His newest post has me gnashing my teeth together in complete and utter disgust.
Ray has trotted out one of the oldest, stupidest and most often disproved critiques of the Big Bang theory - the second law of Thermodynamics.
Funny how theists hate and fear science when it says something about their worldview that they disagree with, but love and accept science when they think it's proving their point. You can't have it both ways; science either has the power to explain the universe around us, or it doesn't. Pretending to accept science when you mistakenly believe that it disproves other science is intellectually dishonest and a testament to how little you understand about the workings of this academic discipline.
Of course, as we all know, the Second Law of Thermodynamics most certainly does NOT disprove the currently accepted cosmological theories. And the sheer arrogance of these un-educated bible humpers who honestly believe that the most intelligent minds in science who are actively researching in these fields would have MISSED something so OBVIOUS - well, it astounds me, but it doesn't surprise me.
Talk Origins has a wonderful de-bunking of every claim made in regards to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Most relevant here is:
"Claim CF001:
The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible.
# The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because
* the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
* entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
* even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time."
# The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).
Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).
Maybe Mr. Comfort should reference Talk Origins BEFORE he posts - so maybe next time he could come up with an idea that isn't one of the top 50 most refuted Creationist claims.
Our New Home
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This once again makes me think that he's a closet atheist with no morals, so he has no problem lying in order to sell more of his crap.
ReplyDeleteTraffic has taken a serious hit on his site, so he's deliberately trying to bait us with the MOST tired, lame, totally refuted arguments in the fundie arsenal.
Let us not take the bait - we can rant about it on this site just fine, and obviously, people are getting word of it.
Lance, you may be right. Many preachers are closet atheists and I think many more of them must be on the edge. Dan Barker gave a poignant description of this dilemma in his autobiography.
ReplyDeleteIf Ray is in a similar position then I pity him. But that's no excuse for spreading lies and misinformation, and if we let him get away with it then we make ourselves accomplices in his fraud.
I have the greatest admiration for Sen. Chuck Grassley who's investigating the finances of a handful of the biggest televangelists. I don't know what's likely to be the result of the investigation, but at least he's calling these people out and that's a necessary first step.
What debunks Ray's idea is the fact that energy isn't lost. The universe is expanding now, but it doesn't necessarily expand forever. It could bubble into new universes, or contract and expand cyclically. There is no spatio-temporal room at all for a creative entity outside of that. There is no 'outside'. Any sensical concept of any god can only function inside a reality. The universe is definite reality.
ReplyDeleteCreation is a change. Change is impossible outside of a time frame. Outside of reality, there is no time frame. Anything existing before reality is nothing more than masturbatory fantasy. End of story, Ray.
I agree, Lance.
ReplyDeleteAny person with a modicum of self-respect seeks out truth and isn't content with the idea that he's figured it all out. The end of inquiry is the end of humanity, both as a society and as individual identity. We can't stop anyone from wanting to become a mindless drone. Who wants to find knowledge will seek it out, even if it takes him decades to realize that dignity requires the step into open water. Self-denial is the decision to remain an insect on the shore, forever seeking out a hive mind, a surrender of identity that ends with death and leaves no useful contribution.
Comfort uses a rotting apple as an example. Funny he should mention this because it refutes his argument. The microbes that help make the apple rot thousands of times faster than it normally would are actually DECREASING their entropy through extracting energy found in the chemical bonds of the carbohydrates. In order to grow and divide a cell must increase its order. If life violated the second law, we wouldn't be here. However, Ray doesn't seem to realize that that goddamn apple tree is receiving energy from outside the system whenever it captures radiant energy from the sun. What a tard-tard. Notice that in every case, his own examples ALWAYS refute his argument.
ReplyDeleteI'm feeling lazy, so I'll just post this her:
ReplyDeleteAt Ray's, verandoug write:
"According to the biblical model, man would be the last creature to be created in terms of how this unfolded and he would display characteristics of one created in the image of God, which is exactly what we see. mtDNA points to ONE woman. The tweaking of DNA is obvious and the Bible said it first by giving us a peek into how Eve was created. This information given to us by scientists helps us to understand the text that is written in a way that even a child can understand."
All this proves is that vera or doug or both of them have no idea what mtDNA means and prefer to splash about in their kindergarten level understanding.
