Dr. Dembski at Uncommon Decent alerted us to a group that is undertaking a new endeavor.
I cannot tell you how many Atheists have asked for real peer reviewed scientific papers on Biblical Creation or the lesser, Intelligent Design. Many Atheists I know, religiously, rely on science as their ONLY source of life's questions.
Well my friends, this year introduces the new:
From their Purpose link:
"BIO-Complexity is a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a unique goal. It aims to be the leading forum for testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life."
Young-earth creationists (YECs) and the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) are natural allies in many ways, although we have major differences as well. There is a distinct difference between what I believe, as a Young Earth Creationist, and what proponents of Intelligent Design believe, mainly IDM avoids appealing to the Bible as authoritative "special revelation".
Things for us all to look for are, for example, in the condition of complexity, variety and adaptability in living organisms and ecological systems where the Creation Model espouses that inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection. The Evolutionary Model espouses that it increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years and both are empirically falsifiable.
In the Condition of Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information, again the Creation Model espouses that inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation and the Evolutionary Model espouses that increased over time from zero, via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years. Again both of these are empirically falsifiable. (True Origins)
Will these conditions be addressed? Only time, and funding, will tell. This, for now, is the best hope for the Atheists to find, their much desired, extrabiblical truth.
Maybe it would be a good idea for the Atheists to support this effort financially.
Maybe, just maybe, future findings could help the Atheists change their viewpoint of our origins. I will not hold my breath, but I will always remain hopeful for all of you. Your lives, as you all claim, dogmatically depends on that information.
bit.ly/IDMBio
Peer review ain't peer review if it ain't reviewed by peers.
ReplyDeleteYoung-earth creationists (YECs) and the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) are natural allies in many ways, although we have major differences as well.
ReplyDeleteThe YECs and the IDMs have a lot in common, especially their breathtaking stupidity.
There is a distinct difference between what I believe, as a Young Earth Creationist, and what proponents of Intelligent Design believe, mainly IDM avoids appealing to the Bible as authoritative "special revelation".
ReplyDeleteThe only reason they don't invoke the Bible is because they are trying to pretend their intelligent design is not a religious idea. They do this because they are trying to stick their religious beliefs into public school science classrooms. They always lose in court, but their Christian customers have successfully harassed and threatened some biology teachers, who sometimes dumb down their classes to avoid the harassment.
I could suggest to you, the Young Earth Creationist, that you read some books about evolution, for example "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne, but it wouldn't do you any good. You probably couldn't understand any scientific concept, no matter how much you studied science. Your problem is religions make people stupid, too stupid to understand reality.
Haha. This Bio-Complexity will be exactly the same as the Institution for Creation Research, who have never done a scintilla of research.
ReplyDeleteAll these organisations are identical. They take current tested and falsifiable facts of evolution and obfuscate them with all their might. Answers in Genesis has been doing this for years. They have never had a paper accepted into a scientifally peer reviewd journal.
They even started their own Journal and gues who the peers that review id are- yup- the asswipes that write the papers. Ignorant F*%^wits who are failed scientists who could not keep up with academic challenges.
You won't see anything new from these guys- nothing.
There is no competing theory to evolution- none.
There is no competing evidence to show anything other than modification by descent. Never was, never will be.
I shall bookmark the page and watch- I guarantee that all they will do is try to show the scientific evidence for evolution is wrong, and I predict that they will have no new concepts.
Behe has never had an original thought.
There is nowhere where he extends empirical evidence for creation in any matter.
Wut a joke.
"This, for now, is the best hope for the Atheists to find, there [sic] much desired, extrabiblical truth.
Maybe it would be a good idea for the Atheists to support this efforts [sic] financially."
I am totally unable to parse what you mean here.
What the hey is that supposed to mean, exactly?????
Uh oh. Turns out the whole nest over at "Bio-Complexity" is a bunch of presuppositionalists tht have sworn to produce no writings that contradict biblical paradigms.
ReplyDeleteMatti Leisola is the "Editor In Chief." ....A Christian, he considers the existence of God as a fundamental matter of fact, without which the universe and humanity will not remain without a rational explanation. God's goodness is in line with that, he has revealed Himself to humans in words. Goodness of God, would be incompatible with, if God would leave a man deprived of crucial information that a person needs to understand himself and his own place in the universe. Leisola believes that there are good rational reasons to keep the Bible God's genuine revelation. He believes Bible to give "the only credible explanation of the big questions of life."
There will be no research come out of this bunch, that is guaranteed.
And who do we find on the Editorial board?
ReplyDeleteMichael Behe, hee hee hee.
William Dumbski, hee hee hee.
Norman Nevin- You cannot be serious. He's a doctor that runs around trying to get intelligent design taught in public schools.
He supports the group, Truth in Science, which is a creationist group.
Robert Marks, Give me a break!!!!
Take a look at his “Evolutionary Informatics Laboratory” website – touting intelligent design – It was originally hosted on a Baylor University server. Concerned that the material on the website misleadingly suggested a connection between the intelligent design material and Baylor, administrators temporarily shut the website down while discussing the issue with Marks and his lawyer. Baylor was willing to continue hosting the website subject to a number of conditions (including the inclusion of a disclaimer and the removal of the misleading term “laboratory”), but Marks and Baylor were unable to come to terms. The site is currently hosted by a third-party provider.
