35 comments to “Lion Feed – Cody’s Black Box”

1. Kahomono:
   25 July 2009, on 11:39 am

   This is almost too easy

   Here’s the deal, Cody.

   Random mutations give life just about every trait possible.
   Some of those mutations are beneficial (which means nothing more or less than creating a higher probability of reproduction).
   One beneficial mutation is increased ability to reason.

   Of course, it has been known to regress in a given specimen….

2. KA:
   25 July 2009, on 12:02 pm

   Oh, joy, another ‘hey, a transcendent value! It’s not physical, so GAWD!’
   This has been adequately shown to be completely dependent & spawned from a physical source (unless it can be demonstrated that this can exist independently of the human brain, or sourced from something intangible).

3. Jae:
   25 July 2009, on 1:27 pm

   To be perfectly frank I have no idea what Cody is on about. He doesn’t just show a complete lack of understand of various fields of science but a total inability to conceive what it is to be a human being.

   And does his brain secrete bile? Where does it come out from? His ears? Is it whispering lies to him? What is he on about??

   These Christians are hard work!!

4. Stardust:
   26 July 2009, on 10:17 am

   Cody writes:

   I understand that evolutionists have theories about how reason came to be used in the human brain, but I still struggle with the fact that when we reason, we appeal to something outside of us, which we call the laws of logic. It could be said that the laws of logic are simply the way our physical brains interact with the physical universe leading to “conclusions” that must be reached because of the way our universe functions, however that still leaves us to explain how the laws came to be without a lawgiver.

   Cody, just because you do not understand how the human brain and evolution works doesn’t mean there is a supernatural invisible being in another dimension controlling each and every one of our thoughts. This is the same “reasoning” many theists use for creation. You cannot grasp or understand how we all came to be and natural selection, so you just assume that a magical man controls everything. That’s just easier for some people than actually educating themselves.

   Why does Cody believe this? Because the Babble tells him so. . .

   Also, being someone who has come to believe in the Bible as the authoritative word of God, I read there that God made man in his image, with reasoning abilities given by Him.

   Then there is this little gem…

   I agree that we can’t trust our reason 100%, because we are not omniscient and we are fallen, however the Image of God is still in us and allows us to reason toward Him if we are willing to follow where reason leads us, and not harden our hearts in regard to the answers.

   So Cody agrees that we cannot trust our reason 100% because we are not omniscient, but still believes that his imaginary friend is in control of his own reasoning powers. If this were true, Cody, like I said…we would all have perfect reasoning, would we not?

   And you say we would reason “towards Him” if we are willing to follow where reason leads us and not “harden our hearts” in regards to the answers. It’s not a matter of “hardening our hearts”, it’s using our common sense and reasoning skills which we have learned via our own experience. cody is advocating and encouraging self-brainwashing instead of reason since we must just put aside what we think and just abide by an ancient mythology book written thousands of years ago by ignorant humans. To believe in an all-knowing, invisible Master of the Universe who lives in another dimension somewhere over the rainbow who is the divine puppetmaster of each and every human being past, present and future defies all reason and common sense.

5. Stardust:
   26 July 2009, on 10:38 am

   And this comment from Cody cracked me up:

   I agree that our physical brains are shown to think, however I believe that this is our immaterial mind interacting with the physical world through our physical bodies.

6. ChuckA:
   26 July 2009, on 12:58 pm

   ^ Cody’s “reasoning” reminds me, somewhat(?), of the “face/palm” style story regarding the famed Genome biologist, Francis S. Collins; who, as brilliant a Scientist that he’s purported to be, right after seeing a frozen waterfall, becomes…SPECIFICALLY…a Christian theist.
   That wouldn’t, of course, have anything whatsoever to do with heavy duty childhood brainwashing that the Bible, alone, is the unquestioned “Word” of the one, true, invisible…psycho-tyrannical, yet “oh-so-Loving”…”Big Bang(ing)” Gawd of the TOTAL Universe; and of course…
   Jeebus (Oh, THAT Jeebus!) is the…etcetera, etcetera!
   (cue Python image of instant genuflecting; whilst loudly exclaiming:
   “MY LIEGE!”)

7. Anthony D'Auria:
   26 July 2009, on 1:05 pm

   Some of us obviously have evolved the ability to reason,while others seem to either have lost this ability or just never evolved it. One only has to live long enough to realize that more than half of the people fit the latter category. Perhaps in the future we will discover a gene that is responsible and than the worlds reasoning problem will be resolved.

   It is also possible that we have all evolved a high level of reasoning but that the constant brain washing and illusionary religious thoughts have destroyed or inhibit this way of thinking.

8. Geoff:
   27 July 2009, on 4:24 am

   Reasons not to believe:

   I’m not saying that religion is to blame for this, but I’ve never heard of a non-theist saying, “Darwin told me to stab my baby, cut off it’s head and eat it’s limbs.” I guess my thought is if a crazy person is taught to interpret the voices in their head as divine messages instead of mental illness, that can lead to bad things:

   http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/breaking/6548023.html

9. stardust:
   30 July 2009, on 8:44 am

   Cody posted comments on my blog where I cross-posted this for all who are interested in his lame argument. Claiming a god is in charge of our reasoning without even a shred of evidence for the existence of his imaginary friend.

   He also found my book review of The God Delusion, here.

   Cody writes:

   I read a good portion but haven’t had a chance to pick it back up yet. I think that Dawkins is a great biologist but was completely out of his league in trying to discuss history, theology, and philosophy when he hadn’t a clue about these fields. He failed to do any of them justice.

   Also, his logic was just way off. Let me show you what I mean. On 157-158, he shares “the central argument” of his book. Here it is–

   “1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.

   2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.

   3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.

   4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.

   5. We don’t have an equivalent explanation for physics.

   6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.

   Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.”

   In points 1 and 2, he admits that the universe has the incredible appearance of design, which most human beings note. In 3 and 6, he makes his real counter-argument.

   Point 6 just says, “we have FAITH that we can prove God wrong if we just give these physics guys some more time.” This is hardly an argument. If a Christian said something like this in arguing for God, atheists would tear him apart.