I'm no scientist either, but I understand the scientific explanation.
mtDNA points to a single female by tracing back the bacterial genome we have inherited from our distant past. This single female has mtDNA which traces back further, and so on, back to the first DNA-carrying organisms. It proves that 'mitochondrial Eve' had a common ancestor with all other species. Bacterial genome, vera. Unless you can explain precisely in terms of a testable mechanism how and when a creator inserted bacterial genes into ours, your assertion fails. Hint: it wasn't 6,000 years ago, and it wasn't by magic.
If the bible actually explained mtDNA and heredity, and described endosymbiosis...the origin of the fucking mitochondrion...then I would be pretty fucking impressed.
ReplyDeleteFelix,
ReplyDeleteActually, the mtDNA thing is about something called "coalescence." And this is about population genetics. I am not sure I can explain this easily, but the main point is that just by chance, as generations go, the probability that a piece of DNA will be traceable back into a single individual as its source. but that does not mean whatsoever that there was only one female of whichever the species of origin of the mitochondria we all share back then. In other words, mitochondrial "Eve" was not the only female living during those times.
So, understanding the part about chance playing a role in how many generations back you have to go to get to coalescence (individual of origin, to call it something), is important to understand that mt-Eve and Y-chromosome "Adam" did not live at the same time. They are separated by 100 to 150 THOUSAND years!
I know this is not entirely clear, but I hope you got the point.
I actually explained this to Vera, much more detail, but she does not seem to have a good attention span.
G.E.
It's been almost eight hours since Ray posted The Universe Eternal. The last time I checked there had been ten comments. He'll be posting one of his conversion/street preaching stories soon. Then he'll get some "great post, Ray. That happened to me" and "great post, Ray. I'm going to try that" comments. Or, something from Spurgeon.
ReplyDeleteClos, et al,
ReplyDeleteI didn't get the memo about the strike and only realized what was going on when Ray threw up the post about it at the same time Clos left a comment on my blog.
So, I am officially "in."
I just emailed MacG to get signed up.
------------
Clos, that's quite the brouhaha that you and Pvblivs have going on over there at on Microbes!
The conversation is out of my scope of expertise so I'm not taking any sides, yet.
If I find a point of logic to pick on, I will!
----------------
Personal question, Clos. Are you and McG Jr former aquaintences?
dale:
ReplyDeleteThat's good, Dale. But I hope you don't bring Terry Burton and his mindless posts and pastes about Eugene West and Hell's Best Kept Secret and his brain scalding blogs with you.
I, too, have tried to explain to Vera that the existence of a "mitochondrial Eve" does not in any way suggest the existence of an initial human population of two. I tried to make it clear that Mitochondrial Eve had female contemporaries who also left descendants, countless numbers of whom are alive today - however, the line of descent of these other women at some point went only through males, meaning that their mitochondrial DNA was not passed on. (Their nuclear DNA, of course, is a different story.)
ReplyDeleteNeedless to say, my explanation was as lost on Vera as G.E.'s was. Ah, well. If I ever have the dubious pleasure of meeting her in realspace, perhaps I can walk her through it very slowly, with diagrams. Big, colorful diagrams.
Rufus,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
"It's been almost eight hours since Ray posted The Universe Eternal. The last time I checked there had been ten comments. He'll be posting one of his conversion/street preaching stories soon...."
Probably two of those were mine. I got in the strike a little late, as I mentioned above.
I have to give a bit of credit to "Stranger" as he is referring to us as the "Skeptic Tank." Others are now adopting that phrase. hehe. I'm thinking about snapping that up as a name for a new blog! Not really, I can barely keep my own barebones blog rolling at times.
Great to see ya all here.
Dale,
ReplyDeleteYeah, pvblivs and I have been going at this for a little while. I have been having a difficult time figuring out exactly what he is demanding of science. As no illustrations have been presenting, I have been largely pissing in the wind. I think I have finally nailed down what he wants...which I explained previously to him using a standard example. It seems that the theory is so intuitively simple in terms of the original postulates that he is taking it for granted since today we have such overwhelming evidence and such a clear understanding. He wants falsifiers...which he demands to have been agreed upon before any data is collected. I keep telling him that Darwin said there would be (1) variation, that is (2) heritable, that (3)not every offspring survives due to limiting resources and that (4) there is differential reproductive success resulting in selection. It gets much more involved and complicated than this, but each of these are testable and falsifiable...but he tells me that we know there is variation so this cannot be acceptable. I pointed out that gravity is obvious, we observed objects, including ourselves being attracted to the earth, but this doesn't therefore cause us to throw out gravity. Theories are not developed in a vacuum, which seems to be what he is demanding-at least this is what I am gathering.