AAAAYYYEEEEEE! It gets worse!
Edward Peltzer, answering questions at a Kansas school board hearing:
Q. Do you accept the general principle of common descent, that all life is biologically related to the beginning of life? Yes or no.
A. No.
Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors? Yes or no.
A. No.
Q. What is the alternative explanation for how the human species came into existence if you do not accept common descent?
A. Are you going to allow me to do an explanation?
Q. I'm asking you just to answer the question, please. Would you like for me to repeat it?
A. Yes.
Q. If you do not accept common descent as an explanation for the human species, how did we come into existence?
A. That is the question that science is trying to answer--
Q. No, sir--
A. -- I don't know.
Q. -- my question is, how do you explain it?
A. I don't know. That is the question. There are serious problems with common descent. There are serious problems. It hasn't been demonstrated. There are serious questions there.
Q. I'm not asking you, sir-- I'm only asking you if you do not accept common descent, do you have an explanation for it? Yes or no.
A. As a chemist, I do not. I do not study this.
Q. The minority report says that, "In science we must compare competing hypotheses." Is there a competing hypothesis to common descent that you're aware of?
A. Yes, there is.
Q. And what is that?
A. That would be intelligent design.
Q. Do you subscribe to that theory or that belief or that opinion?
A. I think it has a lot of interesting ideas that need to be considered. I think that it answers a lot of problems that have cropped up with common descent.
Q. My question is, sir, do you support the opinion of intelligent design as the answer to human species?
A. Yes, I think it's the one that's quite probably shown to be correct.
Q. You believe it's the one that's probably correct; is that what you said?
A. Yes. Would you like me to expand on that?
Q. No, sir.
A. Would you--
Q. I'm-- I'm asking the questions, sir. Please just hang on.
Aaaaaaand...***Drum roll***
Johnathan Wells "
....an American author and a prominent advocate of intelligent design. A member of the Unification Church, Wells wrote that the teachings of church founder Sun Myung Moon, his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers convinced him to devote his life to "destroying Darwinism"
I am laughing my ass off!!!!!!!!
This is funny as hell, Dan
You can't make this shit up!
A nest of frauds.
Oh Dan, you're killing me here!
ReplyDeleteI just noticed this name as an "editor" at the Bio Complexity fraud site:
Jed Macosko
".... explains, “Though Francis and I may disagree over the details of where
theistic language outperforms atheistic language in describing the natural world, the
fact is that atheism is no longer the only game in town when it comes to understanding
the physical universe."
David Snoke- He's another Behe sychophant.
"In 2004, Snoke co-authored an article with Michael Behe, a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, in the scientific journal Protein Science which received widespread criticism."
Another fraud:
Richard M. Sternberg is an American scientist who believes intelligent design deserves to be part of the discussion about evolution and the origin of life on Earth. Dr. Sternberg has been critical of the mainstream in evolutionary biology for refusing to even consider alternatives or challenges to strict neo-Darwinism. He was the editor of the scientific journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington who controversially handled the review and editing process of the only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal advocating intelligent design. The journal subsequently declared that the paper "does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings" and would not have been published had usual editorial practices been followed.
He bypassed the presribed editorial process to get a crock of shit published in a scientific journal.
Scott Turner-
Wrote the book, "J S Turner. 2007. Signs of design. The Christian Century."
Fraud
Uncommom Descent is attempting to make this Bio-Complexity group look like a valid scientific journal and come to find out they are merely the Discovery Institute in diguise.
They should be ashamed of themselves.
This apparant deception alone shows that they are not to be trusted. This is merely the ID's mirror site of Answers in Genesis' "Journal.
A bunch of frauds and crackpots.
The funny part is that not one of these people can show any research or evidence for creationism or Intelligent design outside of their bible stories.
UD must think that readers are really really stupid and can't see through this obvious sham.
And then you have the balls to try to pass it off here.
Really, Dan.
Get with the program.
Human ape, (Humans flinging poo?)
ReplyDelete>>The only reason they don't invoke the Bible is because they are trying to pretend their intelligent design is not a religious idea.
Well that has been addressed in a past post.
>>They do this because they are trying to stick their religious beliefs into public school science classrooms.
As opposed to the humanist model you mean. You can read about their tatics in another past post. Read what the humanist John Dunphy said about the public school system.
Thanks Froggie for showing the bias of the secular community. You should be their poster child.
ReplyDeleteSo we might as well continue the questioning:
Q. Is naturalism a philosophy or a scientific process?
A. Naturalism is a philosophy.
Q. And is it your opinion that the Kansas standards endorse a philosophy of naturalism by the definition of science?
A. If-- if you do not strike out this sentence, you are endorsing naturalism as the foundation of science. The problem with that is it causes serious errors. I can cite two. The first is based on--
Q. Sir, that's not-- sir, that's not my question. My question to you was very simple.
A. Okay. In that sentence it does implicitly endorse naturalism.
Q. Implicitly.
A. And that's why it was-- why it was struck out.
Q. It is your interpretation of that sentence that naturalism is included in the standards?
A. As originally written by the majority.
Thanks for confirming that with your comments Froggie. No one could of made it as clear as you just have.
