Annoying creationists

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If we were to find out today that the RNA replicase system was invented by God we'd have to change nothing in the theory of evolution.

Well, we could stop researching the origin of the RNA replicase system. Consider how much work god could save us!

~~ Paul

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....I read every one of your links and none of them had anything to do with the evolution of a gene de novo by mutation and natural selection....

Just as I thought, you don't know what a gene is.

How is it you chose to latch on to this single point mutation as if there were no other mechanisms of evolving DNA?

How do you know whether a new gene can arise in an organism when you don't know what the molecular structure of a gene is?

Are you happy ignoring 3 decades of science? I am too curious, myself.

 

[Yahzi]

Yahzi, look I am going to be completely clear in my reply to you here.

Oh joy!

One does wonder why you couldn't start out that way. I'm not sure what to make of a scientist who doesn't like answering questions as straightforwardly as possible the first time around.

I do not have the faintest idea what "metaphysical naturalism" is.

Do you even read our posts? Surely by now you should have a clue.

Materialism, naturalism, whatever you want to call it: the basic idea was expressed by me several times, and no doubt many others. To wit, the notion that the material world - matter and energy - is sufficient to explain all of human experience.

What is more, and I say this as somebody who has read quite a few philosophy books, the branch of philosophy that interests me is epistemology, particularly scientific philosophy.

I find it difficult to believe that one could be well-versed in epistemology without having encountered the notion of metaphysical naturalism. Plato's Theory of Forms, one of the earliest (if not the earliest) attempts at epistemology, touches upon the issue quite directly.

I have little interest in the verbiage that comes labelled as metaphysics or ontology. So when I say "dunno" I really do mean "dunno" and you can add the implied "don't care" as well.

This sounds nice; but given the context - we are in the midst of a long discussion with a god-breathing creationiod - a certain amount of dealing with the issue does not seem to constitute an undue burden.

I don't know whether "my peers" have examined it or not and, in those circumstances, I can hardly know whether or not they have rejected it.

You have not published in a peer-reviewed journal? Your have not have submitted your work to the internet sazmidat? You haven't applied for funding?

I may add to that, that I am interested in the opinions of only those peers who choose to attach a coherent argument to their opinions.

Given the difficulty of extracting simple, straightforward answers from you - or sparking your interest in questions that are relevant to others - this would seem to be asking a lot.

Nonetheless, one might find a number of coherent arguments attached to this post, and indeed many of posts. That those arguments happen to disagree with you does not necessarily render them incoherent.

The sun is a data supply because its energy flux turns on and off once a day.

I'll try to ignore the unnerving parellel that sentence has with "Time Cube," and simply address it.

Even if we concede this as a data signal, it hardly seems important. As an example, there are life-forms in volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean which are absolutely insulated from the sun. They can't see it. They don't know it exists. Ditto for caves and other underground biomes.

Secondly, one wonders why simple visual stimulus would matter. Surely the thermal energy from the constant stream of photons outwieghs the optical effect, in both energy level and frequency (do chemicals react over such a long period of time that they can "remember" the state of the sun for so many hours?)

Finally, do you pretend to show how this binary blinking has any significant impact, over the much larger inputs like the immediate local environment? Not all attractors in a neural net are equal, or even signficant: how do you identify this particular signal (particularly given its weakness compared to all the other inputs) as important?

For the details, consider opening http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk
and follow the prebiotic evolution link.

You have not, as yet, described your theory sufficiently in general enough terms to justify the effort of checking the details.

 

[Yahzi]

Can you provide links or further detail on John's theory being debunked?

I think I concluded it from his complaint that evolutionary scientists lie, and therefore refused to even consider his theory.

But I confess - I have trouble keeping Klienman and Hewitt straight. Even though I have Klienman on ignore.

I'll ask again, did you notice my name?

Claus Larsen publishes a web zine called "The Skeptic Report," but if you click on the link in my sig line, you'll see his acquaintence with skepticism is only superficial. Thus, I find self-assigned labels to be somewhat unconvincing.

Maybe you could fill me in on how abiogenesis works, please.

I can tell you this much - it doesn't work by magic.

Abiogenesis occurred by exactly the same rules of physics and chemistry as every other process on Earth, before and after. If you consider this position to be a statement of faith, then you're selling a religion.

I got the impression that John took umbrage at being hounded over a question he'd already answered.

