Annoying creationists

[hammegk]

OK I suppose. But then do you accept my claim, which was "merely" that we've found new knowledge through interspecies comparisons that depend on us being related across millions of years?

I agree that is a logical --and sfaik correct-- interpretation based on the worldview that materialism/naturalism is the correct choice.

My question in return is that do accept your statement as having 100% certainty?

 

[Dr Adequate]

A set of statements that overturn science, and burden of proof; why am I not surprised?

A more interesting question is: why are you not coherent?

 

[Yahzi]

The notion that every facet of human existence has been adequately explained by by natural phenomena seems to imply that all scientific problems have now been answered.

As Dr. A pointed out, this is a strawman.

It is rather curious that to create your strawman, you had to modify your own argument. You conviently left off the "so far" - which was present in your original text.

I believe that naturalism has been adequate to explain all of human experience so far. In other words, there is no human experience that is not a) explained, and b) explained by naturalism.

As to whether there are unexplained experiences: why yes, there are. Do we have any reason whatsoever to conclude, or even presume, that these experiences will not eventually be explained by materialism? Why no, we don't. Quite the contrary. We have every expectation that all of human experience will eventually be explained, and explained by naturalistic means.

While scientists are notably reluctant to stake out metaphysical claims, they nonetheless tacitly agree to this. They restrict their research to the natural, because they presume that will be adequate. So far, they've been right.

This is why we keep asking you if you accept non-natural explanations. To do so is to place your research in a realm that science has not yet seen necessary to visit. Thus, the mere fact of your methodology is vastly more controversial than whatever the details of your research are.

Since you claim to be a scientist, you should be aware of these facts. You should already understand that allowing for non-natural explanations is a violation of the accepted scientific process, and you should already understand why that is so.

The fact that you do not understand, the fact that you do not restrict your investigations to the merely natural, are indications that you are not doing science.

Which, I believe, was rather the original point.

The origin of life remains a major problem that has been discussed at length on this thread. I, at least, try to discuss it seriously.

Seriously, perhaps, but not scientifically.

My own work is an evolutionary analysis and, in my opinion, it is a more compelling analysis of that problem than any other I have yet come across.

While many of us have complained about the difficulty of extracting meaning from your text, you may rest assured that the above fact was always abundantly clear.

I find it deplorable that evolutionary theorists pay so little attention to those criticisms, especially as the apparent reason is that they disapprove of the motivations of the critics.

They disapprove of the methodology of the critics. That is, of the methodology of assuming that non-natural answers are adequate, acceptable, or useful.

In my opinion, those criticisms are much more valid than most scientific observers are willing to acknowledge.

This is why we keep asking if you are a creationist. All of the criticisms of evolution we have seen are religious ones, for religious reasons, using religious logic. They are ignored by scientific observers because they are not scientific criticisms. When you assert that you agree with these non-scientific criticisms, it is only natural to assume you are religious.

However, I believe we have adequately established this is not the case. It would seem that the only thing you agree with the Creationists on is that science is wrong. They wish to replace it with the Gospel of Paul, and you wish to replace it with the Gospel of John. While technically that does not make you a creationist, it does place you in the same category: so even while we now acknowledge you are not a creationist, our answer to you remains exactly the same as it is to the creationists.

 

[Schneibster]

John, you failed the test. It's simple: stick to the facts. You can't seem to do that. So what you do instead is insult the people who point them out to you, and deny what they say, which is substantiated by facts, without providing any of your own.

When you grow up, you might be worth talking to. Right now, you're a waste of time.

 

[Yahzi]

What the hell was up with the argument given over the past few pages? That whole crazy flame war?

I believe "The Atheist's" contention is that everybody but him is wrong.

Keep in mind that, while he has gallantly (some might say eagerly) leapt to the defense of Hewitt, he doesn't actually agree with Hewitt's claims.

Just as Hewitt doesn't agree with Creationism, except on the narrow point of everyone but him is wrong.

 

[Schneibster]

I've previously mentioned we are in 99.99% agreement, but I choose to retain my right to discuss matters in that highly improbable area.

