tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post2976321602935394496..comments2024-03-18T09:58:09.828-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Fun and games with Otangelo Grasso about photosynthesisLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger277125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17012963695322273912017-02-06T12:24:04.315-05:002017-02-06T12:24:04.315-05:00Google: Where Do Complex Organisms Come From? The ...Google: Where Do Complex Organisms Come From? The second link will direct you to the topic at my library. If you scroll down the first post, there is a series of links to mainstream scientific papers, which will point out a series of mechanisms that define body form, that have nothing to do with genetics, but epigenetics, various epigenetic codes, and even " Junk DNA". I am more than happy to debate this stuff at FB. Not here. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05265343573323745994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76471929944214412312017-02-06T08:17:29.147-05:002017-02-06T08:17:29.147-05:00"Evolutionary novelties through mutations, mi..."Evolutionary novelties through mutations, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection is a prediction that HAS BEEN FALSIFIED through the good work of dedicated scientists,"<br /><br /><br /><br />Where are the copy-pasted article titles that support this?<br />When will you pull a Gish-Gallop-style, Woodmorappe-citation bomb to "prove" your unsupported assertion?nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12182248666441690492017-02-06T08:10:34.917-05:002017-02-06T08:10:34.917-05:00Eric writes:
"What do you know besides your ...Eric writes:<br /><br />"What do you know besides your ideology? <br /><br />I have 100 questions for you to prove your beliefs. If you provide scientific or reasonable evidence for 1o of those questions, you can pass.<br /><br />Are you interested?"<br /><br /><br />Most ironic - I could ask the exact same of you. I have, in fact, asked many ID advocates/creationmists for the actual supporting evidence FOR their claims over the course of more than 20 years. And each and every time, without exception, all I have ever received were complaints about evolution. 'Evolution cannot explain X!' 'Darwin was a drug addict!' 'Darwin=Hitler!' 'Dembski's math proves Jesus!' etc.<br /><br />But never, ever any actual evidence that SUPPORTS the alternative "theories" put forth by religious zealots and anti-science advocates.<br /><br />I'm thinking that your implicit hubris would wither and die were you put under the same spotlight.nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41374939171831961072016-06-16T11:43:09.283-04:002016-06-16T11:43:09.283-04:00Thank you Larry for proving that there isn't a...Thank you Larry for proving that there isn't any way to test the claims of your position. You are a legend in your own little-bitty mind. Too bad I no longer go to Toronto to work at OPG or I would pay you a visit and shut you up.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81245517382309196492016-05-14T08:09:00.057-04:002016-05-14T08:09:00.057-04:00The Bible cannot and does not contradict Science.
...<i>The Bible cannot and does not contradict Science.</i><br /><br />Well, sure. Neither does creationism, if not read literally. So exactly what is the significance of your statement?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29955373397144323222016-05-12T19:05:27.901-04:002016-05-12T19:05:27.901-04:00Tom
"Evolution is fact no less than gravity i...Tom<br />"Evolution is fact no less than gravity is fact. Evolution is theory no less than Gravity is theory. Can different theories of Evolution be simultaneously true? YES – no differently than different theories of Gravity can be simultaneously true? "<br /><br />Gravitational effects can be repeatably measured. Show me an example<br />of how you can measure or model how specie a evolves into specie b using RMNS or neutral theory?Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37178404566412963182016-05-11T10:57:51.753-04:002016-05-11T10:57:51.753-04:00Exactly. "Why" questions don't make...Exactly. "Why" questions don't make sense unless the universe is created by ac conscious entity. We have no evidence for such a being. Even more relevant, the "why" questions don't give us answers (unless asked in such a way that they're really "how" questions); this failure is evidence that "why" questions aren't relevant. Which suggests that there is no conscious creator-entity, at least in any form that is relevant to questions about the universe's history.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32006768401680130092016-05-11T10:47:45.119-04:002016-05-11T10:47:45.119-04:00Tom, Thanks for the advice on teaching about evolu...Tom, Thanks for the advice on teaching about evolution to people who are resistant to it.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84835050504831884792016-05-11T07:20:18.495-04:002016-05-11T07:20:18.495-04:00Hi Bill
Thank you for the compliment.