   Point 3 is the only point that is even remotely valid. He states that the designer hypothesis doesn’t explain the universe very well because God would be even more complex than the universe and require and even bigger explanation (who designed the designer?). However, Dawkins shows his lack of philosophical and theological knowledge here. God is, by definition, the creator of the universe. He is also immaterial. If God creates ALL matter (which is held by time), then he exist both before time and matter. And because God exists before time, it would be senseless to refer to anyone “designing Him” because that would invoke the idea of cause and effect, which only makes sense in a time-based universe. Now, this doesn’t prove that God exists, but it does put a big hole in Dawkins objection. And if that is really the central argument of the whole book, I would personally struggle to see how anyone could be impressed with the book as a whole.

10. Cody (and his little black box):
    30 July 2009, on 3:47 pm

    Stardust– thanks for reposting this here. I appreciate you giving me an opportunity to share my thoughts and have them tested. However, I think you misunderstand me. First off, I did not say God controls our thoughts, but that without Him, humans could not possess rationality. There is a huge difference, and I would have hoped that I was being clear enough in my argument for it to be noticed.

    Secondly, you argued that I “cannot grasp or understand how we all came to be and natural selection, so [I] just assume that a magical man controls everything. That’s just easier for some people than actually educating themselves.” I think here you may be showing your ignorance of natural selection. Natural selection is a process by which pre-existing traits are passed on through breeding, the weaker traits disappearing because the animals which possess these weaker traits can no longer survive in their environment. I have absolutely no problem with this concept. I agree with it. What I am asking is for you guys to explain where rationality came from, not how smart people have smart kids who can reason better. Natural selection cannot create something completely new, like reasoning abilities. Even Dawkins knows this, and says so in point 5 of his “central argument” (which you reposted for me. Thanks!). We need a source for the complexity in this finely-tuned universe, and we need a lawgiver to explain the laws of physics as well as the laws of logic. It is on this point that no atheist has interacted with me on, and I think the reason why is clear– you guys don’t have any arguments (this last bit is also pertinent to Kahomono’s point).

11. Stardust:
    30 July 2009, on 6:08 pm

    thanks for reposting this here. I appreciate you giving me an opportunity to share my thoughts and have them tested

    One thing I find amusing about Christians is that they always have to have their faith “tested”.

    First off, I did not say God controls our thoughts, but that without Him, humans could not possess rationality.

    But that is the same thing as controlling out thoughts. Rationality comes from our thinking, our own minds and if you say that God is responsible for our ability to reason, then it would be logical to assume that you mean your god controls our thoughts.

    What I am asking is for you guys to explain where rationality came from, not how smart people have smart kids who can reason better.

    That is what we are answering, Cody. Ability to reason is a process of the human brain. It has nothing to do with an outside source.

    We need a source for the complexity in this finely-tuned universe, and we need a lawgiver to explain the laws of physics as well as the laws of logic.

    Why? Who says we need a source and lawgiver to explain the laws of physics?

    It is on this point that no atheist has interacted with me on, and I think the reason why is clear– you guys don’t have any arguments (this last bit is also pertinent to Kahomono’s point).

    We do have arguments Cody, and those arguments have been made on your very own website. You just choose to dismiss what you do not want to agree with …things that dispute or reject your god beliefs.

12. ChuckA:
    30 July 2009, on 7:40 pm

    Cody, IMO, seems to do what Christopher Hitchens describes as: “a tap dance between deism, theism, and wishful thinking”.
    On that point [By the way, I have absolutely NO interest in getting into another argument.
    (What!...cue Gershwin's "Summertime"?)]…
    check out this YouTube:
    “Hitchens: deism, theism, wishful thinking.”
    [length 8:05]
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPlMSkSXxz4

    Also…for anyone…Here’s, I think, a really excellent full “Google” talk by Hitchens, from 2007, when he first came out with “God is not Great”; which pretty much covers the whole ‘gambit’ RE the general atheist position.
    [Actually, it's one I recently stumbled on.]
    “AuthorsGoogle Christopher Hitchens”
    [length 1:07:42]
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD0B-X9LJjs

13. KA:
    30 July 2009, on 7:48 pm

    Natural selection is a process by which pre-existing traits are passed on through breeding, the weaker traits disappearing because the animals which possess these weaker traits can no longer survive in their environment. I have absolutely no problem with this concept. I agree with it. What I am asking is for you guys to explain where rationality came from, not how smart people have smart kids who can reason better.

    I think you need to re-read that entire section. You’ve just about single-handedly derailed your argument. It’s called compounded simplicity

    Natural selection cannot create something completely new, like reasoning abilities.

    Umm…wrong again. Eyeballs, wings, etc. If you grant that NS ‘exists’, then it is highly probable that evolution ‘created something new’. Albeit, since there is no god, everything evolved instead of being ‘created’.

    Even Dawkins knows this, and says so in point 5 of his “central argument”

    Ummm…no. #5 is “We don’t have an equivalent explanation for physics.”

    We need a source for the complexity in this finely-tuned universe, and we need a lawgiver to explain the laws of physics as well as the laws of logic.

    Says who? We don’t need no stinkin’ lawgeever!
    Seriously – says who? It’s a natural inclination to assume/imagine that there’s some invisible hand @ the rudder, but there really isn’t.
    In fact, I’d go as far as to say, that religion is a characteristic of children, who think the entire universe is a playground made for them.
    AAMOF, the only people who have explained the laws of logic & physics are people.

    It is on this point that no atheist has interacted with me on, and I think the reason why is clear– you guys don’t have any arguments

    Excuse me for 2 seconds:
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s pretty funny. My suggestion is that you
    A. Get out more, &
    B. Do some actual research prior to making a stupid claim like that. I’d suggest googling this up, instead of reading a few books by C. S Delusional & making a few blog posts.
    Lewis was a piss-poor philosopher, & few people take him seriously nowadays.

14. ChuckA:
    30 July 2009, on 7:59 pm

    ^^Addendum:
    Also…
    “Hitchens: the universe doesn’t need a designer.” [6:34]:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju3XzGjs4-U&feature=related

    [Check the recent comments, also. There are some interesting comments RE other 'non-deity' theories concerning the old question: "What caused the 'Big Bang' (or Big Crunch?).]

