Evolutionry/religious nonsense

@brianjakub,

What utter and typical tommyrot. Jeanne d'Arc (known to the English as Joan of Arc) was completely delusional, and yet she functioned very well in daily life, and was one of history's greatest leaders of men. Fourteen years earlier, Henry V of England won the battle of Azincourt. He was so delusional that he thought god had ordained that he should be the king of France, an event which was never going to take place. At Azincourt, on October 25, 1415, he fold his little army (not more than 7,000 men, and probably fewer) that because god was on their side, they would defeat the 25,000 to 30,000 French and Burgundians who were coming to kill them. At total lack of command control in the French army, combined with deep mud, doomed thousands and thousands of the French and Burgundians to death, maiming or capture. When, incredibly, the English won the battle, almost all of Europe agreed that god was on Henry's side. No one in the 15th century questioned Jeanne's sanity because she heard voices of saints and angels (so she said), and very few disputed that god was on King Henry's side. Did that make it so? Of course it didn't. People are delusional all the time and function perfectly well. As you always do, you are making statements from an authority you do not possess. You are clearly delusional about your imaginary friend and that old ID bullsh*t, but you still come here and post just like a normal, rational person.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

but I've long wondered why anyone was so impressed with his silly finches. These 'different species' are currently interbreeding , which calls into question the very definition of 'species'

There's 12 islands in the Galapagos and a bunch of islets mostly around Isabella and Santa Cruz) So the fact that the many species and a few genera of finches live their lives primarily sexually isolated from each other they live on all these separate islands (or occupy different locations on Isabella in particular), you really should begin your skeptical inquiry to first make sure you have ALL the facts,K? hybridization and interbreeding dont necessarily cancel each other out . (Especially since natural selection sorts out those that dont have the facial features needed to be successful).
PS, I notd that the authors of the genetic sampling have proposed adding 3 new species to the existing 12.

Quote:

Not to mention the much bigger changes shown in dog breeding. If that's all it takes to call something a new species

Now I know you hqve Never read "The Origin"... otherwise youd see what Darwin hqd to speculate n wrt artificial selection.(He devotes a lotta space to his pigeon studies)
He was right on mostly, as Ive said many times, the only things he was wrong about was because of his not knowing anything about genetics.(He conjectured that heritable "favourble traits" will be lost in successive generations because they are "diluted") If he had been ablle to read about Mwnel's peas he woulda understood.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

scientism not only doesn't look, it excludes anything but naturalistic possibilities, i.e. - Methodological Naturalism

Thts what the IDers do. Evolution rsearch doesnt avoid a damned thing. Many times theories are wrecked and restructured. What you want is something that has no way to even begin being researched, yet you wont admit it.

You and layman have together tried to pose that "neutral theory" is a major flub in adrwin;s theory, and thats bullshit by the ton. Neutral theroy has been accounted for and enabled the "neo Darwinian" age to recognize that shaking the gene pool, ( sexual reproduction,mutation, gene flow , genetic drift etc) all provide the "ammo" for change and natural selection "orts it out for a particular environment in existence at the time.
Like I said before (qnd I know you guys wont go there), If there really is an IDer, it seems to waste a lot of time and resources in"intelligently" building a species up, developing it, (like trilobites dinosaurs) and then wipes em out, with hundreds of thousands of thousands of species that seem to merely fit an environment of a specific day.
A more reasonable explanation is that nat selection is a "Species response to the environment" not a "blueprint for anagenesis" .

In order to develop a safely buttoned- up belief system that gets more and more religious as we read these things, the ID believers seem to focus on just one aspect of data at a time without looking at the mass of overlapping evidence that comes from many disciplines.

0 Replies

Quote:

A physicist can come up with the wildest claims of invisible dimensions, multiple universes, etc. without the slightest bit of evidence and scientism embraces it like a drowning man reaching for a life preserver.

The only ones who even argue for all this are you guys. Much of modern theoretical physics , as most physicists agree , should be called "Hypothetical physics", and it dont belong here. As far as scientism, Just tonite Ive read here about the "Battling Intelligent Designers, a good one and a bad one". And you say that science is wacky??

I imagine we will her that the "battle of the Titan IDers" i where we get matter and anti-matter.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Are you diagnosing everyone that believes in intelligent design as delusional? Joan of arc it was never examined by a psychiatrist but when psychiatrist look on the historical record there is no consensus on her being delusional. If anything she was so consistent with her answers in a trial it is be argued she was quite sane .

Your Diversionary tactics of switching the subject to psychoanalysis instead of the evidence is revealing your prejudice.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

We could probably go through your list and I could refute everything, or at least offer you a different perspective which doesn't lead to the same conclusion you have arrived at.

I'll take either. I'm waiting.

Quote:

But putting all that aside, you're basic argument still boils down to "these things seem incredibly unlikely without an ID to make it happen", and that's the same argument which has been failing for centuries. Every single time someone has tried to corner the ID by logic, the holes in the logic are eventually exposed (by continued scientific study) and the need for an ID goes away. Why is your argument any different from the millions which have failed before it?

