tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post7365222215324734273..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: "The Best Science Book Ever Written"Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13596585634568811442013-12-08T01:21:41.374-05:002013-12-08T01:21:41.374-05:00Any book on intelligence design is nonsense.Any book on intelligence design is nonsense.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07802051171687131792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11042861519131504062013-06-07T09:32:37.210-04:002013-06-07T09:32:37.210-04:00That's not what the majority of theists believ...<i>That's not what the majority of theists believe. Their God is personal who sees and influences the daily proceedings on earth and in the universe. He's very much conscious and aware of everything. He actively created the intricate complexities of living systems.<br /><br />The IDiots often claim: life is the product of a "mind".</i><br /><br />Very true. However, if you ask them if God is also subject to time i.e. if he changes or gets older, they will almost always say "No." And if you ask them if God learns things that he did not know before (already incoherent for a "timeless" being), they will most likely also say "No."<br /><br />So a being that is beyond time, never changes and never learns new things but which can be described as "thinking" or possessing of a "mind" seems logically impossible. That most theists nonetheless believe God <i>can</i> think simply indicates that they haven't thought the concept thru.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66505612327072401252013-06-07T08:04:41.063-04:002013-06-07T08:04:41.063-04:00From the notebooks of Lazarus Long:
History has t...From the notebooks of Lazarus Long:<br /><br /><i>History has the relation to truth that theology has to religion -- i.e., none to speak of.</i><br /><br /><i>"God split himself into a myriad parts that he might have friends." This may not be true, but it sounds good -- and is no sillier than any other theology.</i> <br /><br /><i>God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent -- it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks, please. Cash and in small bills.</i><br /><br />And finally, <br /> <br /><i>One man's theology is another man's belly laugh. </i>steve oberskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14067724166134333068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87669536101562615642013-06-06T23:34:37.714-04:002013-06-06T23:34:37.714-04:00That's not what the majority of theists believ...That's not what the majority of theists believe. Their God is personal who sees and influences the daily proceedings on earth and in the universe. He's very much conscious and aware of everything. He actively created the intricate complexities of living systems.<br /><br />The IDiots often claim: life is the product of a "mind"Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04852803503240037336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52369167428979370952013-06-06T13:19:07.765-04:002013-06-06T13:19:07.765-04:00God can't think. He's timeless and change...God can't think. He's timeless and changeless. How can something have a thought if it exists outside of time and never changes?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90574465251234029562013-06-06T13:12:27.624-04:002013-06-06T13:12:27.624-04:00Theists believe that God should really be an athei...Theists believe that God should really be an atheist, since no one created Him. But does God Himself think that way?!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04852803503240037336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19001853325969880852013-06-06T08:07:17.423-04:002013-06-06T08:07:17.423-04:00Yeah, they can put all kinds of lace on it, but it...Yeah, they can put all kinds of lace on it, but it's still a bowling ball. And when you shave all the lace off, the bowling ball is called "special pleading". You know, "nothing could possibly be X, except Y, because I need Y as my explanation for X..." In their case it's based on two unfounded but merely asserted presumptions: that that universe (and, more to the point, the humans in it) could not simply exist without the necessity of an agency; and that therefore, that agency exists, and it wants Jews to circumcise their sons, hates gays, and puts on a meat suit to walk on water and then change it into wine. The flaws are obvious if you just hold it up to the light and really look at it instead of just admiring it safely locked in the display case of sanctification.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11563002788505406792013-06-05T15:28:20.749-04:002013-06-05T15:28:20.749-04:00I think of Alvin Plantinga as Costello, and Willia...I think of Alvin Plantinga as Costello, and William Lane Craig as Abbot.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20941404358850092172013-06-05T11:34:29.825-04:002013-06-05T11:34:29.825-04:00All serious theology is simply variations on the &...All serious theology is simply variations on the "Who's on First?" skit.<br /><br />In fact all theology is simply a false reflection of this timeless and eternal comedy skit.