq=1d71b035de944b47a8b4910de04f8633<br /><br />I have told Bob Vong4 elsewhere that I will no longer respond to his charges, because his accusations are not accompanied with any empirical support; his only case is that his belief in evolution is supported by his consistent Appeal To Authority, which authorities also provide no objective evidence, but provide only variable hypotheses which cannot be tested, and thus will not be tested.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-307246981165486272015-05-12T21:53:23.577-05:002015-05-12T21:53:23.577-05:00More...
http://biologos.org/questions/cambrian-exp...More...<br />http://biologos.org/questions/cambrian-explosion<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution<br /><br />https://www.project2061.org/publications/guides/evolution.pdf<br /><br />http://assessment.aaas.org/topics<br /><br />http://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm<br /><br />http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/misc/webfeat/ardipithecus<br /><br />http://www.aaas.org/news/evolution-front-line<br /><br />http://www.cassiopeiaproject.com/vid_courses3.php?Tape_Name=Biology<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3EED4C1D684D3ADF<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Some_of_the_Things_That_Molecules_Do <br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43SskX-pEqA<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ksdV9HPwBY<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/Biologys-First-Law-Complexity-Evolutionary/dp/0226562263<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leigh_Van_Valen<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollo%27s_law_of_irreversibility<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance#Mendel.27s_laws<br /><br />http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-19917448815910005062015-05-12T21:51:39.312-05:002015-05-12T21:51:39.312-05:00"Conclusion
It cannot be rationally said that...<b>"Conclusion<br />It cannot be rationally said that "evolution is true", nor that "if you understood it you would know it is true" for the reasons given above."<br />Evolution is not an empirical science, it is an exercise in story telling based on changing fossil records.</b><br />Conclusion, Stan wants us to believe him, and not the biologists, and not even the people he quotes, such as Stephen Jay Gould, who fought Creationism, fought Intelligent Design, and would reject Stan's conclusion, without any doubt. On the other thread, I pointed out 1 university site, along with multiple links to well known magazines, science video channels and more. All of which, completely disagree with Stan's position. Yet, he claims, wrongly, that anybody "believing" in evolution, it's not a belief it's knowledge, is wrong. He rejects the science of biology, its knowledge, facts.<br /><br />I will not add more, no more comment since there is no discussion to have, I am not a teacher, Stan just ignored my points, in any case, and the quotes speak for themselves, clearly and loudly. Stan thinks he knows best, so I will link again to the same sites, as they are direct contradictions to Stan's claims, and the other thread is far down the list now, so that people passing by can get the facts. Let's not forget, he makes claims, lots of claims regarding evolution, claims that are contradicted by evolutionary biologists, yet Stan thinks he knows best,<br /><br />MAIN: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_48Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-35138236795107536042015-05-12T21:41:58.496-05:002015-05-12T21:41:58.496-05:00"The idea that a single communication groupin...<b>"The idea that a single communication grouping evolved by accidental mutations, stored until sufficiently complex to produce a code useful"</b><br />Stan does not just make false claims, here he also present a misunderstanding of the science of evolution, by implying that things evolve, then wait for something else to evolve, and then work together. This reminds us of the irreducible complexity, arguments, which is something actually predicted, by evolution, not contradicting it.<br /><br /><b>"It is not possible to deduce the creation of such a teleological code, much less the agents which comprehend and use the code, from minerals. It cannot be deduced to have happened from minerals and their properties. The purpose of the code, the agents, and the code carrier (DNA, RNA, protiens, etc) is purposeful for life."</b><br />More misunderstanding, here regarding the genetic code, which is an analogy, not a literal code as agents would consume it. Stan implies that the code is understood by an agent, and that it came from mineral, all of which are wrong interpretation, of how DNA works, and how it came to be. Amino acids, organic molecules, have been found to spontaneously generate. Not the first life, which we don't know about, but certainly not from minerals to DNA code, which is the logical absurdity here. The fallacy, Stan's mistake, is to take the word 'code' literally, instead of as an analogy, which in reality is processes by blind chemical processes, which form proteins and other cells, not by literally reading, or understanding, the code, but just by chemical reactions.<br /><br /><b>"Consciousness, Agency, Qualia and Self."</b><br />Stan, in his attempt to deny science, does not realize that he actually sides with the Atheists, and actually reject consciousness, agency, qualia and self, himself. Evolution explains how living things evolved, naturally, and show bigger problems for the Atheist, who cannot explain how the above came to be without divine intervention. Stan is the uber skeptic, who is worse than the atheist, by rejecting well known facts, and rejecting, at the same time, the idea that nature explains the body, but not the mind.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-21195107815383692015-05-12T21:41:29.915-05:002015-05-12T21:41:29.915-05:00After discussing on the thread found here,