Instead of providing any facts.

I also note that your wholly arbitrary assignments of probabilities do yourself, and science no favors.

If they're arbitrary, presumably they won't agree with the facts. But of course, you don't provide any. You don't even ask me to provide any. You just state that they are arbitrary, without investigating the claim.

As it turns out, they are not. But I'm not going to tell you where I got the numbers, because you didn't ask, and didn't provide any facts yourself.

And until you grow up, you're not worth talking to either.

 

[Schneibster]

Two down, one to go. Bring it, kleinman. Try to gather and present some facts, rather than playing footsie like these other two annoying cretinists.

 

[Yahzi]

You are not giving me or anyone else a chance to do anything and I do not care to persuade you of anything.

Despite your rancid disclaimer, I found the text that followed to be the most lucid and cogent explanation of your case so far.

Perhaps you should begin every post with a screed about how you don't have to explain anything, then go ahead and explain it, and then simply delete the screed part.

I think your behaviour is intentional rudeness and I think there are too many such people on the JREF forum.

You could also remove the irony. I get all the iron I need from supplements.

There have been various theories for that but, ever since Bateson and Fisher, evolution has been more or less identified with genetics.

Are you asserting that there is some other mechanism for the evolution of life (i.e. organisms with genes) other than genes?

I think evolutionary theory should be based on data, on the interpetation of that data into information and on the selection of information through the generations. Genetics is just a subset of that.

As I understand it, genes are the mechanism by which that "data" are expressed. You would have to show some other mechanism that records, maniuplates, and expresses data.

We already know of one example - culture. Culture is, in many ways, like a virtual set of genes. It certainly plays a crucial role in evolutionary pressures, and its ability to record, manipulate, and express data is easily demonstrated.

However, culture is expressed as a pattern of neurlogical elements. Thus, the vast majority of life on Earth gets by without the faintest shred of culture, or even the ability to create, maintain, or process culture, since most of life doesn't have a neurology.

What mechanism stores your non-genetic data in these creatures?

If you actually read books by IDers - rather than just ranting about them - you would read some serious, valid critiques of modern evolutionary theory.

Would you care to mention even one? Other than the problem of abiogenesis, which is not a part of the science of evolution.

For example, I have seen Kleinman, on this thread say "tell us how genes arose" - or words to that effect.

That's abiogenesis. Even if the original gene was created in a lab by an alien, that would change nothing about the science of evolution.

Are skeptics only skeptical about ID?

I believe we've demonstrated a healthy amount of skepticism about your theory. A cynic might suggest that you've made a Freudian slip here.



My Psychic Prediction:

Hewitt will dismiss my comments as "trite" without answering them. I base this prediction off the last time I actually attempted to address Hewitt's theory, and the response I got then. As always, I am prepared to be proven wrong.

 

[John Hewitt]

John, you failed the test. It's simple: stick to the facts. You can't seem to do that. So what you do instead is insult the people who point them out to you, and deny what they say, which is substantiated by facts, without providing any of your own.

When you grow up, you might be worth talking to. Right now, you're a waste of time.

Oh gosh, I didn't know I was being tested - I am left wondering who is my judge? The facts you cite always seem to me either entirely irrelevant or just plain wrong - but then I actually know a lot of chemistry and molecular biology.

 

[John Hewitt]

Are you asserting that there is some other mechanism for the evolution of life (i.e. organisms with genes) other than genes?

Epigenesis has always been a theoretical possibility but only minor examples seem to have been demonstrated at the biological level. In some ways, culture is a large scale epigenesis.

As I understand it, genes are the mechanism by which that "data" are expressed. You would have to show some other mechanism that records, maniuplates, and expresses data.

We already know of one example - culture. Culture is, in many ways, like a virtual set of genes. It certainly plays a crucial role in evolutionary pressures, and its ability to record, manipulate, and express data is easily demonstrated.

Culture is not demonstrated to be in any way analogous to genes; culture is not easily divisible into subsets with an apparently "atomic" nature. Cultural data is stored in the brain which seems to work as an analogue not a digital computer, so cultural data has an analog form, as do the modes of its transmission. Cultural data is not expressed as proteins, it is not reproduced sexually and is shared across a group rather than being confined to a single organism.