If John does not wish to answer questions, perhaps John should not post on a discussion board.

If you're suggesting he had answered clearly a sufficient number of times, and I'm just too stupid or lazy to have noticed, then I submit your argument requires no further rebuttal.

He's shown a lot more patience than I would have been capable of.

Not, perhaps, the sterling recommendation you might think.

On that basis, I don't blame him a bit for leading you up the garden path.

And here it is. Blame the victim. Anyone who dares to question the great leader - no matter how honestly - deserves what they get.

Did you see what you've written there?

Did you see what you've written up there? After busting my ass for calling Hewitt evasive, you've gone and admitted that he was being evasive.

Do you know of any christians who would be offended by admission of christianity? All the christian scientists I've seen are proud to state their christian beliefs, especially because they're in a minority.

Argument from incredulity. It's not convincing.

Of course, it could be refuted by citing a single Christian who choses to cloak his message in words that his audience will react favorably to. Oh, I don't know, let's start with Paul.

The answers are what matters and he's either lying or not.

I didn't say he was lying, I said he was being evasive.

Do you think it is possible for him to "lead me up the garden path" without being evasive?

 

[Yahzi]

As I have said before, the ID critigue of evolutionary theory seems to me much more valid than the scientific community is willing to acknowledge.

And we're discussing Hewitt's creationist leanings... why?

I do think evolutionary theory would be improved if their arguments were more sensibly addressed.

Such as?

Could you suggest a single creationist critique you find compelling, and explain why "Goddidit" is a theoretical challenge to evolution?

 

[Yahzi]

For what must be the tenth time of saying, I am going for a theory of evolution based on data, not genes.

Thank you for repeating it. However, I still don't understand it.

Are you asserting that evolution proceeds according to information exterior to genetic encoding?

On the one hand, that would seem to be trivial; of course environment matters.

On the other hand it would seem to be supernatural; cosmic data guiding the path of life.

I can't quite figure out what the third hand would be.

 

[John Hewitt]

Materialism, naturalism, whatever you want to call it: the basic idea was expressed by me several times, and no doubt many others. To wit, the notion that the material world - matter and energy - is sufficient to explain all of human experience.

Do you even read our posts? Surely by now you should have a clue.

I have read no posts about philosophical naturalism except from you. I have read much of Plato but I agree with Popper about him – he was an authoritarian and an enemy of the open society. In my opinion, materialist naturalism, as expressed by you, is an exercise in dogmatism, a demand that everyone else will begin by accepting your premises.


I do not know all possible human experiences, all possible explanations or whether or not you can explain them all and I do not believe you do either. I see no point trying to reason with someone who believes otherwise.


Kleinman does not demand that I follow his faith – you do. Who is the authoritarian bully? You are free to follow whatever irrational faith you will; you are not free to demand that I follow it.

My epistemology is that of rationalism and of evolutionary epistemology as described by Popper. My work simply uses evolutionary epistemology to generalize evolutionary theory. My work on prebiotic evolution shows that the generalization can apply to the origin of life while still being consistent with chemistry and physics.

Even if we concede this as a data signal, it hardly seems important. As an example, there are life-forms in volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean which are absolutely insulated from the sun. They can't see it. They don't know it exists. Ditto for caves and other underground biomes.

Secondly, one wonders why simple visual stimulus would matter. Surely the thermal energy from the constant stream of photons outwieghs the optical effect, in both energy level and frequency (do chemicals react over such a long period of time that they can "remember" the state of the sun for so many hours?)

Finally, do you pretend to show how this binary blinking has any significant impact, over the much larger inputs like the immediate local environment? Not all attractors in a neural net are equal, or even signficant: how do you identify this particular signal (particularly given its weakness compared to all the other inputs) as important?

Thank you for providing your feedback but you show no evidence of having read my work and your comments seem trite and empty. I do not wish to engage with them.

 

[The Atheist]

I think I concluded it from his complaint that evolutionary scientists lie, and therefore refused to even consider his theory.

Each to their own.

Claus Larsen publishes a web zine called "The Skeptic Report," but if you click on the link in my sig line, you'll see his acquaintence with skepticism is only superficial. Thus, I find self-assigned labels to be somewhat unconvincing.

Well, lucky I don't class myself as either sceptic or "skeptic". Atheist is really easy. A = no. Theos = god. Atheist = No god.