Now you are just denying that I've made an argument or that you have already answered it even though you or anyone else here, haven't. Trying to engage here is like sword fighting the Black Knight in a Monty Python movie. He just denies that his arms and legs have been cut off and calls you a coward for walking away.

I gave up on the information theory argument in DNA with farmer when he simply denied there was any information there. WTF can you do with that? If you agree with his answer just say so and we can let this go.

Quote:

Why is your argument not just another "God of the Gaps" argument?

Because I'm talking about information theory, not God.
Maybe that is the problem, maybe no one else here knows what information theory is, let alone understands it.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

FWIW, I never denied that the data (infprmation) attennded on DNA and RNA was not information but not in the sense youve been going. Its the way that the purine /pyrimidene et bond. Your BS is that each strand is emplaced by an intelligence and theerfore the "information is the result of some kind of godly intervention".
Data is bdata. Crystals have nets that combine in tetra or hex or cubic confidgurations and ALL minerals are this structured from the Data that is present in the chemitry of the crystal.
Why iis DNA not like that (IT IS A CRYSTAL YOU KNOW, except that its crystal form is unique to the chain. The later hypothese of the origin of life re that iron salt (carbonates and oxyhydroxides) or spiral chains just like DNA or RNA. First recognizable life form in the banded iron formations in Australia and Upper Michigan follow those structures.Baned iron an carbon helices, seems to be winning out (and the lab work one to recap these iron helices are repeatable.

1 Reply

From Pg. 44 of this thread:

Quote:

@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot Quote:
"What would you call the information encoded in DNA ..."

Farmerman replied:
It isnt information till its communicated.

I pointed out that it is communicated (via mRNA) but that's beside the point.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Because I'm talking about information theory, not God.
Maybe that is the problem, maybe no one else here knows what information theory is, let alone understands it.

They know what it is. We are discussing the scientific evidence of cause and effect with intelligent and sane people on both sides.

There is a group of people in our society that have a world view that fits their temperament very well. That type of person learns all the details to do their profession very well and to live their life in a very systematic way. They work hard to learn and develop this system so they can live with very little anxiety and very little dependence on anyone else. They don't let people from other professions tell them how to run their lives, and don't even like people that disagree with their world view promoting a world view that interferes with the one they worked so hard to build.

They view themselves as the god of their lives and do not want any false God interfering with their self imposed godhood.

The only thing they are willing to discuss is the things they can fully explain or control as the god of their lives. (there self defined universe). Anything outside the universe they control and completely understand is irrelevant to them.

That is exactly how the real God the Father thinks. But, God really does understand everything in the universe and does have not answer to anyone.

They are on the right track. They just need to to join there little universe with God's universe and, instead of ignoring God, attempt to understand Him and merge their little plan in their little universe with God's plan that has been playing out in the entire universe since the beginning.

The neat thing about God's plan is His universe starts and ends in perfection no matter what they do in their little universe. But if they don't merge their universe with God's, their universe will come to an end while, others will continue forever, like it was intended in the beginning.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Well, you have drifted from Information Theory to Theology but that's OK since the thread includes that.

If we are going to include a God, that would explain all the 'wasteful' eons of life that got snuffed out that seems so illogical from the neo-evolutionist view of a created universe.

But from a theological POV it works quite well. What would we do for the needed energy sources we are currently dependent on if it were not for all those eons of plant & animal life before us? A sentient God could certainly foresee that need and plan for it.

But I digress. Best to stick with things understood by both sides. I was hoping Information Theory was.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Why iis DNA not like that (IT IS A CRYSTAL YOU KNOW, except that its crystal form is unique to the chain. The later hypothese of the origin of life re that iron salt (carbonates and oxyhydroxides) or spiral chains just like DNA or RNA. First recognizable life form in the banded iron formations in Australia and Upper Michigan follow those structures.Baned iron an carbon helices, seems to be winning out (and the lab work one to recap these iron helices are repeatable.

What is it about the structure of the atoms that gives crystals those properties? And, how does the structure of the Higgs field as it interacts through the higgs mechanism contribute. There are layers of order (That contain additional information) that you like to ignore because most people don't understand it. But,it needs to be understood and accounted for before you and any other scientist can claim they understand how crystals of DNA work and came into existence.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

But I digress. Best to stick with things understood by both sides. I was hoping Information Theory was.

If its ok you can stay focused and I will Babble on occasion. I will try not to destroy where you are going. I learned watching cicerone.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

The significant thing farmer said was this:

Quote:

Why iis DNA not like that (IT IS A CRYSTAL YOU KNOW, except that its crystal form is unique to the chain.

The memory in a computer is a crystal too, but it is the unique pattern encoded and written to it that is relevant to the subject of Information Theory. The crystal itself is irrelevant.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

As usual, you get nearly everything wrong. There certainly is a consensus among historians (as opposed to christian apologists) that people who claimed to hear the voices of saints and angels were deluded. Deluded does not mean insane, it means to hold or to impose false, misleading or simply mistaken beliefs. That was Jeanne in a nutshell.