15. Cody (and his little black box):
    31 July 2009, on 12:10 am

    Stardust– I think you did a better job of interacting with my arguments in your last post. However, I still disagree with your points.
    You argued, “if you say that God is responsible for our ability to reason, then it would be logical to assume that you mean your god controls our thoughts.” I don’t see how this follows. If I give you a hammer, that doesn’t mean I will control how you use it. If God gave us reason as a tool to use, that doesn’t mean he will force us to use it one way or another.

    When I asked where rationality came from, you said, “Ability to reason is a process of the human brain. It has nothing to do with an outside source.” This has yet to be proven. I know that you wouldn’t argue that all creatures possess rationality from the beginning, so it does need a source of some kind. Most evolutionists would say it was created by some kind of mutation that was passed on, made stronger, and continued to mutate until brains were created and got to the level of sophistication that they are now. This is fanciful guesswork, but it is an answer. However, it still doesn’t account for reason itself. I’m not talking about just how humans got reason, but what reason actually is and where it came from.

    KA– I don’t see how natural selection could create something entirely new. It can only create variations within the genetic code. Even when we witness mutations occur, it is only a variation on material which already exists (and it is almost never, if ever, beneficial). I don’t see how evolution could create irreducibly complex features simply by mutation and natural selection. The bacterial flagellum has dozens of parts which are all needed in order for it to do its job. For natural selection to be the explanation for it, it would have to have created over 40 different parts all at once which worked together perfectly. These kinds of irreducibly complex organisms and organ systems abound. I recommend reading Michael Behe’s book “Darwin’s Black Box” to see more examples of these systems. Also, I think you misunderstood my use of Dawkin’s words in point 5. I was trying to point out that he believes natural selection took pre-created material and made variations. However, he acknowledges that there is no argument like evolution in physics which gives a good explanation for how everything came to be in the first place. This is what I meant by my use of his quote.

16. Stardust:
    31 July 2009, on 9:30 am

    Cody, as I have stated before, if you are going to put your god belief in the realm of Science, then you need to back up to the basis of your argument…that there is some magical being who gives us the ability to reason. Before you can even begin to discuss a magical being who is involved, this “Intelligent Designer” will need to be proven via Scientific Method…please answer the following which you keep choosing to ignore:

    What are ID’s scientific predictions?

    What are its unifying principles?

    What experiments have been done to support your ID theory? WITHOUT THE MYTHOLOGY BOOK.

    Most evolutionists would say it was created by some kind of mutation that was passed on, made stronger, and continued to mutate until brains were created and got to the level of sophistication that they are now. This is fanciful guesswork, but it is an answer.

    “Fanciful guesswork?” And your imaginary friend that you create in your own mind is a real explanation, despite you providing no evidence what-so-ever for your claim? Evolutionists base their answers on scientific experimentation, examination of the evidence that is the result of that experimentation. Testable, verifiable, and reproducible results. There is none of this where your imaginary “reason giver” is concerned, except in the confines of your own imagination and is based on pure faith. Faith in god and creationism is in the realm of Theology, not Science.

    Talk Origins.com provides many sources and Scientifically researched and proven information and links for evolution. It will take you quite awhile to read through all of it, so don’t come back in a matter of hours and attempt to dispute it when you haven’t even had time to read all of it and attempt to understand it. (As you tried to critique Dawkins’ God Delusion at my blog when you admitted you hadn’t even finished reading it…just cherry-picked some things you have been told to disagree with via your religious sect.) It seems that the material you are reading so far has been purely theist-influenced information and you are attempting to persuade us to read what you have read, even though most of us here have been Christians before and some of us for many years longer than you have been alive. We know both sides, and after years of careful examination and consideration, we reject the mythology of your beliefs.

    I’m not talking about just how humans got reason, but what reason actually is and where it came from.

    Now this is a contradictory statement if I ever saw one. You are saying that you are not talking about how humans “got reason” but then state that you want to know “where it came from”. (scratches head) You want to have a logical argument here when your argument is totally illogical.

17. KA:
    31 July 2009, on 10:35 am

    KA– I don’t see how natural selection could create something entirely new.

    Well obviously it had to.

    It can only create variations within the genetic code. Even when we witness mutations occur, it is only a variation on material which already exists (and it is almost never, if ever, beneficial).

    I suggest you read up on this:
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/03/a_straightforward_example_of_c.php
    Before you embarrass yourself further.

    I don’t see how evolution could create irreducibly complex features simply by mutation and natural selection.

    Your lack of imagination is not science’s problem.

    The bacterial flagellum has dozens of parts which are all needed in order for it to do its job. For natural selection to be the explanation for it, it would have to have created over 40 different parts all at once which worked together perfectly. These kinds of irreducibly complex organisms and organ systems abound. I recommend reading Michael Behe’s book “Darwin’s Black Box” to see more examples of these systems.

    Wow. Just…wow. Are you behind the times or what?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU – IC debunked.
    http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/02/irreducible_com.html
    & I reviewed it myself – http://biblioblography.blogspot.com/2006/10/irreducible-duplicity.html
    Behe’s pretty much a joke outside of ID circles, so appeals to his particular authority will raise nothing but a chorus of laughter anywhere else.

    Also, I think you misunderstood my use of Dawkin’s words in point 5. I was trying to point out that he believes natural selection took pre-created material and made variations.

    Wait – ‘pre-created’? What? Where does Dawkins use such a word? Or are you just sneaking in pre-loaded terminology? Dawkins is an atheist, doesn’t believe in a ‘creator’.

    However, he acknowledges that there is no argument like evolution in physics which gives a good explanation for how everything came to be in the first place.

    Still a far cry from a valid claim for the supernatural.
    Really – & you say we don’t have any arguments? Thus far you’ve trotted out all the hoary old chestnuts, but have provided nothing of worth nor originality.
    Epic fail.