http://...After discussing on the thread found here,<br />http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-standardized-conversation-with.html, <br />and being falsely accused of holding dogmatic, false, positions, and even another identity!, I thought I would point out, here on this "course", that Stan is actually the one making claims, which he does not support, and claims that go counter to the knowledge, facts, that evolutionary biology has come up with over the last 100+ years. Stan is the one making claims, contradicting the best specialists in the world, and pretending that he is right, they are wrong. He tries turning the table, to avoid answering questions of why his claims are to be taken seriously, rather than universities', natural history museums' and tons of other professionals', who disagree with him. Here are some of the claims found here:<br /><br /><b>"A common claim is that there is a “mountain” of evidence for evolution, and that constitutes two things: fossil record, and genetics. Neither, however, is conclusive objective evidence for evolution."</b><br />Stan implies, then, that there is no conclusive objective evidence for evolution.<br /><br /><b>"the Darwinian tree of life has become a bush, a grid, a woven fabric, and in the case of the pre-Cambrian Explosion, a lawn."</b><br />Here, Stan implies that the tree of life is meaningless, unpredictable across scientific fields, and literally contradicting the period known as the Cambrian Explosion.<br /><br /><b>"the mere random modification of a few pieces of the genome would not produce the complexities required to change from sponge to the varieties of life found in the pre-Cambrian explosion."</b><br />This claim, by Stan let's not forget, implies that modifications, of the genome, cannot possibly explain the variety of life forms on Earth, especially not for the, repeated, Cambrian Explosion period.<br /><br /><b>" In fact, it is a tacit admission that no valid theories exist to support the claim of evolution, save the subjective and inductive-only fossil record.<br />There is no empirical evidence provided which demonstrates conclusively and objectively that the creation of new, useful information can occur deterministically."</b><br />Stan's opinion here is that no valid evolutionary theories exist, at all, which sound absurd, as there are entire biology departments specialized in evolutionary theory, but that is Stan's claim, again without any support. There is, according to him, no evidence, at all, nothing, zero, giving us any knowledge of how living things evolved, over time, and how they got new information, and how they formed new parts.<br /><br /><b>"The jump in complexity from single cells and sponges to all the phyla (except one) in the 50 million years or so in the fossil record requires an impossibly steep aquistion of new information"</b><br />Yet more claim, by Stan, regarding the Cambrian explosion, the supposed evolution crusher.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-3365681967123504422015-02-22T15:51:45.752-06:002015-02-22T15:51:45.752-06:00I think having a link open there is just fine. I e...I think having a link open there is just fine. I even tried to re-open a new FB page (I closed out my old one), but couldn't get it to open up so I could get a message in over there. I hope the Atheists there troupe over here en masse, I'll handle them as they arrive.<br /><br />Also, I already addressed them in a new post. If you still have a link in to them, tell them about that, too. Bring 'em on; they have nothing. Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-38455763086625569322015-02-22T15:28:59.965-06:002015-02-22T15:28:59.965-06:00Stan,
You know. On second thought: I have to ques...Stan,<br /><br />You know. On second thought: I have to question the wisdom in you even bothering or if it's not rather a waste of your time. They're waaaay too...emotional and waaaaay too OVERconcerned with the fact that you are an ex-atheist. I now have the deep suspicion it wouldn't be much worth your time and I even question the wisdom linking you to facebook. (In fact, I will take down the Facebook post linking to your Short Course here, if you wish.)<br /><br />You know, I went into your article here "believing evolution true" basically because of the thuggery of groupthink, based on those Just So stories. Which I have never directly "seen" of course, apart from some pedagogues chart in textbook. But between Francis Collins, Stephen Meyer, Nagel and yourself here...I am now at least comfortably agnostic about evolution.<br /><br />And it's certainly lost all credibility as a "instant take-down" of my faith, though that's quite beside the point.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18384526013513497161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-43946184378592209302015-02-22T09:22:31.529-06:002015-02-22T09:22:31.529-06:00Paul,
Ok, I'll take a look. If they are somewh...Paul,<br />Ok, I'll take a look. If they are somewhat coherent, I'll discuss it with them; if not, not. Thanks for the link.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-48071670437984053282015-02-21T11:59:35.816-06:002015-02-21T11:59:35.816-06:00First off, hi!