Dan,
ReplyDelete"Thanks for confirming that with your comments Froggie. No one could of made it as clear as you just have."
Not at all. I have history in my favor. No creation "scientists" have ever found empirical evidence for a designer.
All they do is offer pseudo philosophy.
If and when they actually do sojme research and post the paper I will read it. I am not saying that they will never find any evidence, I'm saying that they have not yet found any and they won't because there is nothing to research.
What test would you propose to show "design?"
What test do they propose.
None.
You're just mad because I exposed your little ruse.
The peers that will be doing the reviewing is the Discovery Institute. This will be shown to be another pseudoscientific bunch of hogwash, same as the DI is now. Nothing will change.
This organization is merely the DI dressed in different clothes.
You must be spending too much time filling your kids with BS and believing that rational people are somehow going to fall for it.
I hope you didn't really understand the nature of this new organizaqtion because I surely don't want to call you a liar or a front man for fraud.
Dan,
ReplyDelete"Thanks Froggie for showing the bias of the secular community. You should be their poster child."
I have no bias. I follow the empirical evidence.
You and the Demski bunch often admit to being presuppositionalists.
Dan
ReplyDeleteI seriously have to chortle at the"bring your"A"game. If you have one.
This is more akin to an "x"rated game.
Bio-Complexity ,Uncommon Decent,Discovery Institute.
Sounds more like a mutual masturbation society.
Dax
Froggie:
ReplyDeleteWhat test would you propose to show "design?"
What test do they propose.
None.
Hah. The guy who keeps track of the failure of ID to produce any actual research has noticed this "journal" as well.
It's way beyond put up or shut up time, people.
Reynold,
ReplyDeleteGreat links! Thanks.
From the link:
"Looks like the DI-funded Biologic Institute (see here and here) has come up with its own “ID-friendly” journal, BIO-Complexity with the usual suspects on the editorial team. The DI chimes in that the “editorial board is composed of an international group of scientists with differing views about the merits of ID. But all are committed to a fair and honest assessment of the question.” I’m willing to guess that most (all?) Twenty-two of the 29 have signed the Dissent from Darwin list. Of course, this isn’t the first time that Dembski and buddies attempted to start their own journal – and that first attempt didn’t exactly end in glory."
And it looks like the first article that they will publish is from Demsky and Nelson!
This is an obvious attemt to try to disguise their Journal as scientific.
And the devastating irony is ..... if they DID produce real science with real evidence, the scientific community would not reject it.
ReplyDeleteBut they won't.
I lol'd.
"The only reason they don't invoke the Bible is because they are trying to pretend their intelligent design is not a religious idea. "
ReplyDeleteI've written on this very topic:
Who is the Intelligent Designer? - Elusiveness by Design
"If-- if you do not strike out this sentence, you are endorsing naturalism as the foundation of science."
ReplyDeleteBut that's the actual foundation of science.
Do you endorse the theory of intelligent falling or gravity? Do you reject the idea that electromagnetism (what is powering the computer you read this from) is real, and it's actually God pushing around electrons? Why only reject the science of creationism, why not mathematics? After all the bible does claim that pi is equal to 3.
Also if science is evil (after all it's practiced by atheists), shouldn't you be rejecting the fruits of it? If you only want to limit it to the things which an understanding of evolution brings us, then we're talking about things like vaccinations, understanding and treating genetic diseases, breeding domesticated animals, and creating disease resistant crops (ironically to avoid these you'd have to buy into the whole organic movement which was spawned by environmentalism).
csdx,
ReplyDelete>>Also if science is evil (after all it's practiced by atheists), shouldn't you be rejecting the fruits of it?
Well I agree that science needs a better god then the current one. I just read about Monsanto today, and yes they are evil. Science has no moral compass and these secular scientists are just doing what is right in their eyes instead of what is Godly. We buy heirloom seeds to get back to God and away from man's interference. It was not "spawned by environmentalism" it was spawned by the people that want to do away with altering God's creation. God knows what He is doing and man does not.
Also, having 20+ kids is a gift from God Himself. How can that be wrong? We agree that the supply of water is very important. In this rich plentiful country we feel we have ample resources to feed our kids and thus we are not too worried about having more for that reason. I would probably avoid my wife like the plague (yea, I said it Patty) if we lived in some remote African village with no source of water. Watching children starve to death and die of thirst is not too sexy, I have no clue how they could keep *umm, having children.
And you do understand that your computer was "created" with "intelligence", right? I don't see you rejecting ID in that field, so why do you in nature? Design is obvious in all fields (especially GMO ones, get it? I crack myself up), we just need to show empirical evidence for it.
And to make things clear yet again. We, or I, do not "reject science" Per Se, I reject secular scientists with no moral compass like the scientists at Monsanto. There is a huge difference.
Atheists celebrate man for controlling their environment, companies like Monsanto is a fine example. We, as Christians, know full well how wrong it is, where Atheists just claim its just progress in science.
Dan, you say:
ReplyDeleteI just read about Monsanto today, and yes they are evil. Science has no moral compass and these secular scientists are just doing what is right in their eyes instead of what is Godly.