18. KA:
    31 July 2009, on 10:51 am

    When I asked where rationality came from, you said, “Ability to reason is a process of the human brain. It has nothing to do with an outside source.” This has yet to be proven.

    I don’t think you understand the process here. My (& Star’s) point is that it doesn’t have an outside source. You claim it does. You also claim it’s supernatural. Ergo, as this is the extravagant claim, it falls to you to back it up.
    Please note, analogical arguments are not evidence. You’ll need to provide some sort of physical proof. None of us are impressed by semantical gymnastics (most believers are), so that’s not the way to go. (I might add, you’ve not proven to be too good @ them anyways.)
    The reason the supernatural is excluded from scientific research, is that it fails in the lab every time. If it collapses under analysis & scrutiny, then it’s not taken seriously.
    Kinda like ID.

19. Cody (and his little black box):
    31 July 2009, on 2:57 pm

    Stardust–
    ID implements scientific method–
    observation:Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI).
    hypothesis: Design theorists hypothesize that if objects were designed, they will contain CSI.
    experiment: They then seek to find CSI. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity (IC). ID researchers can then experimentally reverse-engineer biological structures to see if they are IC.
    conclusion: If they find them, they can conclude design. (source: ideacenter.org)

    Please Google Irreducible Complexity or at least watch the film “Unlocking the Mystery of Life” on youtube to understand how this is testable. Irreducible Complexity is a direct response to Darwin’s claim that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

    Ralph Seelke is one scientist who has done experiments relevant to ID. He has been monitoring e Coli evolution for 10 years, which is 20,000 generations, which would be comparable to 600,000 years of evolution. He has written and spoken about the results of this monitoring, and they don’t say much for evolution.

    There is also a difference between where reason came from and how we got it, if you believe that reason is something absolute that we just happen to use. I don’t think reason was non-existent before humans got a hold of it. If it was, then reason is hopelessly flawed, completely relative, and we can have no hope in communicating anything to anyone. This is what I’m asking– how did the laws of logic, which apply to the universe before we came along, get here?

20. Cody (and his little black box):
    31 July 2009, on 3:15 pm

    KA– the pharyngula post didn’t answer my argument. He pointed out that mutations are not always a loss of information, but pre-existing information moving around. So my argument, “it is only a variation on material which already exists,” has not been disproved. If you want to say that we can pull new data into our DNA from and outside source as some evolutionists have (which would be an overall gain of information), I would suggest that you back it up with experimentation.

    The Skeptico blog which “disproves” IC referred to a computer program created, which supposedly represents what could happen in the biological world. Not being a scientist (and not being more acquainted with the data), I can’t say too much about how close the experiment would be to the real thing. However, I can say that Ralph Seelke has done an actual biological experiment with 20,000 generations which has found nothing of the kind. I don’t see how a computer program using addition and memorization can tell us anything concrete about the real world. It’s interesting, and it could open doors for actual experimentation, but I don’t think it says anything by itself. The real world example Skeptico uses is laughable:
    “Of course, this argument has been debunked many times. For example, there are simpler versions of the eye on such animals as the flatworm. Clearly a primitive eye that could just tell the animal if it was in light or shadow, would be of benefit. This hasn’t stopped ID proponents and their “irreducibly complex” argument, though.”

    What? Are you kidding me? “Simpler creatures have simpler eyes. Complex creatures have complex eyes. And since we KNOW that evolution happened, we know that simple eyes evolved into complex eyes.” This is the most ridiculous circular reasoning I have ever come across. They assume their own question. They can’t even begin to be neutral and then follow the data. Simple eyes are irreducibly complex, somewhat complex eyes are irreducibly complex, and very complex eyes are also irreducibly complex. How can you show that one evolved into another? YOU CAN’T! You just hold onto it by blind faith. I can’t even call this semantical gymnastics because it’s so mind-numbingly stupid (Sorry– I’m not trying to be offensive but that was just so horrible).

21. Stardust:
    31 July 2009, on 3:53 pm

    Overall, Cody you did a poor job in answering my questions while beating around the bush and going off on another tangent. I asked you to answer the following:

    What are ID’s scientific predictions?

    What are its unifying principles?

    What experiments have been done to support your ID theory? WITHOUT THE MYTHOLOGY BOOK.

    And then you give me one little example…and “IF” answer. Not what has been found, what are the unifying principles, what experiments have been done to support ID theory. Then you throw out another theist-influenced book for us to read.

    ID implements scientific method–
    observation:Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI).

    You have not shown any evidence of what has been observed. What are these “intelligent agents”? What do they look like?

    hypothesis: Design theorists hypothesize that if objects were designed, they will contain CSI.
    experiment: They then seek to find CSI. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity (IC). ID researchers can then experimentally reverse-engineer biological structures to see if they are IC.

    What are these experiments and who has done these experiments? What evidence have these experiments provided?

    conclusion: If they find them, they can conclude design. (source: ideacenter.org)

    There is that word IF…not what HAS been found.

    There is also a difference between where reason came from and how we got it, if you believe that reason is something absolute that we just happen to use.

    Reason comes from our BRAINS, Cody. I am losing patience because you are refusing to accept what we are telling you. It is not something outside of ourselves. It is a process, just like survival instincts, how we know how to find food, how we know how to seek shelter from the cold or storms, etc. Reason cannot exist if humans do not exist.

    I don’t think reason was non-existent before humans got a hold of it.

    This statement almost made me choke on my coffee…too funny! “Before humans got a a hold of it.” LMAO! Cody, babies cannot reason…reason is something that develops as the human child grows into adulthood, just as it learns how to speak, to walk, and take care of himself or herself. The child learns to think and reason as it develops…some develop that ability better than others.

    If it was, then reason is hopelessly flawed,

    Which it is in many cases…and all too often amongst the fundie Xians and other god believers of the world.

    how did the laws of logic, which apply to the universe before we came along, get here?

    It takes human thinking to acknowledge the “laws of logic”. Laws of logic apply only to human reasoning, and is one of the things that make us human.

    He has written and spoken about the results of this monitoring, and they don’t say much for evolution.

