tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post3498738851465391576..comments2024-03-04T05:55:35.225-05:00Comments on Vital Remnants: Darwinists who don't want to debateMartin Cothranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-34903614065055415592008-11-03T13:01:00.000-05:002008-11-03T13:01:00.000-05:00"Spiders have hair; does that mean we descended fr..."Spiders have hair; does that mean we descended from spiders?"<BR/><BR/>After this intelligent question (not), I will leave you to your ignorance. It is very clear that there is absolutely nothing I can say that would affect your ignorance in the slightest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-72792247378642730552008-11-03T07:18:00.000-05:002008-11-03T07:18:00.000-05:00> Well, there was the "one trick pony"...> Well, there was the "one trick pony" of the origin of the "single cell" associated with the word "probability". Whenever I was talking about "probabilities", I was referring to abiogenesis. <BR/><BR/>Yes, I figured that out, finally, even though you were answering a point I wasn't making.<BR/><BR/>I had made a statement about life having descended Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-35670975377848462412008-11-01T15:25:00.000-04:002008-11-01T15:25:00.000-04:00"The rules do keep changing."There are different "..."The rules do keep changing."<BR/><BR/>There are different "rules" for abiogenesis and evolution.<BR/><BR/>"Show your work."<BR/><BR/>There are thousands of peer-reviewed scientific articles about the relationships between the genetics of different species. And there are thousands of scientific articles about the fossil record. And there is tiktaalik. Tiktaalik was predicted and then found.<BRAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-64985806772063388842008-10-31T23:16:00.000-04:002008-10-31T23:16:00.000-04:00> This is evolution, not abiogenesis. The evolu...> This is evolution, not abiogenesis. The evolutionary tree of life is based on the fossil record and genetics. Much of the tree of life is known with high probability. And there was tiktaalik.<BR/><BR/>What do you mean, "known with high probability"? How was that determined? And why can you bring up probability in defense of evolution, but I can't go near it for ID "Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-67425654768012184622008-10-31T18:36:00.000-04:002008-10-31T18:36:00.000-04:00I said:"There have been a number of observations o...I said:<BR/><BR/>"There have been a number of observations over the years about certain possibilities. But "we don't know yet" seems to be the current situation."<BR/><BR/>But I was referring to abiogenesis about 3 billion years ago - your fundamental sticking point.<BR/><BR/>Then you changed the subject:<BR/><BR/>"I find it annoying, though, when something that is not known is presented as if itAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-11871400409794989082008-10-31T12:30:00.000-04:002008-10-31T12:30:00.000-04:00> There have been a number of observations over...> There have been a number of observations over the years about certain possibilities. But "we don't know yet" seems to be the current situation.<BR/><BR/>Nothing wrong with not knowing something. I find it annoying, though, when something that is not known is presented as if it is known. You watch practically any documentary on wildlife (which otherwise I love to watch), and Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-39045720491821061632008-10-31T00:21:00.000-04:002008-10-31T00:21:00.000-04:001i6b: You will again say "I don't believe it".No, ...1i6b: You will again say "I don't believe it".<BR/><BR/>No, what lee (I think, as he has provided no details) is saying:<BR/><BR/>1) I (lee) believe in ID due to religious faith.<BR/>2) Some people have proposed ID as a scientific idea.<BR/>3) Almost all scientists (many atheists) have dismissed the arguments put forth by ID'ists.<BR/><BR/>So without evaluating the pro and con himself (which is Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-11477932922839592012008-10-30T17:31:00.000-04:002008-10-30T17:31:00.000-04:00"As for the genetic evidence, you would have to sp..."As for the genetic evidence, you would have to specify how we can deduce common ancestry from it. How we can duplicate the experiment, observe, and test it. Or else it too is inferential in nature."