tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post8338997670284598438..comments2023-06-24T01:15:34.627-07:00Comments on The Skeptic Zone: im-skepticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-87274962679321460492017-10-22T19:18:14.591-07:002017-10-22T19:18:14.591-07:00For every scientist you can name in a field releva...For every scientist you can name in a field relevant to the topic that endorses some form of creationism, there are a dozen more out there who don't let religion cloud their scientific endeavors. <br /><br />People like Behe don't practice science. They don't follow scientific method, and that's why their work is not accepted by the scientific community. They know the answer they're looking for, and they only look at evidence that would support that answer. That's not science. See my challenge <a href="http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2014/07/a-challenge-for-defenders-of-id.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />It's also interesting that you bring in Popper. He was skeptical of evolution before he finally became convinced that it was genuine science. But for some reason, the creationists don't tell you that.<br /><br />And all their stories about having all the evidence in their favor is nothing more that a lie. You can believe it if you want to. But if you are interested in a truer picture of science, you owe it to yourself to expand your reading to actual scientific literature, and not just the bullshit those creationists produce. im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-28801304814205700242017-10-22T18:41:38.116-07:002017-10-22T18:41:38.116-07:00First, I don't know that modern higher life fo...First, I don't know that modern higher life forms evolved from bacteria. But it doesn't matter. It simply means that there was an environmental situation (possibly isolated to a single location) at some time, where where a small step in the evolutionary development toward higher life forms ended up surviving and being passed to descendants. It doesn't imply that the entire population of these things evolved together.<br /><br />Wilder-Smith is a Christian creationist. Unlike Moritz, ha can't manage to separate his religion from his work.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-60448580809840691342017-10-22T18:39:22.637-07:002017-10-22T18:39:22.637-07:00I've read plenty of creationist (and/or ID) li...I've read plenty of creationist (and/or ID) literature. I'm not wasting my time on this one. But you show a severe lack of understanding of real science. I would suggest some reading for you. You can start with <i>The Blind Watchmaker</i> by Richard Dawkins. Very well written and easy to understand. I would also recommend <i>Why evolution is True</i> by Jerry Coyne. You can get both of them for free.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-82461521695279374382017-10-22T16:32:21.721-07:002017-10-22T16:32:21.721-07:00Footnotes to the above:
[55] Colin Patterson, Key...Footnotes to the above:<br /><br />[55] Colin Patterson, Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, November 5, 1981. <br />[56] Duane T. Gish, "Crack in the Neo-Darwinian Jericho (Part I)", Vital Articles on Science/Creation, December 1976. Posted at: http://www.icr.org/article/88/. <br />[57] Werner von Braun, an open letter to the California State Board of Education on September 14, 1972. <br />[58] Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985) p 342. <br />[59]Karl Popper, Unended Quest (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Pub. Co., 1976), p. 168. <br />[60] Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe (London: Michael Joseph, 1983), pp.18-19. <br />[61] H. J. Lipson, "A physicist looks at evolution", Physics Bulletin, vol 31, p 138, 1980. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-89389984577621161602017-10-22T16:31:39.573-07:002017-10-22T16:31:39.573-07:00In 1967, some highly respected Evolutionist author...<br />In 1967, some highly respected Evolutionist authors, including Dr. Murray Eden and Dr. Marcel P. Schutzenberger authored a book titled Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution which arose from a series of meetings sponsored by the Wistar Institute. These meetings were convened so that Evolutionist scientists from various disciplines could discuss the mathematical probabilities involved in the Evolution of life. These meetings erupted into heated exchanges between those of the physcial sciences, such as mathematicians and physicists, who contended that the probabilities were outrageously opposed to current Evolutionary explanations, and the biologists, who insisted that life must have evolved by random processes, regardless of the small probabilities involved. To this day, the difficulties raised have never been satisfactorily answered. If anything, further research has shown the probabilities to be even more hostile to Evolutionist mechanisms!<br /><br />In 1985, the molecular biologist, Dr. Michael Denton, published a secular critique of Evolution entitled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. (A review of Denton's book appears at http://www.icr.org/article/theory-crisis/.) In his book he writes...<br /><br />Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond ... anything produced by the intelligence of man?[58]<br />The biochemist, Dr. Michael Behe, Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, is renowned for his work in molecular biology. Dr. Behe has done extensive work demonstrating that many of the essential features of living cells are "irreducibly complex", consisting of several interacting parts, each of which is vital to the proper working of the system. In other words, when you get down to the basic parts of living cells, you find things which are highly complex and interdependent, yet cannot be scaled down to a simpler, precursory version. This means that neither random molecular interactions, nor natural selection could have been responsible for their existence. Dr. Behe has written a book entitled Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, in which he discusses many of his findings.<br />The celebrated philosopher of science, Sir Karl Popper, wrote...<br /><br />...I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme—a possible framework for testable scientific theories.[59]<br />The well-known British astronomer, mathematician and cosmologist, Sir Fred Hoyle, likened Evolutionary theory to a whirlwind in a junkyard...<br />In a popular lecture I once unflatteringly described the thinking of these scientists as a "junkyard mentality". As this reference became widely and not quite accurately quoted I will repeat it here. A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe.[60]<br />Dr. H. J. Lipson, F.R.S. professor of physics at the University of Manchestor, UK, writes...<br />If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? ... I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.[61]<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-83713122025118292017-10-22T16:31:25.709-07:002017-10-22T16:31:25.709-07:00Check these out too from same link. Cheers!