I tend to agree that Monsanto is evil (or unethical, whichever you prefer). And yes, science has no moral compass, but scientists, being human beings, do have moral compasses, of all kinds, religious or not. If you are claiming that Monsanto scientists are not religious, I'd like to see your evidence: I see no reason to suspect they are any more or less religious than other scientists.
Perhaps you would say that if Monsanto scientists claim to be Christians, they are not "true" Christians. Interestingly enough, the commenter on the link to the clip about the evils of Monsanto, shelly, said something similar, but instead of being a Christian saying that Monsanto was not behaving in a truly Christian way, she said she is a libertarian, and that they were not behaving in a truly capitalistic way. But that's exactly how capitalism works, and that's why libertarianism leads to abuse, unless there are other factors to prevent that.
Atheists celebrate man for controlling their environment, companies like Monsanto is a fine example. We, as Christians, know full well how wrong it is, where Atheists just claim its just progress in science.
While some atheists probably celebrate Monsanto, and some Christians deplore it, do you have any evidence that more atheists support despoiling the Earth than Christians? I don't have any numbers, but on the average (though with many exceptions), atheists tend to be more liberal and theists more conservative politically. And conservatives are not generally known for their environmental concern.
"While some atheists probably celebrate Monsanto, and some Christians deplore it, do you have any evidence that more atheists support despoiling the Earth than Christians? I don't have any numbers, but on the average (though with many exceptions), atheists tend to be more liberal and theists more conservative politically. And conservatives are not generally known for their environmental concern."
ReplyDeleteExactly right zilch. It's right wing Christian fundamentalists who tend to say the worlds resources are put here by God for us to fritter away, and He will provide. So burn baby, burn!!
I love it when the evils of big corporations are attacked by the Christian right only when they think to blame it on secular science. Such hypocrisy. The rest of the time the Christian right love those same corporations.
Dan
ReplyDelete"Also, having 20+ kids is a gift from God Himself. How can that be wrong? We agree that the supply of water is very important. In this rich plentiful country we feel we have ample resources to feed our kids and thus we are not too worried about having more for that reason. I would probably avoid my wife like the plague (yea, I said it Patty) if we lived in some remote African village with no source of water. Watching children starve to death and die of thirst is not too sexy, I have no clue how they could keep *umm, having children."
I hope to hell you don't live to see the folly in that statement.
There is a chance that you will wach your kids starve to death at the rate we are plundering the resources of the planet and I am pointing directly at you.
Speaking of dwindling resources
ReplyDeleteDan arrogantly and ignorantly brags that he will have 20 kids because of our national resouces, but he wouldn't do it if he lived in country with less resources.
ReplyDeleteIf everyonethought like that, we'd be out of resources by now.
Dan: back to ID's new poster child. If you don't want to listen to what we atheists say about it, you might want to listen to what David Heddle, a physicist and Christian, has to say:
ReplyDeleteYou really have to wonder how, with a deck stacked like this, Dembski could write, with a straight face:
"Check out this new ID-relevant ["ID-friendly" is too strong -- ID proponents will get no preferential treatment] peer-reviewed journal"
Technically he is correct. It is peer-reviewed. In their case it's a bug, not a feature. It is peer-reviewed--just like the Journal of Homeopathy is peer-reviewed.
".....Dembski could write, with a straight face:..."
ReplyDeleteKinda like Dan titling this articlal,
"Ask and you Shall Recieve.."
As if we (the reasonable educated segment of society) were pleading for the Discovery Institute to publish a Journal that only they would critique...
Oh wait...nothings going to change....
Nevermind......
Also, having 20+ kids is a gift from God Himself. How can that be wrong?
ReplyDeleteyou yourself mentioned how that could be wrong, by bringing up the African village scenario. Children may be a gift from God, I think having them just for the sake of it is gluttony. If a host offers you food at a party, eating until you're stuffed and then some doesn't make you a good guest. Similarly continuously having children might now be the best use of God's gifts to you.
And you do understand that your computer was "created" with "intelligence", right? I don't see you rejecting ID in that field, so why do you in nature?
Yes, it was, but you're tangentially bringing up the false argument that complexity implies design. First a tangent, engineers have started looking at genetic algorithms. That is letting the program write itself given a certain ultimate goal. Such programs didn't actually have anyone design them.
Back on track, if this program was designed by a engineer who was designed by God, surely God is such a complex and unfathomable entity that it must have had a designer as well. You can't just argue to me that God 'evolved', or always existed, might as well just argue the universe always existed without a creator.
To me if you accept that the universe was designed, then surely it seems aspects of God must be designed. Unless you wish to argue that God is actually simpler than the universe, in which case your supporting a kind of evolution where complexity is arising out of simpler beginnings.
So my question returns back to you, you don't question ID, so why do you question it with respect to God.
Design is obvious in all fields (especially GMO ones, get it? I crack myself up), we just need to show empirical evidence for it.
And that's exactly why everyone remains skeptical, there's no evidence for design for life, unlike my computer.
Also what about it is obvious? To me life seems like something that wasn't designed. To me the overall similar nature of life suggests a common starting point. If God made silicon based life, or crystals that were alive, then that might be a better indicator, because they wouldn't have the same DNA structures that everything else has. Maybe God only had one idea for life, in which case I'd say he has a pretty limited imagination.