That wasn't a diversionary post--that was a response to your whining about being justifiably accused of entertaining delusions. I'd be more than happy to discuss evidence--if you ever actually provided any evidence. But you won's even discuss the topic. You have nothing worthwhile to say about the actual topic of this thread. All you talk about is cosmic origins (which is a recitation of superstition in your case) and confused remarks about astrophysics and a host of other subjects about which you ought to be painfully aware of your ignorance.

1 Reply

Interesting interview with David Berlinski on “Evolution, Science, Progressivism” Very on topic with the thread.

Only down side is when the interviewer tries to drag in Climate Change which Berlinski skillfully avoids and gets back on topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e45_JU9jUcA

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

That wasn't a diversionary post--that was a response to your whining about being justifiably accused of entertaining delusions. I'd be more than happy to discuss evidence--if you ever actually provided any evidence. But you won's even discuss the topic. You have nothing worthwhile to say about the actual topic of this thread. All you talk about is cosmic origins (which is a recitation of superstition in your case) and confused remarks about astrophysics and a host of other subjects about which you ought to be painfully aware of your ignorance

Ok let's discuss what the shape of the atomic orbitals tells us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital

The shape of the atomic orbitals as illustrated in this link accurately represent reality. What is causing the electrons to usually be found in these precisely defined volumes or boundaries? I think those shapes provide evidence that there has to be a structure to the space interacting with the electrons both in nucleus of the hydrogen atom and in the higgs field as it interacts through the higgs mechanism.

I think if matter and the higgs field are constructed like I postulated in embeddeddimensions.com it provides a reason for the shape of the orbitals.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx5OZ1AZ5Vk

Fil Albuquerque posted this link in his documentaries I like to watch blog. It perfectly reveals the twisting of the logic and language necessary to give intelligent attributes to a non intelligent system like nature.

What amazes me is Daniel Dennett does it without much of an explanation beyond, "we know nature is not intelligent so we will assume it took no intelligence to start the process of evolution and natural selection". Quite an inadequate explanation for a renowned philosopher.

He has an hour long presentation about creating computer programs (which actually have creators) and transitions that into biological evolution (because the two are comparable) and then throws that his expert conclusion in towards the end (to look like he did the heavy intellectual work to substantiate that statement) when in reality it is thrown in completely unsubstantiated and with no explanation about why one needs a computer program needs designer and the and biological evolution doesn't.

Really disappointing coming from a leading philosopher professor. Fortunately he posted this link earlier of a Christian philosopher, that makes a lot more sense.

Quote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=r1GOVt-_dOs

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Your use of "communication is what I hqve problems with". mRN copies the structure of one pice of DNA of one cell at a time and transfers it to a ribosome where the enzyme is built. Thats what Id call a chemical reaction (subjct to Molecular chemical rules of the road) not an intelligent function. We know this from lab work where genetic "soups" are reacted repeatedly and the outcome of what the ribosomal reactions accomplish is almost never the same thing . And because the fact that the support DNA is "mined" one gene or even one STR at a time, the familial genic compliment i virtually the same, with jut some minor changes

The statistically miniscule tranfer to the ribosome makes the resultant enzyme (and the gene), be a total toss of the dice . WHY? the resultant genotypes and ultimate phenotyoes of an organism are a function of chance result of ordinary reactions and chemical bonding topped off bynatural selection . Evidence seems to show that fairly strongly, unless you agree that evolution is not so much "D" as it is "good genes coupled with good luck" , thats where I am and I think most all science will show that

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Higgs has nothing to do with nothing at this sub molecular and molecular level. You ere getting ckose until you started speaking about how internal subatomic structures in adjacent orbitals are met at 90 degrees. I dont know how you can say that when daling with just two quarks(verything is 180 degrees planar geometry)

In the sub molecular level , all atoms bond and react at different angular axes. (like a water molecule has axes of 105 degrees and benzene varis rom 60 to 70+ degrees)

many things affect crystal structure, (at mass, ionic radius, bond strength valence ). Higgs is mathturbation,, finding one was only like posing a hypothesis about the universe before "dark gravity". They have a loooong wqy to go .

BUT It has NOTHING to do with the present subject and maybe thats why you seem confused and impressed with "cosmetology"

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

red his Deniable Darwin and you will see why guys like Tom Bethel and Michael Behe kiss his feet, Hes curt, insulting, and usually wrong about how evidence is procured and tested. IIm sick of how these Discovery Institute clowns keep mantraizing the same ol ****. For Berlinski to say hes not an IDer, is like saying that Jordan saying he couldnt dunk the ball. Hes THE man at Discovery;s Center for Culture and SCience. (Used to be called th Center for the RENEWAL of culture and Science, and was based on some schlemiel statements by Billy Dembski who said that science without Jesus is empty.
I think the mass of interlacing evidence is clear and compelling, you are free to disagree but if you want to argue your belief please try some evidence and not reading and posting only editorial pages or serial denial , or diversions of irrelevent fields of science (her your unerstandings are also apparently limited)

0 Replies

Evolutionry/religious nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know