    What exactly did the results of the monitoring say, then? Sources? What about all the other experiments and the fossil record, etc that have been accumulated by scientists over the past couple hundred years or more? Are you going to totally disregard that evidence?

22. KA:
    31 July 2009, on 4:14 pm

    KA– the pharyngula post didn’t answer my argument. He pointed out that mutations are not always a loss of information, but pre-existing information moving around.

    No, it specifically addresses your claim that mutations are never beneficial. Way to squirm out – again.

    So my argument, “it is only a variation on material which already exists,” has not been disproved. If you want to say that we can pull new data into our DNA from and outside source as some evolutionists have (which would be an overall gain of information), I would suggest that you back it up with experimentation.

    Hey, I’m not the clown who came here unprepared w/o doing his homework. That’d be you. So, no, onus is still on you to prove the supernatural.

    This is the most ridiculous circular reasoning I have ever come across. They assume their own question. They can’t even begin to be neutral and then follow the data.

    2 seconds here:
    HAHAHAHAHAHA! Jeez, you’re an idiot. That’s HOW IT WORKS. Looking around @ nature, EVERYTHING GOES FROM SIMPLE TO COMPLEX.

    Simple eyes are irreducibly complex, somewhat complex eyes are irreducibly complex, and very complex eyes are also irreducibly complex.

    Coming from the moron who protests about circular reasoning. ‘Everything is complex, nothing is simple! Therefore, there is no simple!’

    How can you show that one evolved into another? YOU CAN’T! You just hold onto it by blind faith. I can’t even call this semantical gymnastics because it’s so mind-numbingly stupid.

    Let’s see, Cody the assclown has lost his street cred.
    Seriously, these ridiculous arguments have been trotted out thousands of times. They’ve been debunked each & every time.
    Logical fallacies:
    Appeal to authority
    Tu quoque
    Moving goalposts

    I don’t think reason was non-existent before humans got a hold of it.

    The only fact in that statement is ‘I don’t think’. ‘Reason’ isn’t a concrete, it’s an abstract interpretation of the world around us. Flawed analogy.

    If it was, then reason is hopelessly flawed, completely relative, and we can have no hope in communicating anything to anyone.

    Falling back on C. S. Delusional again, eh? Humanity is flawed, but not ‘hopelessly’. You keep inserting absolutes where none are necessary.

    This is what I’m asking– how did the laws of logic, which apply to the universe before we came along, get here?

    I’d suggest some real philosophy courses in a real college or university. Your personification issues affect your ability to think. This is an argument from ignorance. The ‘laws of logic’ are part of a labeling structure that enables us to interpret the world around us. Again, analogical arguments aren’t demonstrative proofs.
    & YOUR analogical arguments are, to coin a phrase, ‘hopelessly flawed’.

23. KA:
    31 July 2009, on 4:28 pm

    More reading for Cody the Clown:
    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html
    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/reppert.html
    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/design.html
    Do come back when you’ve ‘objectively’ examined BOTH sides of the issue(s).

24. Steve in MI:
    31 July 2009, on 6:05 pm

    Clearly I’m late to this discussion, but a couple of items just popped out at me.

    The atheist might respond to this argument (as Richard Dawkins did in a recent discussion with John Lennox) by saying that reason would be the perfect thing for evolution to create in animals because it would help them to respond to their surroundings and thus live long and reproduce. Of course, this is beside the point because evolution cannot think to give any creature anything! [emphasis mine]

    If you say that “evolution cannot think to give any creature anything”, you’re implying that a force of nature must be able to think before it would be able to “give any creature anything”. This is easily disproven with a sharp rock. A sharp rock on a path can give a tetrapod a nasty cut on the animal’s foot, without ever thinking about it. One can easily imagine many other examples which demonstrate that thinking is not necessary for imparting. Thinking *is* a prerequisite to “imparting with intent”, but the whole point of evolution by natural selection is that traits are imparted without intent.

    If only the material world exists, we would not be able to trust our own thoughts, which are simply chemical reactions much like how our livers secrete bile. Why would we not, after all, trust the bile instead of the “thoughts” which our brains seem to secrete?

    I’m not sure I understand why a supernatural agent would be necessary in order for thoughts to be trustworth. I trust my pocket calculator (or, for that matter, an abacus) to be able to take simple inputs and reliably calculate sums; that doesn’t tell me whether the calculator was built in a world with or without a god.
    Cody also implies (but doesn’t dwell on) the old canard that suggests information cannot be “created” without a supernatural creator. This is the viewpoint that suggests that genetic material starts with a “designed” set of information which can be altered or can decay, but to which new “information” cannot be added. This bit of foolishness doesn’t make it past the trunk of the tree in my front yard. A core sample of the tree trunk would reveal a pattern of growth rings. Those rings would record data about the conditions and climate in which the tree has grown, and the number of seasons for which it has been growing. This information was “created” by virtue of the natural conditions in which the tree has grown; without supernatural intervention, it has been recorded and can be retrieved and used. See ice cores or any branch of geology for other examples which flatly disprove the idea that entropy is the only force that can act upon a naturally occurring information store without direct divine intervention.
    Cody, I’ll echo what others have said here: if you don’t understand how reason came to be, that’s not evidence of a miracle; it’s an indication that you need to learn more about neurology, genetics, and developmental psychology.

25. Steve in MI:
    31 July 2009, on 6:52 pm

    Oh, and Cody, your “scientific method” presentation is poisoned from the start with an elementary deductive fallacy:

    Cody (and his little black box) 31 July 2009, on 2:57 pm
    ID implements scientific method–
    observation:Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI).
    hypothesis: Design theorists hypothesize that if objects were designed, they will contain CSI.
    experiment: They then seek to find CSI. [...]
    conclusion: If they find them, they can conclude design. (source: ideacenter.org).

    Using this same logic, I will proceed with some science of my own.
    OBSERVATION: Pommic design theory begins with the observation that apples contain seeds.
    HYPOTHESIS: If objects are apples, they will contain seeds.
    EXPERIMENT: Seek to find objects containing seeds.
    CONCLUSION: If I find objects with seeds, they are obviously apples.

    This is the point at which I throw a virtual orange at you. Your premise fails as soundly as your supporting arguments do. Stay in school, kid.

26. Stardust:
    31 July 2009, on 7:41 pm

    Stay in school, kid.

    Unless he is going to one of the Christian “colleges”…if that is where he is going he should get out now and go to a real school.

27. Cody (and his little black box):
    1 August 2009, on 2:58 am

    Stardust– the “if” in the conclusion is placed there to show how the hypothesis could be tested, not what the actual results are. After actual observation, we can be sure this is no “if.” There are irreducibly complex systems, and evolution cannot provide an answer for how they can exist.

    I want to elaborate more on what Seelke found. Here is part of my original statement with some added information:

    Ralph Seelke is one scientist who has done experiments relevant to ID. He has been monitoring e Coli evolution for 10 years, which is 20,000 generations, which would be comparable to 600,000 years of evolution. He has written and spoken about the results of this monitoring, and they don’t say much for evolution. He has shown that mutations which can be helpful in an environment does occur, but only in small steps. In other words, if an adaptation necessary for a bacteria to live requires multiple steps, the e coli simply cannot do it.

    “A requirement for two mutations for evolution to occur remains an evolution-stopper.
    Even when a single mutation (in theory) results in a fitness advantage, other mutations may place it on a fitness peak that precludes further evolution.” From the powerpoint “What Can Evolution Really Do Pt. III” on http://www2.uwsuper.edu/rseelke/index.htm

    In the following paper, Seelke responds to one of his critics:
    http://www.discovery.org/a/9951

    I also recommend downloading his interview on “Darwin Or Design?” You can search for it on iTunes. He explains in more detail how his experiments worked.

    While this is not the last word on the subject, Seelke is engaged in research that is important and could tell us a lot about evolution in real observable life, instead of the evolution based on speculation which is where we get most of our data on evolution from. His research has shown that evolution cannot do two things at once. That being said, how could it possibly acquire the 40+ steps needed in making a bacterial flagellum in one generation? Remember, if it can’t do it all at once, the whole system won’t work. This is the very definition of irreducible complexity.

    KA- I don’t see how the article did prove my statement wrong that they are “almost never” (I didn’t say never, though I did suggest it was possible) beneficial mutations. However, I will give you that there are mutations which are beneficial, although they carry with them their own new difficulties. I don’t know if this is true in every case, but I am aware that mutations which benefit an organism during a time of crisis are often detrimental once the crisis is over and the mutated organisms usually die off to be replaced by the pre-mutated organisms. Anyway, I was being too hyperbolic in my statement. Yes, we have observed positive mutations.

    Does the fact that I can admit my mistakes show you that I’m not just trying to be closed-minded and spit out nonsense? I sincerely am trying to think these issues through and keep an open mind. I hope that most of you are picking up on this (of course, I have more hope that the Bengals will win the Superbowl than that Stardust would be open-minded toward me). Also, I did read some of Carrier’s analysis on Reppert before I wrote the above posted blog entry. He made some interesting points, however I still felt that the argument had enough to offer that I was willing to post it. It has generated some good thought-provoking dialogue (I got some very fair and intelligent, though disagreeing, feedback from Tom and Cole, especially), but I think a lot of it so far has been a little childish.

28. Stardust:
    1 August 2009, on 9:51 am

    Cody, the reason we are not responding to your arguments or that we seem “childish” is because we find your thinking, or lack thereof quite frustrating. When we teachers get students like yourself who come along who reject the facts in favor or superstition, it does get very frustrating for those of us who are trying to have a discussion with you. Your argument is indeed, quite “childish”, and therefore what kind of response do you think you are going to get when you total reject proven science and try to prove that PROVEN SCIENCE is not true. Being open-minded goes both ways, Cody, and I have told you that I was a Christian for more than three decades but I opened my mind to new ideas and pushed aside the mythology and fantasy in favor of reality and reason (which I get from my own brain and experiences, btw).

    I don’t have the time to teach a whole class to you on the subject of evolution. You must do your own research and read for yourself, and not just the theist-based crap that you are filling your brain with.

    Here is a short proof of evolution which Ian Johnston of Malaspina University-College in British Columbia summarizes so well…and also points out the evidences for evolution which most people in the western world accepts based on the research and evidence which proves evolution to be a fact.
    
    The Short Proof of Evolution

    Since you don’t like clicking on links, I will paste it all here for you to read…and do please read it, Cody.

    We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)–the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.

    Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).

    The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

    The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

    The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

    Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation and all known scientific processes as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.

    To make the claim for the scientific truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation. That scientific certainty makes the widespread rejection of evolution in our modern age something of a puzzle (but that’s a subject for another essay). In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance.

29. Stardust:
    1 August 2009, on 5:27 pm

    Ralph Seelke is one scientist who has done experiments relevant to ID. ..blah, blah blah…”

    Ralph Seelke is NOT a scientist, but is a creationist idiot associated with the Discovery Institute and co-author of the dumbass ID textbook, Explore Evolution, and he is one who would love to see cretinism taught side-by side in public schools. The Texas Board of Education named six people to be on a committee to review science curriculum standards and Seelke is one of the three ignorant ideologues (to quote PZ Myers) who are part of those six.

    Two of the nominated individuals, Stephen Meyer and Ralph Seelke, are out-of-state IDC promoters who are co-authors of the Discovery Institute’s anti-evolution textbook Explore Evolution. This supplemental textbook promotes Intelligent Design Creationism by falsely misrepresenting the accuracy and reliability of modern evolutionary science. Explore Evolution was written in a way that removes any mention of Creationism or Intelligent Design to make it appear to be a secular, nonreligious evolution text, but its underlying message of antipathy to modern biology and rejection of evolutionary science is not hard to find on almost every page by individuals with scientific knowledge. Since the book was written to be used in secondary public schools as a purportedly secular textbook, it could potentially be purchased by the Texas Education Agency as a supplemental biology text when they are reviewed for adoption in 2011. This situation creates a tremendous financial conflict of interest for the two co-authors and disqualifies them to serve on any panel that will review science standards (although the two will probably claim that they will not receive royalties). The fact that two of the nominees are from out-of-state is unprecedented when Texas has hundreds of highly-qualified professional scientists who could have served on the review panel.