Abiogenesis occurred by exactly the same rules of physics and chemistry as every other process on Earth, before and after. If you consider this position to be a statement of faith, then you're selling a religion.

Read what you wrote, here. According to that paragraph, accepting the rules of physics and chemistry is a statement of faith.

Now, I know what you mean (or I think I do). See how easy it is to make ambiguous statements?

If John does not wish to answer questions, perhaps John should not post on a discussion board.

If you're suggesting he had answered clearly a sufficient number of times, and I'm just too stupid or lazy to have noticed, then I submit your argument requires no further rebuttal.

See the above ambiguity. Couple that with the fact that it could have been in a different thread and you're nearly there. Nobody reads all the posts (outside of an insane asylum) so it could simply be that you missed it.

Plus, the questions about John's christianity or not had just gone far enough. Have no christian scientists ever made discoveries relevant to evolution?

Not, perhaps, the sterling recommendation you might think.

Correct. I never said I was patient.

And here it is. Blame the victim. Anyone who dares to question the great leader - no matter how honestly - deserves what they get.

Since I have no "leader", I can only assume you're talking about evolutionists blithely following some leader or other.

Did you see what you've written up there? After busting my ass for calling Hewitt evasive, you've gone and admitted that he was being evasive.

He was evasive in the face of a concerted attack. It's funny. I asked Gravy a while back why he didn't just admit to either being a Freemason or not in a recent thread. He said that it didn't matter because CTists would think what they like regardless of what he said or didn't say. To a large extent, that's been the case with John - he stated his position and still cops questions. That's when I'd start being silly as well. Hell, I do, all the time.

Argument from incredulity. It's not convincing.

Let me fix that for ya:

Argument from incredulity fact. It's not convincing.

Of course, it could be refuted by citing a single Christian who choses to cloak his message in words that his audience will react favorably to. Oh, I don't know, let's start with Paul.

Now, you see here, you really have proved that you don't read before you answer. How would any christian prove that? I said, christian scientists I know are proud to tout their heritage and beliefs.

But don't let that stop you.

Which Paul are you talking about? Paul in this thread? St. Paul?

 

[The Atheist]

Popper

Glad you mentioned one of New Zealand's most famous exports! We taught him all he knew, down in Canterbury during WWII.

I'm even driven to paraphrase one of his more memorable quotes (originally about christians, but if the cap fits, wear it.)

"This claim with its gentle allusion to those who do not possess "skepticism', this attack upon the potential spiritual unity of mankind, is, in my opinion, as pretentious and anti-skeptic, as it believes itself to be humble and skeptic."

 

[articulett]

Well, we could stop researching the origin of the RNA replicase system. Consider how much work god could save us!

~~ Paul

Good point...(you'd have thunk his almighty invisibleness would have mentioned something about it in that book he is said to have authored.)

 

[John Hewitt]

Glad you mentioned (Popper) one of New Zealand's most famous exports! We taught him all he knew, down in Canterbury during WWII.

I'm even driven to paraphrase one of his more memorable quotes (originally about christians, but if the cap fits, wear it.)

Yes, its quite true that Popper spent some considerable time in New Zealand and was not John Eccles from there? - another man of considerable intelect much influenced by Popper.

As chance would have it, I believe Popper was in New Zealand when he wrote "The Open Society and its Enemies," which contains a whole volume detailing his fully justified response to Plato's philosophy.

 

[Dr Adequate]

It just isn’t happening in the universe that we live in.

We may not be able to put God in the laboratory but we can put God’s creation in the laboratory.

I am not saying evolve a gene from nothing by mutation and natural selection, I am saying evolving a gene from the beginning by mutation and natural selection and there is no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning by mutation and natural selection.

Ok, what were the components of the RNA replicase system doing before RNA could be replicated?

How about if I phrase it like this? If you study Dr Schneider’s ev model, you will see that random point mutations and natural selection is profoundly slow, too slow to account for the evolution of anything on a realistic size genome with a realistic mutation rate. This occurs despite Dr Schneider’s unrealistic selection process.

You have blue, faded and if your old enough, you will remember bell bottoms.

I read every one of your links and none of them had anything to do with the evolution of a gene de novo by mutation and natural selection.

You all have a good weekend.

"You all have a good weekend" is an excellent riposte to the facts you've been shown.

Why don't you send that off to some peer-reviewed scientific journal?