Also, no, I didn't know macgyver jr prior to Ray's blog. Why?
Rufus said...
ReplyDeletedale:
That's good, Dale. But I hope you don't bring Terry Burton and his......
He is the only person that I ever banned from my blog. That was when he was threatening to find out where me and my cronies lived and send in the "Agents."
If he does show up, which he won't because he knows that over here we, belittle, mock, scorn, and ridicule him beyond comprehension, but, if he does, don't blame me!
Clos,
ReplyDeleteYes, I did detect a bit of unreasonableness in Pvb's request, but, as I say, I'm out of my league at that level.
I have this feeling that he might be "pushing your buttons." He's a devious one, that Publius. :>
Then,
"Also, no, I didn't know macgyver jr prior to Ray's blog. Why?"
No special reason other than you requested we email him to sign up. It looked like you two were in this together possibly because of a prior relationship.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRatractors cry in the glory of CHOCO...or, as I like to say, Choker!
ReplyDeletechoco said...
Atheists don't go on strike; they just strike out.
Atheists are such losers.
For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? (Mark 8:36)
They do have their "God": They are going to end up in hell, because their god is their bodily desires. They are proud of what they should be ashamed of, and they think only of things that belong to this world. (Philippians 3:19)
Reading their blogs makes that clear.
But ... the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost." (Luke 19:10)
So should we.
Have we prayed for the atheists?
Christians don't go on strike because no one listens to them in the first place! :)
Choker, you are a loser.
Reading your posts reveals that.
Ps. If you pray so much, is God that feeble that he can't find a way to convince us of his existence? You'd think. Maybe he doesn't want to or isn't real. Nothing fails like payer. :)
Well, there are fifteen posts now. And one from a Jeff Betsch contains this gem;
ReplyDelete"Tell me why the Hebrews are still born with foreskin if for thousands of years they have been cutting them off. Does not Evolution state that If something is not needed then it will discard it after a period of time?"
He's done it. He's proven evolution false. He'll be in Sweden next year accepting his Noble.
Rufus,
ReplyDeleteMy sentiments exactly.
As I said in the original post, it astounds me that these uneducated twits think that their hair brained ideas - such as foreskin removal being tantamount to evolution - actually amount to anything intelligent or puzzling.
There wasn't one question he asked that had me scratching my head or curious as to what the answer would be. The fact of the matter is that anyone who understood evolution wouldn't ASK such ridiculous questions.
Irukandji,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
"I, too, have tried to explain to Vera that the existence of a "mitochondrial Eve" does not in any way...[snip] If I ever have the dubious pleasure of meeting her in realspace, perhaps I can walk her through it very slowly, with diagrams. Big, colorful diagrams.
You would need to start her over in first grade to achieve any success.
She fancies herself as a "Saviour of a Lost Church." We're talking major Saviour Complex here.
She is just articulate enough to sound authoritive to the you-know-who types. I don't know if you were around then, but I scammed her with a "Divine Number Proves the Existence of God" a while back, and she took it hook, line and sinker, even going to Richard Dawkins site and proclaiming her "new evidence." That was one of the funniest exhibitions of gullibilty I have ever seen!
HA HA HA HA HA HA.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to come off as a "scab" once I announced I was joining the strike, but I did have one open comment dangling with Erikloza that I just answered.
ReplyDeleteEarlier I snuck in a comment made here by clos and I see it made it through moderation. If they are alert, they should spot that, but I'm betting they won't.
Dale
ReplyDeleteI must say, you probably strike fear into all of them.
Maragon,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
Rufus,
My sentiments exactly.
As I said in the original post, it astounds me that these uneducated twits think that their hair brained ideas - such as foreskin removal......."
But, they do have their "scientists" like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind. Let us not forget the ICR, the Institute for Creation Research, who has never done a piece of actual Research in their lives. When one clings to a myth, one must believe the MythMakers.
/d
The Ranting Student said...
ReplyDelete"Dale
I must say, you probably strike fear into all of them."
How would you arrive at that conclusion about a genteel and and kind person such as myself?
Dale said,
ReplyDelete"Clos,
Yes, I did detect a bit of unreasonableness in Pvb's request, but, as I say, I'm out of my league at that level.