<BR/><BR/>Of course it is inferential. So what? Means, motive, opportunity - guilty. Means is mutation and other things, motive is survival, and opportunity is changing environment. So the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-55060771037359621312008-10-30T17:06:00.000-04:002008-10-30T17:06:00.000-04:00"Next time, bring an argument."Unfortunately, the ..."Next time, bring an argument."<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, the argument in this case is "it does not seem to be impossible, even if it might be improbable".<BR/><BR/>There have been a number of observations over the years about certain possibilities. But "we don't know yet" seems to be the current situation.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you wish to argue that it does seem to be so close to improbable that it Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-68878895506119175432008-10-30T15:47:00.000-04:002008-10-30T15:47:00.000-04:00> OI6B: "You are a "one trick pony&q...> OI6B: "You are a "one trick pony"."<BR/><BR/>And you are still relying on question-begging epithets.<BR/><BR/>> It would seem that you are fixated on exactly what happened about 3 billion years ago when something that we might call "non-life" or "proto-life" evolved into something that we might call "life".<BR/><BR/>Actually, I fantasize Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-27640517732556455512008-10-29T22:49:00.000-04:002008-10-29T22:49:00.000-04:00"originated from a single cell"You are a "one tric..."originated from a single cell"<BR/><BR/>You are a "one trick pony".<BR/><BR/>It would seem that you are fixated on exactly what happened about 3 billion years ago when something that we might call "non-life" or "proto-life" evolved into something that we might call "life". A lot of "life" today uses DNA, so you might ask "how was the first DNA formed?"<BR/><BR/>You seem to think that it could Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-62633654381190084252008-10-27T07:40:00.000-04:002008-10-27T07:40:00.000-04:00> Well, maybe probabilities are relevant - but ...> Well, maybe probabilities are relevant - but no one is competent to compute the probabilities accurately. Not you, not me, not creationists and not scientists.<BR/><BR/>And by the way, weren't you the fellow who just threw the flag on me for making a classic argument from ignorance?Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-21952306063019449672008-10-27T07:38:00.000-04:002008-10-27T07:38:00.000-04:00>> "I'm happy to poke what holes I ...>> "I'm happy to poke what holes I can in explanations that already exist."<BR/><BR/>> A fundamental argument from ignorance. Since we don't know everything perfectly (yet), therefore I am not convinced.<BR/><BR/>What is unscientific about arguing that we are ignorant when we are ignorant? <BR/><BR/>And, by the way, I wasn't the first person in this thread to make Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-45076699091539603272008-10-26T01:08:00.000-04:002008-10-26T01:08:00.000-04:00"passed by the Louisiana State Legislature that ad..."passed by the Louisiana State Legislature that advocated objectivity"<BR/><BR/>Well, let us say that the bill claimed to advocate objectivity. But if that claim is a lie and the purpose of the bill is to try to get around the Supreme Court decision against creationism, then it's not fair to claim:<BR/><BR/>"When you are reduced to arguing that objectivity is a creationist plot"<BR/><BR/>The Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-87783701611389043012008-10-23T19:39:00.000-04:002008-10-23T19:39:00.000-04:00> Probability. No scientists believe life arose...> Probability. No scientists believe life arose that way so disproving a probabilistic mechanism has no bearing on whether life came about naturally.<BR/><BR/>Remember we are also talking about the evolution of life oncce it had already been established as a given.<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry: I cannot imagine why probabilities are not relevant in this issue. If one side claims that all the Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-4194592031156255282008-10-23T13:16:00.000-04:002008-10-23T13:16:00.000-04:00lee: Fine. What red herring did I drag?Probability...lee: Fine. What red herring did I drag?<BR/><BR/>Probability. No scientists believe life arose that way so disproving a probabilistic mechanism has no bearing on whether life came about naturally.<BR/><BR/>lee: How many variables are involved in getting compasses to point north? Magnetic earth? Check. Magnetic stone or instrument? Check. Laws of physics? Check. Leave anything out?<BR/><BR/>Yes, Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-52152072609881092412008-10-23T08:36:00.000-04:002008-10-23T08:36:00.000-04:00> Then poke a hole and don't drag in red he...