 

[articulett]

Right on, Yahzi. Boy, that John does doublespeak. And I'd heard that Atheist was a dick from a few people, but he's also, apparently, an apologist who thinks that people who don't leave room for "magic" in scientific explanation have faith! (In what?!--reality?). Anyhow I think John once again made his leanings clear as can be. And Atheist has got to be one of the dumbest non-theists (if he is one) that I've ever known. I wonder if he's into quantum woo like undercover elephant/justgeoff? According to John Hewitt and Atheist, if one accepts evolution (as does anybody who understand it), then that person is "dogmatic". If you believe in naturalism, then you are preventing the voices of supernaturalism from being heard according to them. And John certainly knows what naturalism is despite his pleading of ignorance and silly obfuscations.

As my sig link shows--the most socially incompetent are the ones most likely to overestimate their competence...

I'm putting Hewitt, Kleinman, and Atheist on my "three stooges list". It's good to know who not to waste time reading.
_____________________________________________________

John--no one takes your ideas seriously because you are verbose and unclear and completely uninterested in current understanding and readily dismissive of links such as the one's I've posted--which I think are much more comprehensible then your "data stream" theoretoid of zero comprehensibility.

You've had a number of intelligent people plow through your writings and give you advice and tell you that they really can't figure out what your saying or what your theory is useful for. Attempts at clarification, have been met with petulance and evasiveness. Moreover, you have this notion that the "Intelligent Design" movement has validity--but you haven't said what it is. You've asserted that science isn't letting your voice be heard or theirs (the creationists). And you are deceptive about your theistic leanings...pretending it has nothing to do with your scorn for the facts of evolution and how widely useful and profound the knowledge is becoming. I believe that is "sinning by omission" ...evasiveness ...or in the simpleton world of your simpleton friend who has yet to explain this theory of yours--you are a liar. You advocate obfuscation and stupidity and lies in the favor of actual, useful, profound knowledge.

You don't make sense. You don't answer questions with clarity. You obfuscate, mislead, ignore, or claim ignorance when asked about your beliefs,
and then you tell yourself that people don't respond to your theory because they have "faith in science"--those evil sorts who don't give creationists a voice (heck--you guys can't even understand each other...or explain each other's arguments to us...and we're supposed to wade through yours?!) You want people to read your stuff, but you don't even read their posts carefully, much less their links--you have no curiosity to see how our knowledge has progressed--you dismiss it when forced to look at it. You are pressing people to read your stuff until you can find someone to buy it. Well, you've got your advocate--Atheist...and his name is "Atheist"--that ought to throw them off the scent, eh? Why don't you boys go solidify your theory and clarify it so that it at least can be summed up like the article on the origins of life I linked. Then get some data. Show scientists why it's useful. Get some actual data regarding the problems you have with evolution. You seem like you are just pouting because no one takes your theory seriously.

We can't. No on understands it but you... It's as useless as you claim the concept of memes are.

 

[John Hewitt]

Right on, Yahzi. Boy, that John does doublespeak. And I'd heard that Atheist was a dick from a few people, but he's also, apparently, an apologist who thinks that people who don't leave room for "magic" in scientific explanation have faith! (In what?!--reality?). Anyhow I think John once again made his leanings clear as can be. And Atheist has got to be one of the dumbest non-theists (if he is one) that I've ever known. I wonder if he's into quantum woo like undercover elephant/justgeoff? According to John Hewitt and Atheist, if one accepts evolution (as does anybody who understand it), then that person is "dogmatic". If you believe in naturalism, then you are preventing the voices of supernaturalism from being heard according to them. And John certainly knows what naturalism is despite his pleading of ignorance and silly obfuscations.

As my sig link shows--the most socially incompetent are the ones most likely to overestimate their competence...

I'm putting Hewitt, Kleinman, and Atheist on my "three stooges list". It's good to know who not to waste time reading.

As I have intimated before, you do nothing but ad hominem against anyone who disagrees with you.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

My epistemology is that of rationalism and of evolutionary epistemology as described by Popper. My work simply uses evolutionary epistemology to generalize evolutionary theory. My work on prebiotic evolution shows that the generalization can apply to the origin of life while still being consistent with chemistry and physics.

Popper, a rationalist?

http://www.geocities.com/Krishna_kunchith/dcs/popper/

~~ Paul

 

[John Hewitt]

Popper, a rationalist?

http://www.geocities.com/Krishna_kunchith/dcs/popper/

~~ Paul

The meaning of this query is unclear.

