26 thoughts on “Looking Ahead to 2017”

1. In Search of Cell History” looks to be an interesting book, I might even get it myself.

2. According to Amazon, In Search of Cell History was “frequently bought along with” Peter Hoffman’s Life’s Ratchet , which is also a fantastic read.

3. Yes, let’s discuss the arguments in Douglas Axe’s book:
   .

   “Having now given you my reasoning, I won’t hesitate to name God as the intelligent designer from this point forward.”

   On second thoughts, let’s not.

4. Sober’s Evidence and Evolution is quite excellent.

5. Kantian Naturalist: Sober’s Evidence and Evolution is quite excellent.

   This thread is actually a good illustration of the creationist SOP. Mix in utter nonsense with reality and hope your nonsense files under the radar.

6. OMagain: This thread is actually a good illustration of the creationist SOP. Mix in utter nonsense with reality and hope your nonsense files under the radar.

   Mung has to get his daily attention whore quota some way.

7. OMagain: This thread is actually a good illustration of the creationist SOP. Mix in utter nonsense with reality and hope your nonsense files under the radar.

   It’s balanced.

   Between meaningful discussions of evidence, and nonsense.

   Can’t have the former without the latter undermining it.

   Glen Davidson

8. Kantian Naturalist:
   Sober’s Evidence and Evolution is quite excellent.

   I don’t know that book, but what I’ve read by sober has been good.

9. Mung, from the OP:

   Discuss theistic evolution.

   Shadow of Oz

   I’ve been following Wayne Rossiter from his own blog to Uncommon Descent and BioLogos. The ruffling of feathers between him and Prof. Swamidass and then with the usual suspects at UD was quite amusing.

10. I recommend some Terry Pratchett as well.

11. I’m reading Secondhand Souls

12. Patrick: Terry Pratchett

    Indeed:

    “Most species do their own evolving, making it up as they go along, which is the way Nature intended. And this is all very natural and organic and in tune with mysterious cycles of the cosmos, which believes that there’s nothing like millions of years of really frustrating trial and error to give a species moral fiber and, in some cases, backbone.”

    http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/419101-most-species-do-their-own-evolving-making-it-up-as

13. I would like to see a discussion on the evolution of early life forms and how it was supposed to work without design.

    We spot them the first complete simple cell. Naturally.

    Then we can watch with cartoonish grins on our face as they shave, clip, but mostly just mangle the logical pieces of the puzzle to make them fit.

14. Steve:
    I would like to see a discussion on the evolution of early life forms and how it was supposed to work without design.

    There’s a whole science dedicated to the issues. It’s called abiogenesis. There are tons of research articles readily available from the professional scientific literature if you’re interested in more than just the usual trolling.

15. Compostional evolution. YES heavens above Darwin needs help.
    Evidence and evolution. Excellent thing to discuss. If evolutionism is not true it couldn’t possibly have biological scientific evidence to prove/substain/servive it.
    Therefore any evidence presented should be shown as not biological or scientific.
    RATHER its geological, anatomical, genetic, geobiography, lines of reasoning that has been dumbly invoked as evidence since Chuck was around.

16. Adapa: There’s a whole science dedicated to the issues.It’s called abiogenesis.There are tons of research articles readily available from the professional scientific literature if you’re interested in more than just the usual trolling.

    And only a true believer would think that research has a chance of demonstrating anything. Nature can make stones and yet cannot make stonehenges. And forget about the fact stones don’t reproduce as biological reproduction is out of the reach of stochastic processes.

17. Robert Byers:
    Compostional evolution. YES heavens above Darwin needs help.
    Evidence and evolution. Excellent thing to discuss. If evolutionism is not true it couldn’t possibly have biological scientific evidence to prove/substain/servive it.
    Therefore any evidence presented should be shown as not biological or scientific.
    RATHER its geological, anatomical, genetic, geobiography, lines of reasoning that has been dumbly invoked as evidence since Chuck was around.

    That was almost but not quite completely unlike intelligible speech.

18. So atheism is irrational, yet the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree is not?

19. First two non-fiction books I want to read next year are

    Brandt, A Theory of the Good and the Right; and
    Elster & Roemer (eds.), Interpersonal Comparisons of Well-Being: Studies in Rationality and Social Change

    In fiction, more Thackeray and Trollope.

20. Thoughts?

    How about something on the Nazi UFO connection?

21. Frankie: And only a true believer would think that research has a chance of demonstrating anything.
    . . . .

    Intelligent design creationists using “true believer” as an insult. It’s almost like they know how foolish their position is. It would be insulting (and too complimentary) to suggest that is the case, though.

22. Patrick: Intelligent design creationists using “true believer” as an insult.It’s almost like they know how foolish their position is.It would be insulting (and too complimentary) to suggest that is the case, though.

    Losers use the insult “Intelligent Design Creationists” almost as if they know how lame their position is.

23. stcordova: How about something on the Nazi UFO connection?

    Sorry, I signed a non-disclosure agreement.

24. Merry Christmas Sal, and Happy New Year.

25. Patrick: Intelligent design creationists…

    Good to see you finally distinguishing your terms. Would not want to confuse the intelligent design non-creationists with the intelligent design creationists.

26. Needy Mung is on my ignore list.

    Happy 2017!