Evolutionists at it again ...

[rogue06]

The teller in this case being William Dembski, since it was his choice of word.

Most OECs that I'm familiar that use the term "universal" wrt the flood to make a distinction between it and a global flood.

[Carrikature]

Most OECs that I'm familiar that use the term "universal" wrt the flood to make a distinction between it and a global flood.

Nothing like using a bigger adjective to describe a smaller phenomenon.

[oxmixmudd]

You are a hard man to communicate with. I don't think that purpose, in the sense of some universal master plan, can be addressed by science at all. Perhaps I should have phrased the epiphany as "purpose is not NEEDED." Not that it doesn't exist.

The truth is you don't know THAT either. In fact, they are basically the same thing. Purpose is only not needed if there is no being that desires to give purpose. And if all things have a purpose as a consequence of God giving them a purpose, then a purpose is most definitely needed. The problem here is that you can't allow a 'foot in the door', to even postulate the existence of God and why some people might believe in a purpose in a way that respects that position is completely outside your capacity.

And by the way, what is it called when a person has no capacity to show respect for that which is not like Himself?

How do you know it wasn't the FSM? Again, neither one of these gods is required. They contribute nothing to any explanation or understanding.

Well, seeing as how I know that the FSM was invented by some atheist to ridicule belief in God, I can assess it's probability of somehow being a legitimate candidate for a God or gods at about 0, and certainly far less likely than any God or gods as taught be long standing religious systems that reflect the real beliefs of people over centuries. That is, I know it has no reason to be given any legitimate place in the 'possibility of a God or gods'. If I KNOW something was just made up by somebody else, I don't need to give it serious consideration. Now you would say you 'know' God is a made up concept. But the reality is, you don't know that at all. You only know that people believe in God. You assume they made God up because that is how you explain the fact so many believe in God coupled with your own assumption He is not real.

I agree with you, for the most part. You are recommending discussions that fall outside the purview of science, to consume science classtime. And in practice, in the real world, high school science is regarded as a missionary calling by YECs, who "allow the discussion to go foward" within a very clearly presented context. I read an estimate that as many as 20% of high school science teachers are creationists. So your abstract free-range discussioin is great in principle, and undermined in practice.

Actually, you are wrong on two fronts. First, I don't recommend we allow YEC discussion go forward in a class room as an exercise in academic Freedom. What I am pointing out is that if we resist bills that guarantee academic freedom because we are afraid someone will use that to justify a YEC discussion, then we are shooting ourselves in the foot. There are better ways to keep YEC out of the science classroom. The simplest being to simply point out that its concepts don't meet any reasonable definition of science and its proposed conclusions fail on all levels as science. As such it can't be taught as science. One doesn't need to address the issue of Academic Freedom at all. To require Science be taught in a science class is all that is required.

The second is this: To squash the normal curiosity of students in the classroom over topics slightly tangential to a topic is to squash learning in general. Most topics have ancillary connections to other topics. Exploring the connections is critical to learning. Science bumps up against religion all the time. Taking a little time every now and then to explore some of those intersections in an objective, unbiased fashion is GOOD for the students. And most of the heavy handed approaches to dealing with YEC evangelism in classrooms kill this kind of healthy discussion of the topic.

Golly, I wrote a post suggesting using the design process to illustrate and lead to a discussion of RM+NS, and to try to get past the teleology that is the enemy of science. And YOU see only intolerance, which you use to immediately smear me with Jorge-ism. How very TOLERANT of you!

I simply must point out that simply drawing attention to intolerance is not itself intolerance.

As for religion, it seems you are as tolerant of the FSM as I am of YOUR imaginary god. So why don't you just tuck that double standard back where it belongs and stick with the natural science?

The two are equivalent in your mind only, and a closed mind it is at that. We know somebody invented the FSM for the purpose of ridicule. We don't really understand (objectively/scientifically) where people's belief in a God comes from. But it is a very common thing for people to believe in God. And those beliefs are quite sincere and not the product of creative attempts at the ridicule of other peoples beliefs. And I identify quite closely with those people. I would not classify my belief in God as an invention but a response to my life's experiences. I sense the presence of God around me, I pray to Him and He answers. And this is not at all uncommon. It may not be YOUR experience, but it is not something just made up so I can make fun of somebody else.