Who c...Check these out too from same link. Cheers!<br /><br />Who could be a more prestigious representative of this group than Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, who had this to say in his keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History in New York...<br /><br />One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing — it ought not to be taught in high school'.[55]<br />Equally as distinguished is the eminent French scientist, Dr. Pierre P. Grassé. Dr. Gish elaborates...<br />Recently, for example, Pierre P. Grassé, one of the most distinguished of all French scientists, published a book, L'Evolution du Vivant, which constituted a strong attack on all aspects of modern evolution theory.<br />Dobzhansky, in his review of this book, states "the book of Pierre P. Grassé is a frontal attack on all kinds of 'Darwinism.' Its purpose is 'to destroy the myth of evolution as a simple understood and explained phenomenon,' and to show that evolution is a mystery about which little is and perhaps can be, known. Now, one can disagree with Grassé, but not ignore him. He is the editor of the 28 volumes of 'Traite de Zoologie,' author of numerous original investigations, and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic." The closing sentence of Grassé's books is most interesting (and disturbing to Dobzhansky). In that sentence Grassé says, "It is possible that in this domain biology, impotent, yields the floor to metaphysics."[56]<br /><br />In 1972, the renowned space pioneer, Dr. Werner von Braun wrote an open letter to the California State Board of Education, urging that alternative theories of the origin of life be presented in the public classroom.<br />While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. To be forced to believe only one conclusion—that everything in the universe happened by chance—would violate the very objectivity of science itself.<br />The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction.<br /><br />It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom.[57]<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-17754554617797744362017-10-22T16:28:18.320-07:002017-10-22T16:28:18.320-07:00This argument seems like a devastating refutation ...This argument seems like a devastating refutation of Darwinist speciation:<br /><br />http://members.toast.net/puritan/Articles/EvolutionIsNotScience.htm<br /><br />When viewed in the light of actual features and organs, natural selection is shown to be a mechanism that can regulate variable, quantitative properties—such as skin color or beak size—but is unable to provide any helpful direction regarding discontinuous, qualitative changes, such as the development of radical new structures and abilities. Natural selection may very well explain how black moths would predominate when light-colored trees are covered with soot, but it does not and cannot explain the formation of wings, ears, hearts, eyes and feathers.<br /> <br />Evolutionists also seem to forget that marginally detrimental mutations may remain for many generations and spread throughout a population before natural selection has an adequate opportunity to weed them out. Perhaps a mutation results in a slightly shortened life span or a modestly increased susceptibility to certain diseases. If this effect is not sufficiently virulent to wipe out the defective individuals within a few generations, they could interbreed with "healthy" individuals in the population, eventually contaminating the entire population.<br /> <br />Once the entire population is infected with a particular "bad gene", natural selection ceases to be a factor in eliminating its effects. Since detrimental mutations are vastly more likely than favorable ones, one would expect the overall population to gradually become so poisoned by detrimental mutations that their negative effects would forever outweigh the positive contributions of any beneficial mutations. It would be like taking a million steps backward for every step forward, and yet Evolutionists expect us to believe that actual net forward progress of thousands or millions of steps could be achieved in such a manner.<br /> <br />Nature itself demonstrates that natural selection is the wrong explanation for the development and complexification of life. Insects are some of the most prolific animals on earth (i.e. among those animals that can be viewed without a microscope), yet who would argue that they are the culminating product of Evolution? We need to remember that natural selection is supposed to choose those that are more viable, more successful. However, there is no evidence that fish are less viable than amphibians, nor that birds are less successful than mammals. Natural selection does not explain the fact that the ancestral forms and paradigms are apparently just as viable as their alleged descendants. And if the ancestral functions and structures are still proliferating today, then natural selection is the wrong explanation for the origin and progress of complexity. <br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-73432193398983607982017-10-22T16:23:20.545-07:002017-10-22T16:23:20.545-07:00I wish to ask you the following philosophical ques...I wish to ask you the following philosophical question. Please excuse me if it seems simplistic to you:<br /><br />Bacteria are probably the most ubiquitous organisms in the world. <br /><br />There are more bacteria in one human being than all life forms on earth put together!<br /><br />Bacteria are suited to thrive in almost every conceivable environment.<br /><br />Given all this: why would bacteria ever "evolve" into a higher life form? What selective advantage would they find higher up the theorized evolutionary ladder?<br /><br />Also: are you familiar with Professor A E Wilder-Smith? At 50:00 into this clip he explains that chemical evolution is impossible because, in aqueous environments lacking enzymes or catalysts, organic reactions favor reversal over synthesis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdLrXPnp0zs&t=2994s<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-28396269338016514452017-10-21T16:22:40.403-07:002017-10-21T16:22:40.403-07:00Great. I look forward to your comments.Great. I look forward to your comments.jdhueyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14548783175350394626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-68830844086006360442017-10-21T15:34:14.284-07:002017-10-21T15:34:14.284-07:00I agree that this is just more of the same crap we...I agree that this is just more of the same crap we hear over and over from theists. There is nothing challenging about responding to it. The thing is, I expected more from Moritz. He touts himself as someone who thinks scientifically. But it's clear to me that when it comes to religion, he really doesn't. My feeling about this is that when we hear religionsts using this as an example of "the scientific theist" that should be take seriously by atheists, we we will be armed with the knowledge that it's really an empty claim.<br /><br />Regarding <i>Philosophy in the Flesh</i>, I have just obtained a copy of it. It will be next on my reading list. I hope to have more to say about it after I've read it.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-16646022726326422017-10-21T12:36:17.966-07:002017-10-21T12:36:17.966-07:00I don't disagree with anything you wrote - it ...I don't disagree with anything you wrote - it is a very good write up. But I do wonder if it was worth all the effort. It just seems so pointless to discuss or argue with these folks.<br />Or, maybe, I'm just tried.<br /><br />Now, for something completely different, have you read "Philosophy in the Flesh" by Lakoff and Johnson. I am interested in your assessment, especially wrt their idea of 'embodied realism'.<br /><br />jdhueyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14548783175350394626noreply@blogger.com