    Ralph Seelke is a professor of biology at the University of Wisconsin-Superior and is a well-known and active Scientific Creationist. His official university website includes the disclaimer, “The contents of these pages do not necessarily reflect the views of UW-Superior and are not officially endorsed by the university.” That is a good thing, because all the posted writings except for course materials are anti-evolutionist and Intelligent Design Creationist essays. Seelke’s testimony to the Michigan House of Representatives published on the Discovery Institute website ostensibly promotes critical thinking but in reality denigrates evolutionary biology and promotes IDC. In this, he writes that there is “evidence that goes against the theory [of evolution],” and, among many other inaccuracies, he seriously distorts several facts about fossils in the Cambrian when he repeats a common ignorant and duplicitous Creationist argument. He and Meyer both testified in May, 2005, in favor of the anti-evolutionist science standards adopted by the Kansas State Board of Education. His paper Origin of Life is a critique of modern evolutionary biology. He actually was allowed to present a seminar course at his university on the Evidence for Design in Nature. Although a scientist and a university professor, Seelke’s obvious pseudoscientific bias and financial conflict of interest disqualify him to serve on the professional review panel.

    The most critical item to note here is that Meyer in Texas (2003) and Kansas (2005) and Seelke in Kansas (2005) and Michigan (2006) have both attempted to undermine accurate and reliable science standards or textbook content in those states, in neither of which are they a citizen. These two make a practice of travelling to other states to testify and agitate on behalf of the Discovery Institute’s effort to damage science education in public schools. This appalling and destructive activity should be condemned, not encouraged and facilitated as some members of the Texas SBOE are doing.

    So Cody, do you have any experiments and evidence via CREDIBLE scientific sources?

30. KA:
    1 August 2009, on 9:09 pm

    Cody:

    Does the fact that I can admit my mistakes show you that I’m not just trying to be closed-minded and spit out nonsense?

    Way-ell, that’s been 1 mistake out of many.

    I sincerely am trying to think these issues through and keep an open mind.

    As evidenced by the ‘black box’ in your blog name? (Influenced by Behe’s book, no doubt.)

    He made some interesting points, however I still felt that the argument had enough to offer that I was willing to post it.

    Well, no, it lacks some serious content. Reminiscent of Lewis’ constantly foolish claim of not trusting ir/nonrational sources, etc.

    It has generated some good thought-provoking dialogue (I got some very fair and intelligent, though disagreeing, feedback from Tom and Cole, especially), but I think a lot of it so far has been a little childish.

    Dude, you tried to reify reason. You also stipulated circular reasoning by claiming that complex comes from complex (bypassing simple & semi-complex altogether). ‘Irreducible complexity’ is a sham in every circle except creationism. You also stipulate that information can only come from info (more circularity) which then extends into special pleading, because everything needs a cause, but everything needs a beginning, so info had to begin w/a…drum roll please…an uncaused cause. Aquinas was a hack, & this is bad philosophy & not even close to good science.
    So pardon me if I’ve been less than kind – you may very well be a wonderful person, but you are possessed of some serious stinkin’ thinkin’.

31. Cody (and his little black box):
    2 August 2009, on 11:33 pm

    Stardust– I read the passage, and am again puzzled by your confidence. In Christian apologetics, we have people called presuppositionalists (like Answers in Genesis) which assert that only Christianity could possibly true, and will always start from that perspective, believing that neutrality would be like admitting defeat. I am starting to believe that there are atheist presuppositionalists.

    Despite your low opinion of my knowledge of what evolution purports to be, I can’t say that I found anything new there. One thing I did find interesting was that they rejected equating evolution with natural selection and didn’t explain why. I suppose it’s because evolution also depends on mutations, and many scientists who have been disappointed with the fact that there are a wealth of fossils, yet no evidence of any transitional fossils (fossils that show the evolution from one species to another), have resorted to ideas like punctuated equilibrium– the idea that in a small separated colony of a species, rapid evolution (think Transformers) took place which left behind absolutely no fossil evidence. So while I won’t deny that the fossil record shows a transition from simple to complex without any absolutely confirmed examples of, say, humans in the cretaceous period (which represents a problem to young earth creations, though not old earth ones), it is also a fact that there are no transitional fossils which would offer real concrete proof for evolution, a problem which Darwin acknowledged but which has not been alleviated since his day:
    “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory” (Darwin, Origin of Species). Both positions have some pretty major flaws. I understand why you believe evolution is a very good explanation of the evidence, but your absolute fundamentalist confidence is a little much.

    After disrobing Seelke of his credentials (he is a Ph. D biology professor at a secular college who is engaged in scientific experiments), you asked for “credible” evidence. First of all, what gives you the right to disrobe someone of their deserved credentials just because you disagree with their perspective? I would expect more from someone who is an educator in this field (and I suspect one who has less education than Seelke). You speak of crusades and inquisitions, but you are engaging in a modern day crusade when you discount the opinions of more learned people than yourself because they disagree with your fundamentalist beliefs. And of course he believes in intelligent design! You ask me if there are any experiments done in support of intelligent design, and I give you one. How can you be shocked that the scientist believes in intelligent design when he’s doing experiments in support of it? When you tell me to find an experiment done in the name of intelligent design and then tell me that intelligent design advocates can’t be behind it, you show me that there is no amount of evidence which could change your mind– you are too set in your ways.

    KA– I think you misunderstood my use of the word “complex.” I was pointing out that even more simply eyes are IRREDUCIBLY complex, though they are not “complex” in relation to more complicated eyes (such as humans).

32. Stardust:
    3 August 2009, on 10:17 am

    I read the passage, and am again puzzled by your confidence.

    Well, there is A LOT more evidence in Science’s corner than in your superstitious theological one. All you have to go on are ideas, and you gave me an example of ONE pseudoscientist who did an lame “experiment” that no other real and credible scientist gives any attention to. I find it puzzling why you find it puzzling that I do not believe in a supernatural sky daddy for which there is zero evidence for. It would be the same thing as believing in pink unicorns, fairies, Zeus, Isis and all those things even yourself rejects. Are you saying then that you are “open-minded” about the existence of leprechauns, for example?