I have this feeling that he might be "pushing your buttons." He's a devious one, that Publius. :>"
Could be. I don't know. I keep telling him that falsification is not regarded by most philosophers of science-even Popper who came up with it-as the defining characteristic of science. It is testability and usefullness in predicting phenomena in nature. Although, I will maintain that under the original definition, evolution is falsifiable. Look, I can only bring a horse to water...the horse in question is going to die of thirst in my mind. I stay in the conversation because it is a good excersize in first principles, something us experimentalists are never presented with. I have had to think about this quite a bit. I'm used to tackling specifics, so this is in some ways refreshing.
"Then,
"Also, no, I didn't know macgyver jr prior to Ray's blog. Why?"
No special reason other than you requested we email him to sign up. It looked like you two were in this together possibly because of a prior relationship."
Yeah, there are only, I think two administrators here. That's all. Good to have you over here!
Dale
ReplyDeleteMaybe that's why. You can be like Richard Dawkins. Tell me, do you have a soft voiced british accent?
The Ranting Student said...
ReplyDelete"Dale
Maybe that's why. You can be like Richard Dawkins. Tell me, do you have a soft voiced british accent?"
No.
I have a voice of a northwestern Pennsylvania boy that was raised with wolves, some of them with Pittsburgh-like dialects. We actualy speak proper engish up here.
Ha ha ha....
ReplyDelete....WERE you raised with wolves?
dale..."But, they do have their "scientists" like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind. Let us not forget the ICR, the Institute for Creation Research, who has never done a piece of actual Research in their lives. When one clings to a myth, one must believe the MythMakers."
ReplyDeleteWhat do you guys think of scientist like Michael Behe and Hugh Ross from Reasons To Believe.
I actually think they are more dangerous than the Ham's and Discovery Institutes. Simply b/c they do have some expertise in there respective feilds. Of course they rely on special pleadings, god of the gaps and mathmatical manipulations. But to the untrained eye they can be quite convincing.
I read a book called 'The Science of God' by one of Ross' peers, a physicist. He made a lot of obvious mistakes to me, but I can see why a fence-sitter may be tricked by his BS.
I never read any Behe books but I listened to him give a 1 hour lecture on C-Span. Now, if biology is not ones area of expertise,(and it's not mine)he can seem to make a convincing case.
Any thoughts?
Dale:
ReplyDeletePlease enlighten me as you find unreasonable. I have determined that what Clostridiophile finds unreasonable is the lack of uncritical acceptance. Also, if someone were attempting to "prove" divine intervention from the "positive data" of occassional survivors of hurricanes and plane crashes, would you find it equally unreasonable that I point out that they shield their claims from falsification?
It is not an attempt to push buttons (though it may have that effect.) I stated that I see what appears to be a sacred idea. No possible observation can ever falsify it. People will state that it "could easily be falsified" by things that have been verified not to occur.
I am skeptical. And if I see an idea that looks like it is being held sacredly, I will say so. I do not "check my skepticism at the door" just because the sacred notion is held by scientists.
So, yeah, I get told a lot that I am being unreasonable. But who here is not called unreasonable by Ray's gang. A challenge to a sacred idea looks unreasonable to holders of the sacred idea. That is my perception of the situation.
On the assumption that the idea is sacred, what do expect to see that you do not see. I see long posts telling me "just to believe" in such a way that the posters can say they never used those words.
"I have determined that what Clostridiophile finds unreasonable is the lack of uncritical acceptance."
ReplyDeleteBullshit, I have tried patiently over and over to explain to you that your criterion is not the measure of a theory. I've tried to illustrate with examples that your criterion is in fact ridiculous. In the end, I can only conclude that you are just arguing to argue, because not only did I fullfill your criterion, but I further explained that theories gain prominence due to their predictive value and the data that support them.
"Also, if someone were attempting to "prove" divine intervention from the "positive data" of occassional survivors of hurricanes and plane crashes, would you find it equally unreasonable that I point out that they shield their claims from falsification?"
The "positive data" does not demonstrate divine intervention you idiot. Observing speciation in nature, and watching HIV evolve a new protein is "positive data" for evolution. Jesus Christ. Sorry, but you are really starting to piss me off. This is the last response because I have wasted hours trying to explain this to you and you refuse to think about it.
"It is not an attempt to push buttons (though it may have that effect.) I stated that I see what appears to be a sacred idea. No possible observation can ever falsify it."
GODDAMN IT. Go back and reread the Grant study, or any of the thousands of papers that test natural selection in nature. Go out and try to falsify the claim that there is variation in nature, that the variation is heritable and that there is differential reproductive success. Falsify the age of the earth, find a fucking human 3.3 billion years ago.