> Then poke a hole and don't drag in red herrings.<BR/><BR/>Fine. What red herring did I drag?<BR/><BR/>> So what should someone back then have thought - statistically there must be a designer?<BR/><BR/>How many variables are involved in getting compasses to point north? Magnetic earth? Check. Magnetic stone or instrument? Check. Laws of physics? Check. Leave anything out?<BR/><Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-11053788407425537902008-10-23T00:29:00.000-04:002008-10-23T00:29:00.000-04:00lee: But now we are in the world of probabilities....lee: But now we are in the world of probabilities. It is sufficient for ID theorists to question the odds of it happening strictly by random happenstance, i.e. without a guiding hand.<BR/><BR/>How is a guiding hand distinguished from the laws of nature?<BR/><BR/>What specifically, in case I am confused, does "random happenstance" mean?<BR/><BR/>jahAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-73487356386506215692008-10-23T00:26:00.000-04:002008-10-23T00:26:00.000-04:00lee: I'm happy to poke what holes I can in explana...lee: I'm happy to poke what holes I can in explanations that already exist.<BR/><BR/>Then poke a hole and don't drag in red herrings.<BR/><BR/>Guess what - lodestones pointed north long before anyone came up with the concept of magnetism. So what should someone back then have thought - statistically there must be a designer? Most phenomena in science have been discovered before an explanatory Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-4251562343627946692008-10-22T21:23:00.000-04:002008-10-22T21:23:00.000-04:00> First, speaking from personal experience, I k...> First, speaking from personal experience, I know for a fact that it is antievolutionists who abhor a debate in which facts are freely accessible...<BR/><BR/>How did you freely access that rather questionable and debatable fact?Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-54721002640193247972008-10-22T21:21:00.001-04:002008-10-22T21:21:00.001-04:00> But has lee proved there isn't some other...> But has lee proved there isn't some other unknown pathway? Nope.<BR/><BR/>And that is utterly unnecessary. I don't need to prove there is an alternative explanation. I'm happy to poke what holes I can in explanations that already exist.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-22279651571228386442008-10-22T21:21:00.000-04:002008-10-22T21:21:00.000-04:00> But has lee proved there isn't some other...> But has lee proved there isn't some other unknown pathway? Nope.<BR/><BR/>And that is utterly unnecessary. I don't need to prove there is an alternative explanation. I'm happy to poke what holes I can in explanations that already exist.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-56180016391388744212008-10-22T21:19:00.000-04:002008-10-22T21:19:00.000-04:00> Very good. Lee has proved it did not occur by...> Very good. Lee has proved it did not occur by random happenstance. That is not equivalent to proving a designer.<BR/><BR/>I haven't proven anything, of course, but I'm dying to know how this line of argument is going to end.<BR/><BR/>> Very good. Lee has proved it did not occur by random happenstance. That is not equivalent to proving a designer. Take 100 compasses; they all pointLeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-50329636418515276732008-10-22T21:13:00.000-04:002008-10-22T21:13:00.000-04:00> That and vaccines are certainly allied topics...> That and vaccines are certainly allied topics which show up frequently and are correlated with anti-evolutionism. But I don't see quantum mechanics. How can people be bothered the chance aspect of evolution but not that of quantum mechanics?<BR/><BR/>If the deal with quantum mechanics is that some things happen apparently at random, as best as we can tell and can measure it, I'm fineLeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-40892131300386475742008-10-22T20:57:00.000-04:002008-10-22T20:57:00.000-04:00Hi Martin,A few comments for this thread, with one...Hi Martin,<BR/><BR/>A few comments for this thread, with one or two saved for the other one.<BR/><BR/>First, speaking from personal experience, I know for a fact that it is antievolutionists who abhor a debate in which facts are freely accessible, where positions must be supported by reference to controlled and repeatable experiment. Just as I know that such a debate will never happen on your Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com