Jim

[jordanriver]

Yet MORE embarrassment for the Evolutionists ... (folks, it's a never-ending saga)

This time from Nature .....................

"A slower molecular clock worked well to harmonize genetic and archaeological estimates for dates of key events in human evolution, such as migrations out of Africa and around the rest of the world. But calculations using the slow clock gave nonsensical results when extended further back in time — positing, for example, that the most recent common ancestor of apes and monkeys could have encountered dinosaurs."
"nonsensical results ..." ... "co-existing with dinosaurs" Bwahahahaha
Imagine that! I'll bet they had to change their underwear on those two.


"Reluctant to abandon the older numbers completely, ..."
"Reluctant to abandon ..." Please, say it isn't so!


"Last year, population geneticist David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, and his colleagues compared the genome of a 45,000-year-old human from Siberia with genomes of modern humans and came up with the lower mutation rate. Yet just before the Leipzig meeting, which Reich co-organized with Kay Prüfer of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, his team published a preprint article that calculated an intermediate mutation rate by looking at differences between paired stretches of chromosomes in modern individuals (which, like two separate individuals’ DNA, must ultimately trace back to a common ancestor). Reich is at a loss to explain the discrepancy. “The fact that the clock is so uncertain is very problematic for us,” he says. “It means that the dates we get out of genetics are really quite embarrassingly bad and uncertain.”"

http://www.nature.com/news/dna-mutat...to-set-1.17079

"... embarrassingly bad and uncertain" -- yeah, and then there are 'geniuses' that want
to stake their eternal destiny on promoting this "embarrassingly bad and uncertain" myth.

No wonder some people believe that they came from monkeys.

Jorge

good citation other J.
I like their insert, quoting the article for emphasis: "“The fact that the clock is so uncertain is very problematic for us.”

if a Bible apologist took that quote by itself, it would be called "quote mining" and 'out of context', but Nature noted the significance of that point.

[oxmixmudd]

Nothing like using a bigger adjective to describe a smaller phenomenon.

The use of the term Universal to differentiate from Global as regards the flood has a legitimate basis in the history of the discussion. You may as well be mocking the term 'Big Bang' or "Black Hole" in an equally ignorant fashion. Reminds me of how I have to watch how I pronounce "Uranus" when I'm doing a star party for 7th and 8th graders.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

good citation other J.
I like their insert, quoting the article for emphasis: "“The fact that the clock is so uncertain is very problematic for us.”

if a Bible apologist took that quote by itself, it would be called "quote mining" and 'out of context', but Nature noted the significance of that point.

No, it's a pretty screwed up post JR. The potential accuracy of a genetic clock has little to do with the strength of evolutionary theory.


Jim

[jordanriver]

No, it's a pretty screwed up post JR. The potential accuracy of a genetic clock has little to do with the strength of evolutionary theory.


Jim

the citations are good stuff.

but a slowed down molecular clock would push back the divergence wouldn't it.

maybe the Bible is wrong and apes and monkeys split before the world was created

[Carrikature]

The use of the term Universal to differentiate from Global as regards the flood has a legitimate basis in the history of the discussion. You may as well be mocking the term 'Big Bang' or "Black Hole" in an equally ignorant fashion. Reminds me of how I have to watch how I pronounce "Uranus" when I'm doing a star party for 7th and 8th graders.


Jim

On what grounds do you presume I'm unaware of the basis? I'm quite aware of it. In truth, that discussion is one of many attempts to maintain a semblance of legitimacy for certain stories whose underpinnings have been all but removed by scientific knowledge. It meets with some measure of success only in that it allows the scientifically disinterested/illiterate to push their claims into what they believe is unassailable territory. You can use whatever term you want to describe it, the reality hasn't changed.