"People will state that it "could easily be falsified" by things that have been verified not to occur."
You could still find that human, get to diggin. Further, as I have said for about the fifth time, most of this shit wasn't known to Darwin WHEN HE PROPOSED it 150 years ago...the shit hadn't "been verified" in his time...WE VERIFIED IT.
"I am skeptical."
There is a difference between skepticism and refusal to acknoweldge you are wrong. You are the latter. Pick up a science text, or maybe read Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things".
"And if I see an idea that looks like it is being held sacredly, I will say so. I do not "check my skepticism at the door" just because the sacred notion is held by scientists."
Nobody said you had to "check your skepticism". I am asking you to put on your thinking cap though. If evolution was a sacred belief, then why is it that we have shown many things that Darwin said to be wrong? He suggested that whales might have been derived from a relative of the bear. We showed later that they are derived from whales...THIS IS THE SECOND TIME I HAVE TOLD YOU THIS.
"So, yeah, I get told a lot that I am being unreasonable."
That should tell you something, maybe you are just skeptical of this, too, that's why you aren't listening to them.
But who here is not called unreasonable by Ray's gang. A challenge to a sacred idea looks unreasonable to holders of the sacred idea. That is my perception of the situation."
Well, it is clear to me that you hold your idea that evolution is a "sacred idea" as a "sacred idea" and won't listen, even after data is presented to you showing you that you are clearly wrong.
"On the assumption that the idea is sacred, what do expect to see that you do not see. I see long posts telling me "just to believe" in such a way that the posters can say they never used those words."
AHHHHH!!!! Everyone, go to my blog and read the posts I've written to him, and see if his claim that I tell him "just to believe" holds up.
Fuck it, I'm done with this guy, Dale, Maragon, G_E, anyone else, deal with him, I'm about to have an aneurism. Ray doesn't even piss me off this bad!!!
I forgot to add something to this:
ReplyDelete"And if I see an idea that looks like it is being held sacredly, I will say so. I do not "check my skepticism at the door" just because the sacred notion is held by scientists."
Nobody said you had to "check your skepticism". I am asking you to put on your thinking cap though. If evolution was a sacred belief, then why is it that we have shown many things that Darwin said to be wrong? He suggested that whales might have been derived from a relative of the bear. We showed later that they are derived from whales...THIS IS THE SECOND TIME I HAVE TOLD YOU THIS.
if we held this uncritically, we would not have revised the theory so much, further, we wouldn't need to test it so much, we would just 'know' that it is true.
Goddamit,
ReplyDelete"We showed later that they are derived from whales...THIS IS THE SECOND TIME I HAVE TOLD YOU THIS."
"Whales" should read "ungulates"...I got all flustered ;)
"The 'positive data' does not demonstrate divine intervention you idiot."
ReplyDeleteI don't claim it does. I do claim that you can find "positive data" for just about any claim, if that which fails to confirm is regarded as inconclusive.
"That should tell you something, maybe you are just skeptical of this, too, that's why you aren't listening to them."
It tells me just exactly as much as it does when Ray's minions say the same thing. It tells me I am going against the grain. It is also predictable under the assumption that I am right. (That doesn't necessarily mean that I am. It just means it's expected.) It's not that I refuse to think about your "positive data." I acknowledge it. But I also note that the data were collected under conditions in which, had things gone the other way, it would have been regarded as inconclusive.
"I've tried to illustrate with examples that your criterion is in fact ridiculous. In the end, I can only conclude that you are just arguing to argue, because not only did I fullfill your criterion, but I further explained that theories gain prominence due to their predictive value and the data that support them." [Emphasis mine]
I submit, to anyone interested, that my criterion being ridiculous and my criterion being met are incompatible concepts.
"If evolution was a sacred belief, then why is it that we have shown many things that Darwin said to be wrong?"
My contention is that evolution is held as sacred, not that Darwin was viewed as infallible. Evolution looks both plausible and understandable, which makes the idea desirable.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. It's certainly possible that I have a blind spot here. But I think I have found one of yours. I will refrain from saying that you are an idiot because you don't agree with me. I don't think you an idiot at all. You are engaging in actions that I consider quite human.
thanks g_e.