Zilch,
ReplyDelete>>Interestingly enough, the commenter on the link to the clip about the evils of Monsanto, shelly, said something similar, but instead of being a Christian saying that Monsanto was not behaving in a truly Christian way, she said she is a libertarian, and that they were not behaving in a truly capitalistic way. But that's exactly how capitalism works, and that's why libertarianism leads to abuse, unless there are other factors to prevent that... I don't have any numbers, but on the average (though with many exceptions), atheists tend to be more liberal and theists more conservative politically. And conservatives are not generally known for their environmental concern.
Well you are absolutely right and that is the frustrating part. This failed two party system has turned into an oligarchy and the individual has been silenced. Libertarian party is a dismal failure for many reasons but especially the one that you pointed out. I will let you in on a secret. It may be a bit premature to say but a couple of us here in California have started a new party and its now in its infant stages. Keep a look out for the Open Party in a state near you. Like the Open Source initiative it will not be "controlled" by any one group and will open to all, for the betterment of the individual. It has taken some real work and thinking to get to this point but just yesterday we are now on the books registered as a real party here in California. I am excited as to where we are going with it. Stay tuned.
Ethan,
ReplyDelete>> Children may be a gift from God, I think having them just for the sake of it is gluttony. If a host offers you food at a party, eating until you're stuffed and then some doesn't make you a good guest. Similarly continuously having children might now be the best use of God's gifts to you.
You are absolutely right. Don't get me wrong. I tease all the time, like froggie pointed out by this title. It was to merely make an exaggerated point but yes we must be good stewards of our surroundings and environment. The Bible teaches us to "deny thyself" and that is what fasting is all about. Refraining from things to create babies :) are things within that group. God will provide our needs and wants. Besides, rationally speaking, we are 41 years old, homeschooling 5 kids is plenty for me at this moment. OK maybe one more girl to have book ends :7), but that will probably do it. Didn't Sarah have her first child at 90 though? God is in charge of that one.
>>To me if you accept that the universe was designed, then surely it seems aspects of God must be designed.
No, in cause and effect (y) is dependent/contingent on (x) but that does not mean that (x) is dependent/contingent on (y).
Something had to stand outside of space/time to create such a universe. The postulation of "God" certainly, logically, explains such causation of the universe. Regressing through all the 'effects' you keep asking "and what caused that?" until you get to the singular. God, logically, is that singular. The universe is not an adequate description of causation because even the most secular scientists believe in the beginnings of the universe "big bang." What caused that?
>>And that's exactly why everyone remains skeptical, there's no evidence for design for life, unlike my computer.
(Insert cartoon here)
>> If God made silicon based life, or crystals that were alive, then that might be a better indicator, because they wouldn't have the same DNA structures that everything else has.
Isn't that what you are claiming? Life began from non-life? Besides, don't flippantly just brush over DNA in such a claim. DNA is the primer to the answer that you seek. You are putting cart before that horse. I believe DNA is the fingerprint of God, once man grasps the meaning and structure the closer to God will will get. Again was it always there or through mutations lizards grow the complex structure of wings and feathers. Logically, I will stick with created until proven otherwise. Very soon evolution with be empirically falsified completely, as most of it has already. I will be patient.
I would like to apologize on behalf of all Finnish people for our country providing the Editor in Chief of this ‘jurrnal’.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Finland has got a lot to apologize for, starting with your ridiculous language. And I've heard you have no decent beer either.
ReplyDeletezilch wrote: "Peer review ain't peer review if it ain't reviewed by peers."
ReplyDeleteI fail to see the problem. A moron writes an article... a gaggle of morons reviews it, and blesses it. Morons reviewing and approving morons. Sure sounds like 'peer review' to me.
P.S.: Feel free to substitute 'Professional LFJs™' (Liars For Jesus) for 'morons', if that is your preference.
Duck,
ReplyDelete>>A moron writes an article... a gaggle of morons reviews it, and blesses it. Morons reviewing and approving morons. Sure sounds like 'peer review' to me.
Aww, you shouldn't be so hard on these secular scientist, they are after all fallible.
"The peer review system does not always detect fraud, plagiarism, poor quality or gross error and there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows or 'controversial' or nonconformist views of skeptics and dissident minorities." (http://bit.ly/3gUcsN)
DuckPhup, you said:
ReplyDeleteI fail to see the problem. A moron writes an article... a gaggle of morons reviews it, and blesses it. Morons reviewing and approving morons. Sure sounds like 'peer review' to me.
This was also Dr. Heddle's point in his criticism of ID's new poster child that I linked above. In my first comment I was using the word "peer" to mean something like "member of an appropriate field within the scientific community", but you, and Heddle, are absolutely correct.
Dan: overpopulation is a myth? Tell that to the starving Africans. Sure, there are other reasons for starvation, war, pollution, desertification, and declining fish yields, to name a few issues, but overpopulation is the one common factor that makes all these problems worse. There are simply too many people for the planet to support, and there are more people every day.
Dan quoting someone else:
ReplyDeleteAnd that's exactly why everyone remains skeptical, there's no evidence for design for life, unlike my computer.
(Insert cartoon here)
Insert laughter here. Dan, do you realize that any religion could use that cartoon as justification for their god?