However, culture is expressed as a pattern of neurlogical elements. Thus, the vast majority of life on Earth gets by without the faintest shred of culture, or even the ability to create, maintain, or process culture, since most of life doesn't have a neurology.

What mechanism stores your non-genetic data in these creatures?

Most of the data in simple creatures is genetic but some, even on DNA, is not. For example, the sequence of genes on a chromosome or the set of genes on a chromosome. In addition, there is data that was selected antecedently to DNA, such as the choice of bases that make up DNA. Such data, I would argue, must have arisen from a prebiotic evolution.

Would you care to mention even one? Other than the problem of abiogenesis, which is not a part of the science of evolution.
That's abiogenesis. Even if the original gene was created in a lab by an alien, that would change nothing about the science of evolution.

Actually, I think taking abiogenesis out of evolution is an evasive redefinition - Gould did that to help in the legal debate following Scalia's dissenting judgement but I think Gould was ducking the problem.
Any sensible solution to abiogenesis must be evolutionary, if only for coherence. My solution has been to identify a process of purely chemical evolution within the type of environment believed to have existed on the primordial earth.
If you want another example of biological evolution in a none genetic context, consider the workings of the brain, which is considered a Darwinian machine that processes sensory data into knowledge, or the workings of the immune system.
Cultural evolution has been a problem since Darwin's time (he discussed it himself, as did Spencer and Sumner.) You might also consider the structure of ethics and subcultural evolution, though I think I am the only person to have considered that.
If you want the first person to look at evolution from a "cybernetic" perspective, that would have been Wallace, at the same time as Darwin. (Gregory Bateson discusses this in "Mind and Nature" on the "cybernetic" approach to evolution - I would now use the term data system, but that's just words.) It is interesting that Gregory Bateson was dissenting somewhat from his own father's approach.

 

[The Atheist]

Oh gosh, I didn't know I was being tested - I am left wondering who is my judge? The facts you cite always seem to me either entirely irrelevant or just plain wrong - but then I actually know a lot of chemistry and molecular biology.

Jesus, John; you must be GUTTED!

You failed the test!

Time to put all those years of training behind you and take up fishing, or some other pursuit more in keeping with your nature.

The only point I'll add is that I see you've been accused of insulting someone. I've had a look through your posts and I don't see it. I see you being insulted, but not insulting. It strikes me as hilarious that the truce lasted for all of about three posts before devolving back into name calling.

There's only one rule at this forum, fit in or #### off. Looks like you aren't going to fit in and I did suggest IIDB for you. (I don't fit in either, but I prefer it that way.) Whether or not your hypotheses are true, I'll probably never know, but as I said to you at the start - your method and book are worthy of discussion. Thanks to the inability of certain posters to read your plain comments, this thread has lost the ability to look at your ideas critically. The chances of serious discussion disappeared with the attitude of Yahzi and Articulett, and it was sure no surprise to see those being the two unable to douse the flames.

I guess that one of these days, Articulett's students - if she ever listens to them, which I strongly doubt - might wake her up to the fact that she's an exceedingly tedious person, clearly living alone in a fantasy world where she is queen of all she surveys and where people respect her opinion. As opposed to truth - a dull, repetitive, copyist without the wit or guts to actually do anything of note herself. I'm sure you can cast your mind back to those teachers whom every child found an object of pity and ridicule at the same time? Articulett's one of those.

Kudos to those with the class to not act like the school snitch - Paul, kjkent & others - & even the doc for stopping the flames. Funny that the school teacher acts most like a school pupil.

Me; I just get so far then can't resist. I managed to resist for a dozen or so utterly BS posts by your pals, but when I saw you being attacked for being insulting, my irony meter broke and I can stay quiet no more.

Anyway, the thread has served a purpose - I'm helping mould [geld?] the atheist community into one team.

Thank god I'm not on it!