<br /><br />steve oberskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14067724166134333068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30148618416554917232013-06-05T11:24:21.588-04:002013-06-05T11:24:21.588-04:00As I mentioned above,the standard theological resp...As I mentioned above,the standard theological response to this question is that God is maximally simple. IOW, "consciousness" by itself is so complex it requires a designer, but when that designer possesses consciousness, it is not complex, because otherwise the designer would have to be complex, and it can't be complex, because then it would need a designer, and it doesn't need a designer because then... I don't know, I guess because if it needed a designer then the argument wouldn't work.<br /><br />Really, this is "serious theology", not some Abbott and Costello routine, much as it sounds like the latter. I think it's based on something Thomas Aquinas wrote about 700 years ago....Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16798375960838491922013-06-05T08:29:37.579-04:002013-06-05T08:29:37.579-04:00@andyboerger The universe, life, and consciousness...@andyboerger <i>The universe, life, and consciousness are so complex that they can only be conceived as having come about through some form of awareness</i><br /><br />Hey, Andy... does <i>God</i> have consciousness...? If so, then your suggestion that it's necessarily an attribution of a creator presents you with a bit of a problem in terms of an infinite regression.<br /><br />Unless, of course, you'd like to suggest that, oh, say, his consciousness evolved naturally and gradually such that he didn't <i>need</i> a creator...<br /><br />That said, this still leaves you with the issue of how this god came to exist without <i>himself</i> being the creation of another agency; a notion you've just ruled out a priori when considering the existence of the universe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44818213981263943692013-06-04T23:05:12.508-04:002013-06-04T23:05:12.508-04:00Then come up with proof that a God did do it that ...Then come up with proof that a God did do it that way. <br /><br />There's absolutely no proof whatsoever for the existence of any God, any supernatural being, let alone one that waited for a billion years to create the first life on earth and use naturally occurring molecules instead of a sophisticated artificial code for genetic information.<br /><br />Unless you can show that Goddidit, the most plausible explanation of the evidence will remain natural science.<br /><br />Here's the latest news on the origin of life:<br /><br />http://phys.org/news/2013-06-billion-year-old-mystery-team-life-producing-phosphorus.html<br /><br />Science continues to solve the origin of life riddle bit by bit. Your Goddidit hypothesis hasn't progressed one bit in centuries.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04852803503240037336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63815118187071303262013-06-03T21:43:20.367-04:002013-06-03T21:43:20.367-04:00:):)The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24995162653753873092013-06-03T10:44:50.496-04:002013-06-03T10:44:50.496-04:00But then it took millions of years for that softwa...But then it took millions of years for that software program to actually run. Which suggests that God works for Microsoft.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87922460684036527462013-06-03T09:01:49.299-04:002013-06-03T09:01:49.299-04:00Vimal said:
"You only need to think a little...Vimal said:<br /><br />"You only need to think a little to deem supernatural intervention unlikely: Why did the all-powerful designer take billions and billions of years to design living things? And why did he resort to natural chemistry, why not use something artificial such as man-made software for encoding genetic information?"<br /><br />Well, IDiot-creationists prefer to blindly believe in ridiculous, impossible, religious fairy tales, rather than "think", and at least some IDCs, if not all, do believe and assert that 'God' did use artificial, 'God-made', front-loaded software for encoding genetic information, which means that they don't believe that millions or billions of years were involved. The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-1356938468603504322013-06-03T08:33:51.934-04:002013-06-03T08:33:51.934-04:00This comment has nothing scientific in it all I re...This comment has nothing scientific in it all I read was....<br /><br />"I don't think a god would do it that way"Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7365787475166213342013-06-03T06:14:41.464-04:002013-06-03T06:14:41.464-04:00You see Lenski's Bacteria did evolve to cope w...You see Lenski's Bacteria did evolve to cope with the selection pressures it was subjected to, but that gain has been at the expense of something else.<br /><br />Ever heard of Diminishing Returns Epistasis?<br /><br /><br />http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1190.abstract<br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21636771<br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21636772<br />http://www.genetics.org/content/186/4/1345.full.pdf<br />http://prelude.bu.edu/publications/Chou_Chiu_etal_Science_2011_diminishing_return_epistasis.pdf<br />http://marxlab.rc.fas.