Do you also realize that it's all those years of people carefully looking at and observing the world around us that have disproved the young earth biblical view?
Do you know that those people initially did not want to believe in an old earth?
Ex) The speed of light? And yes, I have heard that old wives tale of how light was supposed to have been "billions" of times faster in "biblical times".
That's why Dan Lietha's work is so pernicious. He presents simplistic carictures of secular people. He'll even outright lie (See his "under god" cartoon).
Dan
Very soon evolution with be empirically falsified completely, as most of it has already. I will be patient.
Sure, Dan, sure.
By the way, you claim that "God" exists outside of time and space? Care to show that, or is it just some assumption?
Why not "the big bang" happened "outside of time and space" then?
Insisting that (your) god is the "final" cause while dismissing everything else, * even though there's evidence for it is a cop-out.
*as you can see in the link, it's not the only theory, just the most popular one.
Scientists aren't as dogmatic as you religious folk, see.
Insisting that (your) god is the "final" cause while dismissing everything else, * even though there's evidence for it, is a cop-out.
ReplyDelete(forgot that second comma).
By the way Dan, is evolution going to be replaced with ID because of all that research that's going on in ID right now? Check my first post here for the link, you'll see what I mean.
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>Insert laughter here. Dan, do you realize that any religion could use that cartoon as justification for their god?
You mean a god? Sure. Nature reveals a Creator and anyone with commons sense, logic, and reason can see that. The Special revelation, that I read, has revealed God of the universe to us. After weighing the evidence, I trust Jesus instead of the others. Besides many of the other religions believe in Jesus also.
>>Do you also realize that it's all those years of people carefully looking at and observing the world around us that have disproved the young earth biblical view?
Any evidence to back up that claim? Yes YEC is falsifiable but has not been falsified by any stretch of the imagination. All that exists are presuppositions and huge assumptions, like decay rates for radiocarbon dating as an example.
>>Ex) The speed of light? And yes, I have heard that old wives tale of how light was supposed to have been "billions" of times faster in "biblical times".
No, that is the scientists claims that microseconds after the Big Bang (expansion) the speed of light was greatly faster then the current speed.
Atheists indeed believe in miracles that this universe just "happened" exactly the, fined tuned, way it did. Hmm, that would be a good post. Plus, all the laws of nature prove a tiny ball of matter cannot come into existence by itself. Something that was not operating according to natural laws would have been required to originate the tiny ball of matter in the first place. It would also take another miracle for life to evolve. Life comes only from life, of its own kind, as nature shows.
>>*as you can see in the link, it's not the only theory, just the most popular one.
Who cares what is "popular" what matters is truth. Man you sound like a click in high school. Well, if popularity determines truth then things are much worse then we ever thought. Thank God this country is not a democracy, the 'majority' might say to kill all Atheists. Wouldn't that be a shame and a huge mistake.
>>(Insert cartoon here)
ReplyDeleteCounter Cartoon
ReplyDeleteI present this website appropriately named Overpopulation is a Myth
Even if I accept everything this site presents, it is irrelevant to the point made. It only proves we aren't overpopulated now, not that we won't be in the future. In fact it argues for a sustainable (2.1) childbirth rate. So by having more you are contributing to a future that is overpopulated
Also while presenting things like increases in crop yields, or farming previously non-arable land, it fails to mention things like the spread of the Sarah desert, the Dustbowl, destroying forests for more farmland, falling water tables, and pesticide and herbicide polluted rivers.
Furthermore it doesn't take into consideration lifestyle differences between developed and poor countries. If all the people in Africa lived like we do most people estimate it would take the resources of 5-20 earths to support our current population level.
Counter Links
"Any evidence to back up that claim? Yes YEC is falsifiable but has not been falsified by any stretch of the imagination. All that exists are presuppositions and huge assumptions, like decay rates for radiocarbon dating as an example."
So if universal constants can fluctuate at will. We should be able to observe them changing. If they can only change with specific events (the big bang), then we shouldn't observe them changing. As of yet we haven't seen the decay rate vary, so we should assume they're constant. Also we've made correct predictions based on these assumptions, like finding the age of human artifacts, so clearly they must be right for that long.
But if you believe that things can change like that, why not ascribe to "last Thursday-ism" where the world was created last Thursday, just everything including ourselves and our memories were made to think we're older than that. Why is 5000 years correct and not 4000 or 10billion?
Dan +†+ said quoting me:
ReplyDeleteReynold,
>>Insert laughter here. Dan, do you realize that any religion could use that cartoon as justification for their god?
You mean a god? Sure. Nature reveals a Creator and anyone with commons sense, logic, and reason can see that.
Or just the workings of nature.
One is left with: What did the "god" who created all this come from?
The Special revelation, that I read, has revealed God of the universe to us.
Too bad that observations of the natural world go against the "special revelation" of your god. (global flood, young earth, etc. all disproven)
Maybe you've got the wrong god? Or else you've gotten your interpretation of the real world from your bible, and any observations from that same real world are to be ignored in favour of what your book says?
One other consideration:
Why has your god not revealed himself to all the people in the new world instead of waiting for centuries for missionaries to show up? How many of them went to hell because of that?
