The first post in this series can be found here:
In part 2, I had planned to discuss why I think the rules aren’t having the desired effects. I still plan to do that. However, in gathering my thoughts, it occurred to me that no one (to my knowledge) has ever made explicit the rationale behind the Guanoing of comments. I think the topic is worthy of an OP of its own.
This is all Darwinian evolution really says in the end.
In the topic of morality, Allan, Neil, Lizzie and others use the same old con of claiming that morality is not accidents, its….and then they just trail off into a non-answer. I find this a very frustrating and telling habit of the materialist.
There is no “other” thing there. Unless you want to include an intelligence, or a destiny into the theory (which destroys the theory of materialism) you aren’t left with another aspect to why things are. You have accidents, that somehow formed a durable combination. Its such a dishonest aspect of materialism that when its not convenient they don’t want to admit this part. But in not admitting it, they struggle with saying anything to counter it. They can use words like emergence, or nature did it, but that’s meaningless. The materialist theory is that it is simply accidents that breed well.
Every time a materialist tries to claim there is more to it than that, when they need to have a stronger arguing basis, don’t be fooled by the dodge. That is all they have. Accidents. Sorry, to force them to accept their own reality.
Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, raised eyebrows several days ago by admitting that the Paris attacks had caused him to doubt God’s presence:
Interviewer:
Do you ever doubt?
Welby:
Oh, gosh, yes. Yes!
Interviewer:
Does something like this happening ever put a chink in your armour?
Welby:
Saturday morning I was out, and as I was walking I was praying and saying “God, why is this happening? Where are you in all this?” and then engaging and talking to God. Yes, I doubt.
And for those who don’t celebrate this particular holiday, happy November 26th, happy-almost December, happy almost-solstice, and/or happy whatever makes you happy — which I trust is something humane both for theists and non-theists among us).
Catch ya on the flip side.
Barry Sez:
Having studied Darwinism for over 20 years, I can tell you what it posits. Therefore, when I attack it, I am attacking the actual thing, not some distortion of the thing that exists nowhere but my own mind.
And
Good grief Zach do you have no shame? Do you seriously believe you can get away with saying that Darwin believed stasis is more typical than change and not his own words when he wrote infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species [are] required on the theory.
Darwin sez:
It is a more important consideration, clearly leading to the same result, as lately insisted on by Dr. Falconer, namely, that the periods during which species have been undergoing modification, though very long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which these same species remained without undergoing any change. We may infer that this has been the case, from there being no inherent tendency in organic beings to become modified or to progress in structure, and from all modifications depending, firstly on long-continued variability, and secondly on changes in the physical conditions of life, or on changes in the habits and structure of competing species, or on the immigration of new forms; and such contingencies will supervene in most cases only after long intervals of time and at a slow rate. These changes, moreover, in the organic and inorganic conditions of life will affect only a limited number of the inhabitants of any one area or country.
Darwin, Origin of Species, 1866. p. 359
Source
20 years of study, and nothing learned. Pathetic.
https://i2.wp.com/imgs.xkcd.com/comics/dna.png
At Uncommon Descent, a News posting by Denyse O’Leary shows us a video by Jonathan McLatchie. News then expects “Darwin faithful” to “create a distraction below”.
McLatchie defines Specified Complexity as information that matches a predefined pattern, such as specific protein folds needed to have a particular function. His video is in a series entitled “One Minute Apologist” (he takes 2 minutes).
He never says anything to clarify whether natural selection can put this information into the genome. We’ve discussed these points many times before, but let me briefly mention the dilemma that he doesn’t resolve for us:
1, Complex Specified Information was defined by William Dembski in No Free Lunch in this way. The high level of improbability that he required was supposed to show that random mutation could not produce CSI. And a Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information was supposed to show that natural selection could not achieve CSI. Unfortunately the LCCSI is not formulated so as to be able to do that, because it changes the specification in the before and after states.
2. So in 2005-2006 Dembski instead defined Specified Complexity. Now it is a measure of how improbably far out we are on the scale of specification, with the improbability defined this time as computed taking not only mutation into account, but also natural selection. Dembski does not say how to compute that probability. Now SC really does rule out natural selection — simply by being defined so as to do so. It thereby becomes a useless add-on quantity, computable only once one has already found some other way to show that the information cannot be put into the genome by natural selection.