 

[John Hewitt]

Alan, what I'm looking for is not the "known" minimum size genome, but rather the minimum size genome required for a creature to be capable of gaining information via RMNS. This is, admittedly, very difficult theoretical model, but my point is, that without some certain knowledge of the minimum size possible, there's no way to calculate the probability of that creature being produced by random chance, and thereafter evolving into something more complex.

Also, I asked John for his opinion re the following model, that I found on the web. I'll ask you, too. It appears pretty interesting to me. Perhaps you can point out the pros and cons.

http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/h...htm#fp_organic

The question of the minimum genome size is authoritatively discussed in the links coming off this page.
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/nanomenu.html

 

[The Atheist]

Right on, Yahzi. Boy, that John does doublespeak. And I'd heard that Atheist was a dick from a few people, but he's also, apparently, an apologist who thinks that people who don't leave room for "magic" in scientific explanation have faith! (In what?!--reality?). Anyhow I think John once again made his leanings clear as can be. And Atheist has got to be one of the dumbest non-theists (if he is one) that I've ever known. I wonder if he's into quantum woo like undercover elephant/justgeoff? According to John Hewitt and Atheist, if one accepts evolution (as does anybody who understand it), then that person is "dogmatic". If you believe in naturalism, then you are preventing the voices of supernaturalism from being heard according to them. And John certainly knows what naturalism is despite his pleading of ignorance and silly obfuscations.

As my sig link shows--the most socially incompetent are the ones most likely to overestimate their competence...

I'm putting Hewitt, Kleinman, and Atheist on my "three stooges list". It's good to know who not to waste time reading.
_____________________________________________________

I am lmfao, you're one of the funniest posters on here. I take it you liked the little clippet I included in my post to John, recognised yourself and now you're burning up. I bet you are just the best teacher and that your kids really love you.

Such outrage.

Just for the sheer hell of it, as I did to Yahzi yesterday, I'm going to dissect your post to show you how feeble you actually are.

And I'd heard that Atheist was a dick from a few people,...

I bet you have. It's a little group who have their collective tails well and truly between their legs.

... but he's also, apparently, an apologist who thinks that people who don't leave room for "magic" in scientific explanation have faith! (In what?!--reality?).

Now, having established that I'm a "dick" by a fallacious appeal to unnamed authority, you embark on outright lies. Hey, a scientist lying? Nah, only creationists do that.

I have $2,000,000 says that I have no belief in magic. What's your bid, honey?

(N.B. moderators; that isn't an offer to bet, but refers to my backing of EA.)

I'm really pleased you said that, because it is without question, the dumbest attack on me anyone has made in my entire life - let alone on this forum.



Legend!

... And Atheist has got to be one of the dumbest non-theists (if he is one) that I've ever known. I wonder if he's into quantum woo like undercover elephant/justgeoff?

Music to my ears. I'm sure I can fit that into my sig. (Easy, double thanks!)

(Oh, and see previous answer)

... According to ... snip... Atheist, if one accepts evolution (as does anybody who understand it), then that person is "dogmatic".

Another complete and utter fabrication. Maybe "scientists" do lie. Or maybe, bio. teachers with thwarted ambitions do.

As my sig link shows--the most socially incompetent are the ones most likely to overestimate their competence...

I'm even more pleased that you raise that point, especially with the emphasis on socially incompetent.

An old, old saying, [ever so slightly paraphrased] suits your sig to a "T":

"A teacher is a woman among girls and a girl among women"


Now, you can reside in not answering these unanswerable comments, because you're putting me on ignore. How convenient and honest that is. Tell a truckload of lies and then refuse to answer. A few adjectives come to mind:

Immature. Then again, see the above re: teachers.

Dishonest: Undeniably. See above.

Stupid: Even more undeniably. You've established that I'm a "dick", you've established that I'm dumb. What the hell does that make you, having just let me walk all over you and your [il]logic in my hob-nailed boots?

 

[The Atheist]

As I have intimated before, you do nothing but ad hominem against anyone who disagrees with you.

She's clearly one of those people who have difficulty thinking and tries to cover it by writing screeds of impenetrable rubbish.

She is, without doubt, a True Skeptic^TM
Thanks christ she now has us on ignore, that'll cut the size of the pages by about 2/3!

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The meaning of this query is unclear.

I think the book I linked to is fascinating.

~~ Paul