After weighing the evidence, I trust Jesus instead of the others. Besides many of the other religions believe in Jesus also.
No, only christianity says that he was the "son of god" and "god himself" at the same time, or at all for that matter. Islam for instance, just figures that he was a prophet.
Do you also realize that it's all those years of people carefully looking at and observing the world around us that have disproved the young earth biblical view?
ReplyDeleteAny evidence to back up that claim?
Only the talk origins links that you keep ignoring...
Yes YEC is falsifiable but has not been falsified by any stretch of the imagination.
Like hell.
All that exists are presuppositions and huge assumptions, like decay rates for radiocarbon dating as an example.
cdsx dealt with that, so I'll leave that alone.
I'll just point out that originally, all those who overthrew the global flood and young earth used to believe that stuff. Their "presuppositions" where with the bible.
Ex) The speed of light? And yes, I have heard that old wives tale of how light was supposed to have been "billions" of times faster in "biblical times".
No, that is the scientists claims that microseconds after the Big Bang (expansion) the speed of light was greatly faster then the current speed.
You may want to do some more reading on that:
The increased speed applies only to the inflationary stage of Big Bang models, which means only the first 10-43 second or so. Their theory has not been verified by observation.
You of course, ignore that when you imply that scientsts in general believe the speed of light has slowed down.
As for those who still believe that light has slowed down, read Sutterfield.
Atheists indeed believe in miracles that this universe just "happened" exactly the, fined tuned, way it did. Hmm, that would be a good post.
ReplyDeleteWhere I'm sure you'll mutilate what they say, as you always do instead of doing actual research.
Here's a hint: Look at the sea vents. Very harsh conditions for human and most animal life with no light, high heat, toxic fumes, yet there is still life there. Get the point?
Plus, all the laws of nature prove a tiny ball of matter cannot come into existence by itself.
But, some infinitely complex "god" can? Oh that's right, he's "outside" nature, the theists cop-out.
Something that was not operating according to natural laws would have been required to originate the tiny ball of matter in the first place. It would also take another miracle for life to evolve.
No, just natural processes. Unless you're referring to a complex life form like a man bursting forth from the dust of the earth like your holy book describes.
Life comes only from life, of its own kind, as nature shows.
Which is directly contradicted by your bible. You know, "man from the dust of the earth" thing?
*as you can see in the link, it's not the only theory, just the most popular one.
Who cares what is "popular" what matters is truth.
As is based on the evidence gathered. How the hell else are you supposed to find out the truth? This is science.
You start rambling on about high school popularity contests/cliques or something.
You fail to realize that in science, it's physical evidence that people use as a guide to try to find the truth. High school cliques are about popularity, and not a search for an accurate understanding of reality.
So, I'll just leave your statement here:
Man you sound like a click in high school.
Well, if popularity determines truth then things are much worse then we ever thought.
Where did I say that it did, please? For once in your life, could you stop twisting what I'm saying?
Thank God this country is not a democracy, the 'majority' might say to kill all Atheists. Wouldn't that be a shame and a huge mistake.
God, nor god belief had nothing to do with it. It's the Constitution and the deists that wrote it that you have to thank for the protection of minorities.
When christians ruled in the dark ages, you people DID go after non-believers.
About the first cause argument.
ReplyDeleteDan,
ReplyDeleteWhat we are reading is a great illustration of why I do not write all that much material about arrogant atheists. They *refuse* to accept evidence, use any excuse that can be found to dodge it, fling poo at it, outright lie about it (i.e., "Creationists are not scientists"). When I wrote about "Expelled", I took some heat by someone that *claimed* to have seen the movie; if he was steamed at Part 1 of my article, too bad he didn't stick around for Part 2, he would have been jumping up and down, screaming. I like to cause those reactions in the pretentious.
Atheists who are truly intellectually honest will examine the evidence and not just dismiss all of it out of hand. Now, if Billy Bob's Backwater Baptist Church, Theological Seminary and Gravel Quarry issued a statement, I wouldn't blame people for ignoring it. Since there are so many people with valid scientific credentials, it is disingenuous to dismiss all of the evidence out of hand.
Dan say:
ReplyDeleteAtheists indeed believe in miracles that this universe just "happened" exactly the, fined tuned, way it did.
Reynold already answered this nicely, but I'd just like to add this about fine tuning. As far as I understand it, there are basically four naturalistic explanations:
1) There is no fine tuning: that is, life is possible under a wider set of conditions than we think (Reynold's point above).
2) There are constraints on the values of the universal constants that make the set of values we have (or something close to it) the only possible one.
3) There are many universes, with different sets of constants
4) There is just one universe, and it just happens to have the right set of constants.
This last possibility, you might call it the "brute fact" hypothesis, seems to be exceedingly unlikely, supposing that there is no constraint on what values would be possible. This is Dan's point, and I have to agree, it seems incredibly hard to swallow: the unexplained ex nihilo existence of this incomprehensibly finely tuned and ordered Universe.
But look at what Dan & Co. want us to swallow: the unexplained ex nihilo existence of a God capable of creating such a Universe. If we have trouble explaining the appearance of order in the world, it's orders of magnitude more difficult to explain the appearance of a Being who can make such order. And no explanation is forthcoming: magic is invoked.