ReplyDeleteI'd read that a while ago and didn't remember how to explain it without coming across totally senseless, without my native language and all. It was clear to me that there were more females of course, but it isn't the easiest thing to convey. I figured even certain theists wouldn't be crazy enough to think scientists were thinking of a 1-couple bottleneck within evolution. Then again...
pvblivs,
ReplyDeleteI posted this on your blog, but I will do so here as well. My apologies for the idiot comment, you have to understand, this is one of the only professions where people are constantly telling you that what you are doing is not even a subject (like theology, but with evidence).
I'd also like to clear this up:
" I submit, to anyone interested, that my criterion being ridiculous and my criterion being met are incompatible concepts."
What I meant, and you have to follow our discussion to see this, is that I showed that you can falsify the central claims, as well as more specific hypotheses in evolutionary theory...but your idea of what falsification is and how we do it is incorrect. You stated that we have to not have data first and basically 'shake hands' before doing a study that this will falsify the whole thing..otherwise it doesn't count. This is not logical, we can look at what has been done and point out after the fact that something has been falsifed, even if the author didn't recognize it as such. No one is going to say, "too late". Goal post shifting doesn't work.
This is what I posted on your blog:
Here is a more relevant discussion, other than a brief course outline:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html
Shermer dicusses this in more detail as well.
I showed you several times that the central tenants can be falsified. You refuse to acknowledge this. Your criterion is just stupid, for the following reason..
The theory predicts some transitions in the fossil record. If we fail to find some for..bats, for instance (which we now have), this doesn't falsify the theory, it is inconclusive because we might not be looking in the right place, or they simply may not fossilize. BUT, we expect to find some and we have found many in numerous lineages...this is not counting the hits and neglecting the misses because failure to fossilize is not a "miss", it is legitimately inconclusive. The point is that how else are we to explain transitions form one form to another?? What other explantion can be offered that best fits this data? Now if we have yet to find some, any, the theory is interesting, but doesn't hold much weight with scientists, why waste the time on a long-shot? Grant money is hard to come by, we want sure things. This is how science works in practice. Evolutionary theory allows us to explain quite alot, and allows specific predictions, like when we are to find whale transitions relative to other forms we have found, same with Tiktaalik. It is the predictive power that leads to acceptance, and as the evidence accumulates, we have more confidence that the theory is correct. If you read the article I post, it is when we begin to notice a bunch of observations that don't make sense in light of the prevailing theory that we begin to express doubt and look for other interpretations that will be more useful in predicting/interpreting. I can only point this stuff out, you can accept it or you won't. Either way, it doesn't change anything. If you really think you are on to something, I suggest you send an article to a philosophy of science journal...or better yet, Science or Nature.
haha, yeah I remember the Divine Number thing. She left rdnet with a red face and her butt in her hands in little pieces, figuratively of course.
ReplyDeleteSeveral of Ray's fans go ballistic whenever a theistic evolutionist shows up, which is rare enough. Imagine how easy it would be to really mess with their minds badly as a fellow fundy who just holds some ideas that contradict theirs. Not that they're not under severe cognitive dissonance with their concepts of justice and mercy already. Perhaps a fundy who thinks that God aborts ovae deliberately to turn them into demons or something. It wouldn't surprise me if one could even twist the interpretation of actual Biblical verses to mean that. Context only bothers them if they need it anyhow.
We shouldn't stoop to their level of dishonesty by posing as such fundies though. I've seen several attempts on tricking atheists by posing as one to lure people to apologetic sites from their side, and I think that would be unethical.
Sooner or later, some real fundy racist or Jesus-is-an-alien theorist will show up. It's just a question of when.
I hope the new evolution-theist there stays a while.
HaaaHaahaaa!!!
ReplyDeleteRay switched the whole quote for a different one! How pathetic. Now the comments on his post make no sense at all, relating to a different quote from someone else!
I wish Ray could do that with his books - just imagine the amazon reviews, all talking about a different book.
Too funny, cracking up.
I hope you don't mind me intruding on your space. I just wanted all of you to know that I am (100%) in support of your "boycott" and hope you stay strong in your resolve.
ReplyDeleteI also enjoy to be challenged; and soon realized that there are so many more profitable websites and blogs to "exercise" intellect, express cleverness and wit, and to find thoughts and ideas (AND EDUCATED FACTS) that might actually result in growth and increased understanding of the diverse points of view, than to waste presious time on Ray's Blog.
I (for one) have a very difficult time feeding something that is a total waste of time and profits no one. To feel as though I am being used for someone else's amusement or to "test" their cleverness is something I simply could no longer be a part of.
I salute all of you and hope you stick to your resolve. I have a feeling if you do, his blog might take a different focus.