McLatchie presumably wants to clear us all up on this, but he seems to be using the definition of 1 with the name of 2. So we end up confused as to whether his quantity can be put into the genome by natural selection, or whether it is a useless after-the-fact add-on to some other argument which establishes that it can’t. And he’s had a whole extra minute.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/embed/video/1226759.html
Are you excited, non materialists?
My precognition says, “fake”
Upright Biped has announced the launch of his site via this UD post: Writing Biosemiosis-org
All of the unique physical conditions of dimensional semiosis have already been observed and documented in the scientific literature. It is an intractable fact that a dimensional semiotic system is used to encode organic polymers inside the cell. The conclusion of intelligent action is therefore fully supported by the physical evidence, and is subject to falsification only by showing an unguided source capable of creating such a system.
http://biosemiosis.org/index.php/a-scientific-hypothesis-of-design
Discuss!
Here’s a great presentation on the new colourmaps in python for all you coders / devs (We’re using them now). For non-coders some insights into perception, evolution of colour vision and alike: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAoljeRJ3lU
Why not?
It’s cruel to be kind, don’t you know?
I read an article on Salon, about a woman who gave birth to a premature baby that didn’t survive. The point of her article was tell everyone how much she hates when people tell her her baby is in Heaven.
But actually her point is more than that. Her point really is to make sure you know that she is atheist. And to tell you, that you are dumb for not being one. Because this is what good atheists do. They talk about how the “great thinkers” like DeGrasse Tyson and Sagan give her comfort, when they reassure her that you are just a tiny speck in a much bigger universe (that has no purpose). Continue reading
This is my suggestion. Lizzie is happy for any participant to author a thread here. Most regulars already have author status which allows them to publish OPs. Other members have contributor status which allows them to compose posts that will be published on request, although author status is available on request to anyone who’d like to have unrestricted (within the rules) ability to publish OPs.
Whilst I think it is great that we have such wide-ranging (and on the whole rancour-free) discussions, the topics do get mixed and hard-to-follow, especially with the annoying page bug.
I invite anyone to start a new thread on a topic that is getting lost in the cross-talk.
I also invite suggestions from our esteemed clientele. Especially welcome would be a suggestion how to fix the page bug.
There are a lot of great resources available on the internet for countering Code Denialism. I’ve gathered a few of them for your convenience. I envision a multi-part series on this topic because the evidence against Code Denialism is so extensive and Code Denialism seems to be surging in popularity here at TSZ.
The 1961 paper by Crick et al. is an outstanding example of the use of thought and logic to solve basic biological problems. In my opinion, it is a superb paper to assign to students in courses because it illustrates how combining knowledge and wisdom can provide answers to important scientific questions.
They demonstrated that three bases of DNA code for one amino acid in the genetic code. The experiment elucidated the nature of gene expression and frame-shift mutations.
…the mutant strains could be made functional again by using proflavin to insert or delete a total of three nucleotides. This proved that the genetic code uses a codon of three DNA bases that corresponds to an amino acid.
“This concept of a phase shift, or a ‘frameshift’ [in the genetic code of an rII gene] as we later called it, was so foreign to people in genetics that we had endless problems trying to explain this work.”
Seems like they still have work to do.
Lots of heat surrounding this question.
My take is that a code must be a system for conveying meaning.
In my view, an essential feature of a code is that it must be abstract and and able to convey novel messages.
DNA fails at he level of abstraction. Whatever “meaning” it conveys cannot be translated into any medium other than chemistry. And not just any abstract chemistry, but the chemistry of this universe.
Without implementing in chemistry, it is impossible to read a DNA message. One cannot predict what a novel DNA string will do.
DNA is a template, not a code.
Go to it.
http://ntlive.nationaltheatre.org.uk/productions/ntlout10-hamlet
Filmed live, on stage, from the Barbican, London
Go see it. It’s an unsurpassed theatrical experience, which you get to see (for a lot less than stage tickets) at the cinema.
There’s probably an encore performance at a big-city art cinema near almost everyone who is reading this – it will be in a dozen countries, a few hundred cities and university towns. Each venue shows no more than twice, and the site listed will give you the dates and locations nearest you.
It’s worth driving more than an hour to get to, and absolutely worth the price of admission. Yeah, I know I’m crazy; I saw it live today, and I’m going to see it at least four times at a couple different theaters.
This has been a “public service announcement” — I know, not our typical subject of discussion, sorry. Enjoy it while you can!