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Chou-et-al-2011-complete-Diminishing-Returns-Epistasis-Among-Beneficial-Mutations-Decelerates-Adaptation-rd.pdf<br /><br />Now what?Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77572187286696076142013-06-03T05:53:17.342-04:002013-06-03T05:53:17.342-04:00Before everybody jump up and down fist pumping bec...Before everybody jump up and down fist pumping because they think they have somehow won, I will say this again<br /><br />I'll say it again! Lenski's bacteria are not doing so well... <br /><br />Will he tell you this? I doubt it. <br /><br />http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/3/572.full<br /><br />Lets give chance another chance shall we!Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425470233321200020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35441715524656713452013-06-02T15:08:32.912-04:002013-06-02T15:08:32.912-04:00Yes Andre, since you portray yourself as understan...Yes Andre, since you portray yourself as understanding the article you referenced, please tell us what is the symbol for zero and for the other ten digits.<br /><br />Recall that IDists assert that all genomes contain "Digital" information. "Digital" information means that digits are encoded. So tell us what are the symbols for 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 in genomes. <br /><br />Since you portray yourself as understanding your sources, prove that you understand them.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80975675052760651252013-06-02T14:36:12.799-04:002013-06-02T14:36:12.799-04:00Steve says: "isn't it always the name cal...Steve says: "isn't it always the name caller that has the weak argument?"<br /><br />Then the Bible is based on a very weak argument. Indeed, Christian apologetics nowadays is just a long string of ad hominem attacks. See: William Lane Craig.<br /><br />[Psalm 14:1]: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.”<br /><br />[Psalm 53:1]: The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.<br /><br />[Proverbs 1:7]: The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.<br /><br />[Proverbs 18:2]: Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions.<br /><br />[2 Peter 3:3-6]: 3 knowing this first: that there shall come in the last days <b>scoffers, walking after their own lusts</b> 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” 5 For of this <b>they are willfully ignorant</b>: that by the Word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water, 6 whereby the world as it then was, being overflowed with water, perished. <br /><br />Notice that the verse above, 2 Peter 3, is FALSIFIED by AIG's Creation Museum in Kentucky, which alters the text to make it focused on the ad hominem attack ("WILLFULLY IGNORANT" they print in large orange letters) and to remove some text, such as the bit about scoffers asking why didn't Jesus return within a generation as he had promised to-- AIG alters the text to make it appear to be focused on Noah's Flood.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-9527726592215674972013-06-02T12:31:14.464-04:002013-06-02T12:31:14.464-04:00"George Gilder ran an investment newsletter t..."George Gilder ran an investment newsletter that had a slight hiccup. As he told the Wall Street Journal:<br /><br />"The trouble with my business is that everyone came in at the peak," Mr. Gilder said in a recent interview. "The typical Gilder subscriber lost all his money and that made it very hard for me to market the newsletter."<br /><br />Sharp as a tack, he is, picking that up so quickly!"<br /><br />But when it comes to ID and evolution, he totally knows his stuff!!!<br /><br /><br />Right...nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11925699038168011692013-06-02T12:29:04.465-04:002013-06-02T12:29:04.465-04:00Wow! A programmer claiming DNA is just like compu...Wow! A programmer claiming DNA is just like computer code! Now Ia m totally convinced! I always am totally impressed when someone from another field tells me all about what I study. nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2425976428049815432013-06-02T12:25:30.333-04:002013-06-02T12:25:30.333-04:00Hi Andre,
Your ID friendly reference states: &quo...Hi Andre,<br />Your ID friendly reference states: "The signal displays readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the symbol of zero..." Since you do understand the significance of this, perhaps you can explain what the symbol for zero is in DNA. I mean besides assigning human contrived vales to nucleotides. Thanks.nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63659670904626438602013-06-02T12:20:50.495-04:002013-06-02T12:20:50.495-04:00Solved?
I didn't realize that positing magic ...Solved?<br /><br />I didn't realize that positing magic ever actually solved anything.nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36097127493407996382013-06-02T12:20:03.562-04:002013-06-02T12:20:03.562-04:00"isn't it always the name caller that has..."isn't it always the name caller that has the weak argument?"<br /><br /><br />Do you feel the same way when it comes to folks like Klinghoffer?nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.com