I found this compelling and persu...First off, hi! <br /><br />I found this compelling and persuasive, Stan. So compelling, in fact, I had the lame-brain idea of sharing it with a cadre of atheists on a debate group on facebook:<br /><br />https://www.facebook.com/groups/officialatheisttheist/ <br /><br />I tried to defend your "Course" here as best I could, but somehow feel that you may deserve a better defense than I am capable of. So I share this with you here to see if you wanted to take a crack at some of their misgivings. Totally understandable if you don't feel it's worth the time, lol.<br /><br />~PaulAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18384526013513497161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-78157167464948111952014-11-25T07:45:41.675-06:002014-11-25T07:45:41.675-06:00Rikalonius,
Some of that is contained in the book,...Rikalonius,<br />Some of that is contained in the book, "The New Synthesis". Several of the authors do address historical aspects of the changes within the theory, including the controversies and disputes between evolutionists with vested interests in certain hypotheses.<br /><br />There actually has never been a totally unified front of agreement on an actual, formal "theory", because all the components are not causal in the sense of being empirically demonstrable, and therefore not objective knowledge. So the theory of currency is just that which has a plausibility edge, and there is generally disagreement within the church about that.<br />Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-57848997945274473202014-11-24T13:50:03.584-06:002014-11-24T13:50:03.584-06:00Stan, I'd love to see a timeline of changes to...Stan, I'd love to see a timeline of changes to evolutionary theory, and the main scientific discoveries that required a shift in the theory to stay ahead of falsification. I have a hard copy of the Scopes trial transcripts and I've heard that there is a point in which Darrow makes reference to the current evolutionary theories time table and it is only in hundreds of thousands of years, but I haven't searched the transcripts to find it.Rikaloniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15644243863531863501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-36167563040767380012014-11-17T09:43:13.082-06:002014-11-17T09:43:13.082-06:00Fossil records and the geological time table. I f...Fossil records and the geological time table. I find it interesting that the only place that we have a 100% full proof “time table” is in humanistic text books. Numerous occasions where the time table is turned upside down and mixed up. It all just seems that there is much more than simple and pure science going on in this debate of our day.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11019590336867654764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-48010821231084402512014-11-16T08:08:27.953-06:002014-11-16T08:08:27.953-06:00The original object of empiricism was to obtain ob...The original object of empiricism was to obtain objective knowledge. That meant to eliminate subjectivity by relying only on observations which were available to all who wish to observe, and deriving conclusions that were obvious to every observer. The only real approach to that is the falsifiable hypothesis validation through experimental causation to produce the hypothesized effect. If the hypothesis truly represents the actual cause for the given effect, then a properly performed experiment would reflect that, regardless of who or where it is performed. Hence, objective knowledge of a physical cause/effect could be produced.<br /><br />The new story-telling sciences are not able to produce objective knowledge. What they produce is a sense of plausibility, based on other senses of plausibility, which in the end form into camps based on biases and prejudicial presuppositions.<br /><br />It turns out that the high-energy physics pursuit did just that. But it is experimentally falsified by failing to find any anti-particles whatsoever, as predicted by the hypotheses (story for another time).<br /><br />If objective knowledge is the goal, then falsification is necessary. If a proposition cannot be independently shown false, ever, then it is true by definition, only. True by definition is trivial as "knowledge".<br /><br />When Atheists and Leftists claim "science" and "logic", they are not referring to objective knowledge or deduction; they are implying an Appeal To Authority inherent in objective knowledge and deduction, but they do not have it at all. What they have is primarily evolution, which calls itself a science, and refers to physics for stolen authority - "it's as true as the earth revolving around the sun, and you are a flat-earther if you don't believe evolution". And, "You are anti-science and want to destroy our education system".<br /><br />They appeal to rhetoric and fallacy because that's all they have. The only objective knowledge they have is fossil locations and structures, and DNA. Neither is objective proof of common descent. The use of non-objective inferential processes and calling them "Truth" is the actual destroyer of the credibility of science.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-86149597323268087552014-11-16T05:00:29.327-06:002014-11-16T05:00:29.327-06:00OK, ignore my last comment. I see I was staring ri...OK, ignore my last comment. I see I was staring right at the answer when I asked the question.<br /><br />Popper was, of course, simply concerned with circumscribing "science", not shaping it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07003124353591315236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-44115315119405677502014-11-15T23:44:18.398-06:002014-11-15T23:44:18.398-06:00Thanks for the reply.