So instead of cleaning up the questions about ultimate origins, theists simply posit a carpet, sweep everything under it, and say "what problem?" But the questions remain unexplained, and a whole new set of even more complex problems about the origin of the carpet come up.
Forgot to send this snarky comment:
ReplyDeletecsdx,
>>As of yet we haven't seen the decay rate vary, so we should assume they're constant.
I am sure you don't buy into the bias, and very religious, group like NASA but they are at least looking into things with an open mind. Are you?
Dan: do you have a link for the entire article about Be and K decay rates? I don't have a subscription to get the whole thing.
ReplyDeleteI'd be very curious to read it, because the abstract doesn't support your position that radioactive dating can't be trusted:
We measured the electron-capture decay rate of Be implanted into hosts of graphite, boron nitride, tantalum, and gold. We have found that this decay rate varies by as much as 0.38% from one host to another. We also measured the electron-capture decay rate of 40K in four different chemical compounds and as both a solid and dissolved in solution. To within our measurement precision of /+/-1%, we have found no influence of the environment on the 40K decay rate. The implications of these results for the solar neutrino problem and for potassium/argon dating are discussed.
Now, I know that math isn't your strong point, Dan, but I want you to look at the variation in decay rate bolded above: 0.38%, that is, zero point three eight percent. Sorry, but you can't fit 4004 BC in there. If there were no other sources of error, this uncertainty could give you a reading off by a maximum of 74 years for a date of 20,000 years ago. This is not a serious source of uncertainty.
Of course, there are other sources of error, and this is just the abstract, but I don't think you've got the smoking gun here.
Zilch,
ReplyDelete>> If there were no other sources of error, this uncertainty could give you a reading off by a maximum of 74 years for a date of 20,000 years ago. This is not a serious source of uncertainty.
D'oh!, You're right but I just thought I would post it to show a counter to csdx's claim of " haven't seen the decay rate vary" even though slight it is a variance.
Plus I just noticed I spelled receive wrong also so...
D'oh!^2 If this were baseball, I would be in the minors. I suck.
Thanks.
Wow: two d'ohs from you in one post, Dan- quite humble of you. That's one reason I still want to do lunch with you someday.
ReplyDeleteYou are right- apparently, the decay rate of Be10 does vary. But two things, or "d'ohs" if you prefer.
One, you will have noticed that the decay rate varies in different hosts. This means that the variation can be accounted for (to whatever experimental accuracy is possible), and this correction can be incorporated in dating.
And two, as I already said, the variation doesn't amount to much. As I said, you can't squeeze 4004 B.C. into that variation, no matter how hard you try. So for the purposes of this issue, the decay rate of Be10 does not vary- not enough to make any difference.
By the way, Froggie, I had a brother who recently died (around Christmas 2 yrs ago). He was 64 (I'm the youngest of 3, at 50) and had Down Syndrome. He was taken to church, but he didn't really understand what was going on.
ReplyDeleteMy father died at 82 about 2 months later. The last few years of his life, he did not know me and did not even know who he was, either. My mother preceded everyone about 5 years earlier from a malignant glioma.
I am looking forward to that glorious hope in Christ when all of us will be not only reunited, but my brother will be perfect, my father will be in his right mind and my mother will be free of that tumor and the pain. Although I've been a believer for many years, now I have a more personal stake in the matter.
What hope do atheists have to offer? "Dude, we happened by chance, there are no moral absolutes, we are just animated meat and then we die. Your relatives are worm food."
I not only take my belief in the resurrection of Jesus through faith (a dimension of humans that atheists deny, but it's still a reality that you cannot change), but I also take it though reason as well.
zilch,
ReplyDeleteThree things.
First, I find it 'odd' when you are 'surprised' that I am able to be a man and admit my mistakes. Christians are real men too you know.
Second, I was not going to go into it further, but since you brought it up, I will further my display of ignorance on the subject.
Since the Be10 does have a variance, although slight and varied, it begs the question as to why?
In my brief home school, scary I know, I found that the chandler wobble and our proximity to the sun are indeed factors that effect the rate of decay. Which begs another question, what variance of decay rate does that have an effect, if any, on Carbon 14? I found the claim that the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,730 years with =/- 40 years but is that accurate? Does it depend on what month of the year is it, or what season, (e.g. temperature)?
Third, these measurements and variances are calculated in very small calculations. The slightest difference can be extrapolated incorrectly.
For example, you take two lines that are perfectly parallel to each other and you change the angle of one of the lines slightly, like by one millimeter. Visually you cannot see the difference between the two, but as the lines go into infinity (*cough billions of years) you notice the exponential difference. The gap (variance) is huge as you go further.
So that is my point, yes the variances are slight but extrapolated out to millions and billions of years that variance becomes exponentially larger.
So yes the variances are slight, but apparently there are variances to the variances. So that expounds the problem even more since these calculations are so vary small to begin with. How wide of a variance can be seen in carbon 14? That is the question that needs some data.
Would atheists ever question such a calculation as to radiometric dating? Nope, they take carbon 14 decay rate, the gospel truth, as a constant.
But these are the questions I would like to see answered, from a different perspective, other then the "there is no God" crowd. Because that crowd has already lost all creditability in my eyes because I have seen all the contrary evidence to that claim.