I need to ...Hi Bill<br /><br />Thank you for the compliment.<br /><br />I need to clarify one last point. In a moment of indignant outrage, my contradiction of Bill Cole presented an apparent false dichotomy.<br /><br /><i> <br />Countless scientists have commenced with the assumption of the bible being true<br /><br />and<br /><br />...despite all such prejudicial assumption; inevitably and inexorably arrived at the same conclusion: that the evolution is "correct" both as fact and as theory. </i><br /><br />A disinterested outsider could conclude I presented a either/or scenario where the cogency of evolution rules out the "truth" of the Bible.<br /><br />That was not my intent as I indicated later with my:<br /><br /><i>There are others who are simultaneously intelligent, earnest and do not</i> [subscribe to evolutionary theory]<i>. But they are operating at an epistemological level far beyond the grasp of the likes of Bob Cole.</i><br /><br />Bottom Line: some of the IDiots present need some lessons in Biblical Hebrew. Talmudic sages have for centuries past understood that Genesis is not to be read literally. The pages of commentary on the very first word of Genesis establish that point.<br /><br />In other words: a correct understanding of Biblical Hebrew leads to one inescapable conclusion. The Bible cannot and does not contradict Science. <br /><br />But this forum presents neither the time nor the place to defend the cogency of NOMA.<br /> <br /><br />Tom Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09829281784362177069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-57374280014213136482016-05-11T07:09:17.950-04:002016-05-11T07:09:17.950-04:00The answer to ‘Do the why questions even pertain?’...<i>The answer to ‘Do the why questions even pertain?’ will be ‘yes’ or ’no’ depending on one’s premise regarding if the universe is a creation or not among other things.</i><br /><br />Exactly. The value of the question is no more than that of "What colour are the toe nails of the Loch Ness Monster?" Until one first demonstrates the Loch Ness Monster exists, why should anyone waste their time pondering such a question?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29887638861454729332016-05-11T00:00:56.196-04:002016-05-11T00:00:56.196-04:00bwilson-
I'm sorry, but if you won't see t...bwilson-<br />I'm sorry, but if you won't see the logic of the other, then I'm really afraid because I'm pretty sure it's going to be more difficult to get the other to see your logic.<br />Maybe I'm being a 'concern troll' or whatever that is about this topic.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987183007523742829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85556974325233554112016-05-10T23:30:19.230-04:002016-05-10T23:30:19.230-04:00lutesuite-
The answer to ‘Do the why questions eve...lutesuite-<br />The answer to ‘Do the why questions even pertain?’ will be ‘yes’ or ’no’ depending on one’s premise regarding if the universe is a creation or not among other things. <br /><br />bwilson295- <br />We agree- if the universe is a creation, then why questions might make sense where if the universe is not a creation then the why question probably won’t make sense.<br />So if one thinks the universe is a creation, then it makes complete sense to assume any ‘why’ question unanswered is unanswered due to ignorance. It would be utterly illogical and ‘giving up’ and ‘motivated stopping’ to think otherwise.<br />Right?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987183007523742829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19860210385250000102016-05-10T19:06:57.696-04:002016-05-10T19:06:57.696-04:00Thank you, everybody, for the entertainment (creat...Thank you, everybody, for the entertainment (creationists) and insightful commentary (scientists). In my work supporting science education policy I find honing my rapier's wit on these "arguments" very useful. I scare-quote "arguments" because creationists *coughGrassocough* don't have arguments so much as unfounded assertions. Never the less, one can get tangled up in the Sargasso Sea of minutiae if not careful.<br /><br />Thank you, Tom, for the great summary. It's a keeper. Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04921039513056888571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84344834282776839792016-05-10T17:19:26.409-04:002016-05-10T17:19:26.409-04:00In simple English, simple enough for even Bob Cole...In simple English, simple enough for even Bob Cole to understand:<br /><br />An assumption is NOT the same as a conclusion!<br /><br />Countless scientists have commenced with the assumption of the bible being true<br /><br />and<br /><br />...despite all such prejudicial assumption; inevitably and inexorably arrived at the same conclusion: that the evolution is "correct" both as fact and as theory. <br /><br />Admittedly there are some who do not. The vast majority are suffering some personality defect and really deserve no more attention. There are others who are simultaneously intelligent, earnest and do not. But they are operating at an epistemological level far beyond the grasp of the likes of Bob Cole.<br /><br />I refuse to throw any more pearls before swine on this forum. Tom Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09829281784362177069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14377690781096718262016-05-10T17:03:58.850-04:002016-05-10T17:03:58.850-04:00@ Bill Cole
Just to make sure we understand each ...@ Bill Cole<br /><br />Just to make sure we understand each other, yet again, I did in fact answer your disingenuous question here, you mendacious SOB!<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/h5pwxpr<br /><br />I do not want to accused of a typical creationist tactic of hiding from the original difficult question and later on moving goal-posts.<br /><br />That said - I am done with you!<br /><br />Basta!Tom Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09829281784362177069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45053078916101515792016-05-10T16:59:18.348-04:002016-05-10T16:59:18.348-04:00@ Bill Cole