This thread is an outstanding advertisement of the "critical thinking" available at JREF. Disagree with "us" and be classed as a creationist. (Although Arti's continued classing me as one is most gratifying.) When I see her so overcome with dislike that she continues insulting me literally pages after she apparently started "ignoring" me tells me quite a lot about obsessive behaviour. Plus, I've personally added three new links to my sig from this thread, so I'm doing fine.

I just feel that you'd get far more enjoyment from discussing your ideas rather than holding an insult-fest. Leave that to me.

 

[John Hewitt]

Jesus, John; you must be GUTTED!

You failed the test!
Time to put all those years of training behind you and take up fishing, or some other pursuit more in keeping with your nature.
The only point I'll add is that I see you've been accused of insulting someone. I've had a look through your posts and I don't see it. I see you being insulted, but not insulting. It strikes me as hilarious that the truce lasted for all of about three posts before devolving back into name calling.

Yes, Atheist, I been feeling terrible all evening; I've just been sitting alone in my darkened, room weeping tears of mortification at the thought that I failed Schneibster's test.

But seriously, I wouldn't worry too much about it. I know I'm not going to get an intelligent dialogue from some of these people. An "atheist community" - they could almost makes me want to go to church. (No, not really, only for weddings and funerals.)

I have joined IIDB in the hope of a more qualified and rule-bounded dialogue. I haven't posted there yet but I do hope for something more resembling an intelligent discussion. (Thanks for the reference by the way.)

In the meantime, I shall also stay with JREF. I have to remember that there is a readership on this forum and even on this thread besides the jerks. Some people will get the point, even if it takes them a while. In addition there are those who just drop in from other threads or even from the wider internet. In due course, they may cohere into a sensible dialogue and enhance the awareness of my work.

 

[Schneibster]

My Psychic Prediction:

Hewitt will dismiss my comments as "trite" without answering them. I base this prediction off the last time I actually attempted to address Hewitt's theory, and the response I got then. As always, I am prepared to be proven wrong.

As are we all. I'd welcome it, actually. But I certainly don't expect it.

 

[The Atheist]

I'll send you a couple of boxes of tissues!

Just a thought, too. You should try changing your sig to reflect the sexandphilosophy. You might get more people interested - anything with sex in it, plus it's positive rather than the negative connotation in your current one.

Good luck - I'll just stick around for the inevitable follow up to the next few posts. I have typed out some pages and sealed them in an envelope, because I'm: A) psychic, B)pretty sure I could guess the pattern anyway, and C)hoping it'll pass as a prelim. to challenge for Randi's mio!

I'll keep an eye out for you at IIDB as well, about time I got a warning or something over there.

Cheers

Alan

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The notion that every facet of human existence has been adequately explained by by natural phenomena seems to imply that all scientific problems have now been answered. That is not the case.

But the question was whether naturalism has been adequate so far. No one implied that science is finished.

For example, I have seen Kleinman, on this thread say "tell us how genes arose" - or words to that effect. The question is legitimate and lies at the core of any serious attempt to understand origins. What comes back, from so-called skeptics?

What comes back is mostly "don't know yet."

They are, by any standards, "extraordinary claims" and the fact that they are even present in the scientific literature seems to reflect a determination among leaders in the field never to admit that there is anything wrong with their preconceived ideas.

What? You appear to be focusing on a few ideas that people are tossing about as some sort of evidence that they are closed-minded. At the same time, you ask people to be open-minded about your ideas.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

This thread is now officially crapola.

~~ Paul

 

[Dr Adequate]

I'll ... I ... I've ... I ... I ... me ...

I ... I ... I ... I'll ... I

I ... I ... I'm .

Me ... I ... I ... I ... my ... I ...

I'm ...

I'm ...

me ... I ... me ... me ... me ... I've ... my ... I'm ...

I ... me.

You've made your point.

 

[The Atheist]

This thread is now officially crapola.

~~ Paul

<<<<< takes bow.

 

[The Atheist]

You've made your point.

Jolly decent of you to care so much as to spend time going through my posts like that!

Cheers.

 

[Schneibster]

My goal was to entice them to jump the shark.