Surely an inductive approac...Thanks for the reply.<br /><br />Surely an inductive approach to science wouldn't preclude falsifiability. Even Bacon would recognize the significance of that black swan.<br /><br />As to the inductive fallacy, I recall a philosophy, professor of mine many years ago summing up Popper's solution as " There is no such thing as induction." Dunno how fair that depiction is. My copy of "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" is in a box somewhere that may not even be on this continent. Maybe I can find a used copy somewhere.<br /><br />I understand Popper's demarcation. Where I withhold judgment at present is a) whether it is the only possible understanding of "science" (did not science, after all, advance rather spectacularly even under a Baconian inductive model?), and b) whether it really matters. Deduction and falsifiability are not the only roads to truth. In a sense, asking "Is evolution science?" may not be all that relevant to the question "Is evolution true?" <br /><br />I understand you addressed the latter Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07003124353591315236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-48645881630417269222014-11-15T22:48:18.656-06:002014-11-15T22:48:18.656-06:00stefani,
Thanks for the observation, I had intende...stefani,<br />Thanks for the observation, I had intended to return to that and add an example, but it slipped past. Now fixed.<br /><br />Popper is correct; his demarcation is the proper differentiation between an issue which can be shown either to be shown to follow from the hypothesis, or not to follow from the hypothesis on the instance of a test performed.<br /><br />Induction is subject to the "inductive fallacy" which is illustrated by the Black Swan example: Centuries ago in Britain it could be said that all swans I have seen are white, therefore the next swan I see will be white. This is inducing the answer to the next observation. But when Australia was discovered, black swans were found, and the induction failed. Hume also pointed out that just because something has always been so does not mean that it always will be so in the future.<br /><br />Deduction takes the hypothesis and tests it to see of the actual outcome matches the predicted outcome of the hypothesis. If the test is positive, the hypothesis is contingently shown to work. But future testing with more advanced technology or understanding of variables, etc can still falsify the hypothesis, albeit in the future. That's why science, even empirical science, is always contingent.<br /><br />In fact, the falsification can be falsified itself, if for example, some part of the testing was not correct.<br /><br />As for Popper's late life acceptance of evolution as "true", that was an error on his part because he violated his own principles in so declaring. Neither the origin of life nor the action of descent between sets of fossils can be shown either to be the case or not to be the case. Popper said that selection could be falsified, but the failure to produce it in a laboratory does not falsify what could have happened in "Deep Time" as the Modern Synthesis claimed.<br /><br />That is all moot, now that the Extended Synthesis has sidelined both the necessity of mutation and the necessity of natural selection. Evolution remains a tautology: we're here, so evolution is true; evolution is true, so we're here. Circular, non-explanatory, and tautological.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-8099203851951666132014-11-15T21:04:14.227-06:002014-11-15T21:04:14.227-06:00Two further enquiries.
First, I wonder if you can...Two further enquiries.<br /><br />First, I wonder if you can confirm my understanding that the fundamental difference between Popper's positivist and Bacon's inductive approaches to science had to do with the truth content of a theory. Essentially, an inductive approach held that as empirical observation confirmed a theory, this says something positive about the theory's truth value, whereas Popper held that no amount of empirical observation could say any such thing; a theory could only be falsified, never "proven".<br /><br />Second, what is your opinion of Popper's 1978 assertions regarding the falsifiability of the theory of natural selection, and his general overall positive opinion on evolutionary theory in general, an excerpt from Popper appears here:<br /><br />http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211_1.htmlAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07003124353591315236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-36894738539835611732014-11-15T20:06:54.790-06:002014-11-15T20:06:54.790-06:00Fascinating survey, Stan. I really must dust off m...Fascinating survey, Stan. I really must dust off my Popper.<br /><br />Only comment I have at the moment is to note an editorial error: the second paragraph in the section "Modern Arguments Against Evolution" ends with an incomplete sentence, "And example"<br /><br />I also noted one other, but I can't find it again.<br /><br />Going back for a second reading now....Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07003124353591315236noreply@blogger.com