A perennial topic. The organisms we see cluster around specific, distinct types. We can identify an individual as belonging to that type because it has the distinctive characteristics of that type. We know what the characteristics are because we see a lot of such individuals.
To the some Creationists, those types represent essential, immutable forms, perhaps with some post-Ark latitude, and a bit of variation around the ‘norm’. It is as if those forms were cast from a mould, with small manufacturing defects. The mould is eternal, unchanging. Continue reading
They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with… geometric logic… that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and I’d have produced that key if they hadn’t of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow office
For some of us old farts Captain Queeg is a symbol of reasonableness over reason.
For me, he is the patron saint of cranks, and a crank is someone who employs geometric logic in the service of silly axioms and premises.
Queeg is, for me, the archetype of someone who thinks great arguments are settled by reason.
My own thought is that if theology and philosophy could be decided by reason, the great debates would have been settled long ago.
My thought is that theologies and philosophies go in and out of fashion over time. Some rise in favor because they are useful and productive, but most just drift.
Over time, ideas gain or lose market share, but seldom die out altogether or become universal.
I’m sure there’s a name for this.
A major bone of contention between us (TSZ) and our friends at Uncommon Descent is origins, how things came to be.
It is pretty clear from their recent writings that despite earlier protestations to the contrary, UD is a Christian apologetics website looking to boost and support the Christian story of origins.
Barry has claimed: “The documents constituting the New Testament are vouchsafed with the blood of the martyrs. Nothing else comes remotely close.”
Islam and the Heaven’s Gate cult also have had people willing to die for them. So, they come close. Also, not all of them can be true given their contradictory truth claims. We can therefore rule out wanting to die for something being a guarantee of truth.
KirosFocus looks to bolster the argument with “with 500 core witnesses, not one of whom could be turned by the threats or inducements of state agents determined to uproot what they saw as a potential source of uprisings”, but as far as I can tell this is poor thinking, he is citing the bible to support the biblical account (1 Cor 15:1) – So the number is irrelevant, we are still left with only the primary source.
KF also tells us, “we have four eyewitness lifespan biographies, one of which is volume 1 of the earliest history of the Christian movement, credibly initially complete c 62 AD. a two-volume work that has been abundantly vindicated as to habitual, detailed accuracy and capturing nuances of setting in ways not plausible for people projecting back from later times. This consciously historical work uses a second biography as a major source, reinforcing the conclusion”
This is closer to the truth; there are four accounts that were written at the earliest decades after the purported events all of which are part of the bible, not independent support for it. I image that people at that time would understand the nuances of biblical times far better than we do, so I’m not sure there’s any argument about ‘good context’ to be made.
See also (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels#The_synoptic_problem)
So my question is, outside of the bible, what historical evidence do we have for the story of Jesus? Having been told by Barry “The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most reliably documented events in all of human history.” (http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-why-liars-lie/#comment-580232) I’d like to see those documents, the non-biblical ones.
The scientific aim is obviously to have a consilient picture of events, multiple independent and reinforcing narratives, like this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Discussion of A = A seems to have died down some here. As much as people find the topic a fun exercise in logic and philosophy, it might be worth reminding everyone how all this got started here, on a site largely devoted to critiquing creationist and ID arguments.
It started when the owner of the site Uncommon Descent declared that some basic Laws of Thought were being regularly violated by anti-ID commenters on that site.
In a post on February 16, 2012 Barry Arrington wrote, in justification of his policy,
that:
The issue, then, is not whether persons who disagree with us on the facts and logic will be allowed to debate on this site. Anyone who disagrees about the facts and logic is free to come here at any time. But if you come on here and say, essentially, that facts and logic do not matter, then we have no use for you.
The formal announcement of Barry’s policy was four days earlier, in this UD post where Barry invoked the Law of Non-Contradiction and declared that
Arguing with a person who denies the basis for argument is self-defeating and can lead only to confusion. Only a fool or a charlatan denies the LNC, and this site will not be a platform from which fools and charlatans will be allowed to spew their noxious inanities.
For that reason, I am today announcing a new moderation policy at UD. At any time the moderator reserves the right to ask the following question to any person who would comment or continue to comment on this site: “Can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?” The answer to this question is either “yes” or “no.” If the person gives any answer other than the single word “no,” he or she will immediately be deemed not worth arguing with and therefore banned from this site.