    I find it puzzling and exasperating why you reject hundreds and hundreds of years of research and EVIDENCE of an accepted and proven science and choose the faulty and simplistic “goddidit” reasoning.

    Despite your low opinion of my knowledge of what evolution purports to be, I can’t say that I found anything new there.

    Well then, you must not be reading anything about it, or at least not comprehending it. The links I have you here and elsewhere provide long, long lists of evidence and evolutionary facts.

    One thing I did find interesting was that they rejected equating evolution with natural selection and didn’t explain why.

    Again, you did not read the other links provided before, like Talk Origins.com. And the site I recommended at my blog, PBS on Evolution, and then there is the Understanding Evolution site, and that link is now on our main page at top underneath GifS information. That site is an excellent site full of resources and information from the University of California at Berkley and work in conjunction with the National Science Foundation.

    I suppose it’s because evolution also depends on mutations, and many scientists who have been disappointed with the fact that there are a wealth of fossils, yet no evidence of any transitional fossil

    Wrong, that is a false claim made by the idiots at the Discovery Institute and those people should be locked up because it’s criminal to “teach” false information and doing young people a disservice by feeding them false and unproven information and trying to pass off theology as science when they are two totally different subjects.

    There has been plenty of evidence of any transitional fossils. There have been stories recently in the news as recent as a couple of months ago.

    Talk Origins.com, which I had pointed you to several times now, has a great explanation about transitional fossils and even breaks it down to various species of animals. It even explains why “gaps” exist. This site does a great job of presenting both sides, but the evidence is overwhelming on the side of evolution and science.

    Here is a site which provides a list and explanation of transitional fossils and lists them…there is also a “virtual fossil museum” which you can take a tour of. Transitional Fossils and Evolution
    

    The term “missing link” is a popular slang term for such transitional forms, but is misleading. The term is particularly used in popular media, but is inaccurate and confusing, partly because it implies that there exists a single undiscovered fossil that is needed to confirm the transition. In contrast, the continual discovery of more and more transitional fossils is further refining and validating evolutionary transitions. Transitional fossils are numerous and varied throughout the tree of life, including those between primates and early humans, contrary to the claims of creationists who deny evolution.

    Evolutionary theory considers all populations of organisms to be in transition, whether changes be slow, as in genetic drift, or fast, as when a changing environment imposes significant adaptive pressures. A transitional form of life is one that demonstably illustrates a particular intermediate evolutionary stage of change or adaptation.

    Transitional fossils usually coexist with gaps in a sequence in the fossil record. The probabilities of fossilization pretty much precludes the discovery of detailed sequences of fossils spanning millions of years. However, fine gradations of fossils between species and genera are abundant in the fossil record, as are coarser sequences between higher taxa.

33. KA:
    3 August 2009, on 10:44 am

    suppose it’s because evolution also depends on mutations, and many scientists who have been disappointed with the fact that there are a wealth of fossils, yet no evidence of any transitional fossils (fossils that show the evolution from one species to another), have resorted to ideas like punctuated equilibrium– the idea that in a small separated colony of a species, rapid evolution (think Transformers) took place which left behind absolutely no fossil evidence. So while I won’t deny that the fossil record shows a transition from simple to complex without any absolutely confirmed examples of, say, humans in the cretaceous period (which represents a problem to young earth creations, though not old earth ones), it is also a fact that there are no transitional fossils which would offer real concrete proof for evolution, a problem which Darwin acknowledged but which has not been alleviated since his day:

    Again, this is absolutely incorrect:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.html
    The pre-cambrian era renders a lot of fossils.

    So while I won’t deny that the fossil record shows a transition from simple to complex without any absolutely confirmed examples of, say, humans in the cretaceous period (which represents a problem to young earth creations, though not old earth ones), it is also a fact that there are no transitional fossils which would offer real concrete proof for evolution, a problem which Darwin acknowledged but which has not been alleviated since his day:

    Uh – wrong again. You want people to treat you equally, but you keep blatting wrong information.
    Here’s a list: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

    I was pointing out that even more simply eyes are IRREDUCIBLY complex, though they are not “complex” in relation to more complicated eyes (such as humans).

    More lameness:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Eye
    Even Behe doesn’t use the eye as an example anymore.
    Really, update your info.

34. Stardust:
    3 August 2009, on 10:46 am

    After disrobing Seelke of his credentials (he is a Ph. D biology professor at a secular college who is engaged in scientific experiments), you asked for “credible” evidence. First of all, what gives you the right to disrobe someone of their deserved credentials just because you disagree with their perspective?

    He may be a biology “professor” at a secular college, but he is far from being secular and neutral in his presentation of science as he should be when teaching. He is recognized by most of the rational world to be a religious “nut” attempting to push his religious agenda.

    How can you be shocked that the scientist believes in intelligent design when he’s doing experiments in support of it?

    And he and other creationists have found zero evidence so far in support of this “intelligent designer”. All you have provided are “ifs” and your “faith” that there is some great cosmic designer. His experiments so far have been fruitless.

    When you tell me to find an experiment done in the name of intelligent design and then tell me that intelligent design advocates can’t be behind it, you show me that there is no amount of evidence which could change your mind– you are too set in your ways.

    But my point is that this “experiment” has proven nothing at all either way. I am not going to get into a little verbal flame war here of who is more open-minded than who. I am presenting links to evidence for which you are rejecting. I am asking you to provide proof of this intelligent designer that you claim made us, is the “keeper of reason” outside of ourselves, and you have provided not one shred of evidence which proves your claims.

35. Stardust:
    3 August 2009, on 11:53 am

    To add to above, Seelke’s inference to design is not scientific, it’s philosophical since it’s an argument by analogy and is not testable.

    I also have an ongoing interest in Christian apologetics, which sometimes overlaps my professional career. I am convinced that Christianity is not only true, but that it is perhaps the only way of viewing the world that allows you to have both meaning and rationality in life. ~ Ralph Seelke