Re: Can we have a (sic) theory of...@ Bill Cole<br /><br /><b> Re: </b> <i>Can we have <b> a </b> </i>(sic)<i> theory of common decent without <b> a </b> </i>(sic)<i> known mechanism? IMHO both neo darwinism and neutral theory are almost certainly wrong. I think the best answer is we don't know. This avoids layering science on top of faulty assumptions.<br /><br />How does one determine whether <b> a </b> </i>(sic)<i> theory is correct or not?</i><br /><br /><br />Your deliberate obtuseness has crossed the line into hypocrisy and the only reason I am continuing this exchange is to set correct the public record and not allow your dissimilitude to poison the minds of impressionable naïfs <br /><br />If X is a valid hypothesis (explanation), and one can perform Y methods (experiment), then one can predict Z as a specific measurable outcome.<br /><br />When evidence from independent, and various unrelated sources all "converge" on the same conclusion, the empirical method has arrived at that sweet spot called “consilience” and the hypothesis is deemed “correct”!<br /><br />That all said, scientific theory operates in operational context. Convenience and utility are also important criteria for scientific models, not just parsimony. <br /><br />Engineers need not invoke Quantum theory to orbit a satellite within metres of its intended orbit, Newton’s far simpler equations are quite sufficient. However, Newton’s theory will not synchronize the satellite’s clocks and clocks remaining on Earth. Einstein’s more complicated theory will fill the breech. However, Einstein’s theories fall short when attempting to explain details of an expanding universe, rotating galaxies or dissipating Black Holes. That is where Barbour and Hawking’s equations need come into play.<br /><br />How does one determine how <b> a </b> <i>(sic)</i> theory of gravity is correct or not?<br /><br />They are <b> ALL </b> correct – you casuistic sophist - They are all correct when they confirm prediction in Popperian fashion, in context specific fashion!<br /><br />Back to evolution as fact and theory.<br /><br />Evolution is fact no less than gravity is fact. Evolution is theory no less than Gravity is theory. Can different theories of Evolution be simultaneously true? <b>YES</b> – no differently than different theories of Gravity can be simultaneously true? <br /><br />Please cease and desist with your blatant intellectual dishonesty.<br />Tom Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09829281784362177069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67301802299283156972016-05-10T13:14:54.829-04:002016-05-10T13:14:54.829-04:00Tom
"What still remains to be debated? Perhap...Tom<br />"What still remains to be debated? Perhaps, how much of the inescapable fish/human common ancestor conclusion is to rely on Natural Selection as opposed to say Neutral Theory, or Nearly Neutral Theory."<br /><br />This point I mostly agree with. Can we have a theory of common decent without a known mechanism? IMHO both neo darwinism and neutral theory are almost certainly wrong. I think the best answer is we don't know. This avoids layering science on top of faulty assumptions.Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41929167190142695462016-05-10T12:15:34.499-04:002016-05-10T12:15:34.499-04:00@ Bill Cole
Just to make sure we understand each ...@ Bill Cole<br /><br />Just to make sure we understand each other, I did in fact continue my answer your question here:<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/z9bo8vu<br /><br />Again, I do not want to accused of a typical creationist tactic of hiding from a difficult question and later on moving goal-posts by addressing a different question.<br />Tom Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09829281784362177069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18136993833619693112016-05-10T12:11:16.240-04:002016-05-10T12:11:16.240-04:00Bill Cole
You are resorting to transparent sophis...Bill Cole<br /><br />You are resorting to transparent sophistry and my patience is wearing thin.<br /><br />You are manipulating words on a page to score debating points when it is abundantly clear that you have already dismissed beforehand any plausibility to evolution, so what’s the point?!<br /><br />Barb is correct to get on with her life and waste no more time on you and your ilk.<br /><br />Here is my last attempt to indulge your silliness: Yes, in philosophical terms: of course evolution is not the only explanation possible. Perhaps Intelligent Design can be inferred.<br /><br />Meanwhile, one could also argue that Newton’s Laws are not the ONLY explanations for the dynamics of the celestial spheres or the planets. Maybe the planets too are possessed of intelligence or are being pushed into elliptical orbits by angels. Maybe with some elaborate mathematical hocky-pokery, one can model the Earth as the Center of the Solar System. This too is still “possible” just as Intelligent Design in Biology is still possible.<br /><br />Problem is, even though such supernatural premised explanations are POSSIBLE, nontheless they are not scientific.<br /><br />What you fail to appreciate is that Gravity is BOTH fact and theory. Ditto Evolution.<br /><br />Stephen Jay Gould, the greatest essayist on natural history must be whirling in his tomb as today’s confused debate on intelligent design persists! Like a repeatedly slain phoenix “Intelligent Design” raises from the discredited ashes of “Creationism” and like the mythical Hydra, two subtler sophists emerge for every beheaded casuist. <br /> <br />Over 20 years ago, Gould demonstrated that today’s reprise of an earlier debate is fraught with misunderstanding as laymen miscomprehend and misuse scientific vocabulary. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html<br /> <br />A scientific “theory” is not some admission of weakness conceding speculative status inferior to established fact. In scientific parlance, a “theory” is not “imperfect truth”. Theologians and epistemologists may debate “truth”, while scientists generate models of the universe called “theory”.<br /> <br />Just like Gravity and planetary motion, evolution is also fact! Again in scientific parlance, facts are data points, while theories are models to explain and predict data points. Thus gravity is both fact and theory. Apples persist in falling (indisputable facts) while scientists can debate how Einstein’s, Hawking’s or Barbour’s theories should sometimes (not always) supersede Newton’s theory of Gravity. <br /><br />But even while the debate ensues, Newton's model still works when launching satellites into space - and Einstein's model still works when synchronizing those satellites' clocks with our slower clocks back on Earth (darned theory of relativity don’tchya know). Meanwhile, Hawking's and Barbour's equations go a long way to explain the cosmic dance of galaxies as observed from those orbiting satellites that were launched in simultaneous deference to two earlier theories. <br /><br />Just like Gravity and planetary motion, so too Evolution is both fact and theory! <br /><br />One may as well cite biblical exegesis suggesting the celestial firmament revolves around a stationary Earth, than deny the indisputable facts of evolution including the fact that that humans share a common ancestor with fish.<br /><br />What still remains to be debated? Perhaps, how much of the inescapable fish/human common ancestor conclusion is to rely on Natural Selection as opposed to say Neutral Theory, or Nearly Neutral Theory.<br /><br />I cannot be kind about this: your ravings belong to this site:<br /><br />http://www.crank.net/science.html<br />.<br />Tom Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09829281784362177069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28809981480193775822016-05-09T22:41:23.158-04:002016-05-09T22:41:23.158-04:00JJ wrote, "If the universe is a creation of a...JJ wrote, "If the universe is a creation of a conscious entity, then it is always reasonable to ask 'why' something is how it is." -- If, . . . then, this is true. However, if the universe isn't the creation of a conscious entity, then "why" is often a foolish question. <br /><br />JJ wrote, "Wouldn't it be more honest of you to say you don't know the answers to the 'why' questions then to say there are no answers?" -- No. We have no evidence that the universe is the creation of a conscious entity, so assuming that the "why" questions have answers that we don't know yet is unjustified. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-27263468779351550182016-05-09T17:24:24.513-04:002016-05-09T17:24:24.513-04:00Tom
"If Bill Cole still persists in disagreei...Tom<br />"If Bill Cole still persists in disagreeing, he must acknowledge that HE IS BURDENED with an anachronistic “WORLD VIEW” and that the burden of proof now rests with him to explain how:"<br /><br />The statement that I objected to; it is a fact that we defended from fish. While I agree that you can make an inference argument from genetic and fossil record evidence, I cannot be convinced this is a fact at this point.If you have an argument that confirms this as a fact I am all ears. Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25498629682126275802016-05-09T17:23:11.189-04:002016-05-09T17:23:11.189-04:00No. It would be more honest to say that you don&#...No. It would be more honest to say that you don't know if the "why" questions even pertain.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89524182674103495972016-05-09T17:16:55.040-04:002016-05-09T17:16:55.040-04:00If his position is as you describe it, and if it i...If his position is as you describe it, and if it is solid, then that answers your last question: ID had no value.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77934003981494907742016-05-09T17:04:37.228-04:002016-05-09T17:04:37.228-04:00bwilson295-
If the universe is a creation of a con...bwilson295-<br />If the universe is a creation of a conscious entity, then it is always reasonable to ask 'why' something is how it is.<br />Investigating how something happens may or may not be illuminating to any why answers.<br /><br />Wouldn't it be more honest of you to say you don't know the answers to the 'why' questions then to say there are no answers?<br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987183007523742829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53290073486523768042016-05-09T17:03:34.673-04:002016-05-09T17:03:34.673-04:00Lutesuite
Although, I must say, it is tempting for...Lutesuite<br />Although, I must say, it is tempting for me to believe that the ID creationists will secretly admit to the intellectual bankruptcy of their enterprise in private, off-the-record conversations, I will require a more credible source than yourself before I take this as fact."<br /><br />This is just my humble opinion. I agree with you and Larry that there is a lot of fluff coming out of political activist groups and thank both you guys for helping me sort it out. The question is when we peel off all the fluff is there any substance? I attended a web seminar Michael Behe presented and was able to converse with him. I think his position is solid, the question in my mind is what value does ID have?Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.com