[rogue06]

the citations are good stuff.

but a slowed down molecular clock would push back the divergence wouldn't it.

maybe the Bible is wrong and apes and monkeys split before the world was created

Perhaps it is an overly simplistic, woodenly literal interpretation of the Bible that is wrong and that it is far more ancient than you will allow for despite all of the evidence that an examination of God's creation reveals.

[oxmixmudd]

On what grounds do you presume I'm unaware of the basis? I'm quite aware of it. In truth, that discussion is one of many attempts to maintain a semblance of legitimacy for certain stories whose underpinnings have been all but removed by scientific knowledge. It meets with some measure of success only in that it allows the scientifically disinterested/illiterate to push their claims into what they believe is unassailable territory. You can use whatever term you want to describe it, the reality hasn't changed.

Always the attempt to paint the opponent as evil/sneaky whatever.

YEC side : "Atheists MUST have billions of years" (i.e. as if the evidence has nothing to do with it, as if they are forcing the data)
Non-theist : - what you said -

Do any of you that simply have to paint the other guys as villains have a clue how to try to understand there a GOOD people on both sides of these debates, with GOOD motives and HONEST character?


JIm

[Carrikature]

Always the attempt to paint the opponent as evil/sneaky whatever.

YEC side : "Atheists MUST have billions of years" (i.e. as if the evidence has nothing to do with it, as if they are forcing the data)
Non-theist : - what you said -

Do any of you that simply have to paint the other guys as villains have a clue how to try to understand there a GOOD people on both sides of these debates, with GOOD motives and HONEST character?


JIm

Jim, I think you should stop and check who you're talking to. I don't think the "other guys" are villains or anything like that. I've not said word one about them being evil/sneaky. I just don't think they care. It's a 'good enough' answer, and that's all they need. There's nothing dishonest about that, but it's not anything anyone should take seriously, either.

Regardless, "always the attempt" is about as far from the truth as you can get when talking to/about me. I'm the one whose mantra is "never mistake ignorance for malice". I'm the one who is often coming in against both sides in part because I often see the merit in both sides. Are you just to the point that you're inadvertently lumping all of us non-believers into one category? If so, you might seriously consider taking a break. You've missed the mark on this one.

[oxmixmudd]

Jim, I think you should stop and check who you're talking to. I don't think the "other guys" are villains or anything like that. I've not said word one about them being evil/sneaky. I just don't think they care. It's a 'good enough' answer, and that's all they need. There's nothing dishonest about that, but it's not anything anyone should take seriously, either.

Regardless, "always the attempt" is about as far from the truth as you can get when talking to/about me. I'm the one whose mantra is "never mistake ignorance for malice". I'm the one who is often coming in against both sides in part because I often see the merit in both sides. Are you just to the point that you're inadvertently lumping all of us non-believers into one category? If so, you might seriously consider taking a break. You've missed the mark on this one.

I was responding to the character of the area quoted - and I was thinking it seemed out of character for you. And I probably am tired of that kind of thing being a large part of the character of the posts from Phank and Jorge, but also boxing and perhaps some others.

Need a break? Probablu not. But your protest reminds me to be more careful.

Jim

[phank]

I was responding to the character of the area quoted - and I was thinking it seemed out of character for you. And I probably am tired of that kind of thing being a large part of the character of the posts from Phank and Jorge, but also boxing and perhaps some others.

Need a break? Probablu not. But your protest reminds me to be more careful.

Jim

Ah, it's Mr. Tolerance again. Just tired of people whose views differ from yours.

You are so freekin sensitive to what you see as insults to your imaginary god that you consistently toss the baby and attack the bathwater.

Clue: This is the natural science form. Gods play no role in natural science. If you wish to discuss the science, ignore the gods for once and discuss the science.

[Duragizer]

I killed a kitten today Jorge.

I suggest you read this religious tract. It changed my life -- I'm sure it'll change yours, too.

[Duragizer]

Ah, it's Mr. Tolerance again. Just tired of people whose views differ from yours.

You are so freekin sensitive to what you see as insults to your imaginary god that you consistently toss the baby and attack the bathwater.

Clue: This is the natural science form. Gods play no role in natural science. If you wish to discuss the science, ignore the gods for once and discuss the science.

Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning ...