Henry J- Another Liar or just Ignorant?
-
Here we go again- Now we have Henry J claiming:
Wrong again asshole. Will Provine, Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett (just to name a few) have done just that and not one is affiliated with ID in any way.
Here we go again- Now we have Henry J claiming:
now try to explain it to the ID leaders and followers; they're the ones equating evolution with atheism.
Wrong again asshole. Will Provine, Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett (just to name a few) have done just that and not one is affiliated with ID in any way.
posted by Joe G @ 5:41 PM
19 Comments:
At 9:20 PM,
Anonymous said…
Dawkins and Dennett have not been equating evolution with atheism. They have been saying that science is corrosive to religion. Not quite the same thing. Evolution is accepted on the basis of evidence, not on the basis of whether a person has any religious beliefs or not. That it is incompatible with your religion and many others does not make evolution the same as atheism. It might lead you there, but evolution is science and science alone, any effects on your beliefs or lack thereof is secondary.
I would guess you would take pride on being able to make such a distinction. AFter all, your blog is called "intelligent reasoning," yet you show yourself as an angry and quite thoughtless fellow. I predict that rather than thinking about what I said I will get a few nice words from you now. Enjoy yourself!
At 10:42 PM,
Joe G said…
Dawkins said that the theory of evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
Dennett said: (last paragraph) but read the whole chapter and you will get the idea (hint- I was right, again)
"Evolutionary biology also supports atheism indirectly by providing an explanatory framework for what we might call the genealogy of theology."
Science isn't corrisive to religion. Newton was about as religious as one can get, as were Galileo, Kepler, Kopernik, Linne- Linne was searching for the created kind when he wrote his system natural. Science was once viewed as a way to understand God's creation.
And BTW I do not have any religious affiliation. If the Bible were somehow refuted tomorrow I wouldn't care. And if it were somehow confirmed as the word of God I would be bummed.
All that said in correcting you, yes there is evidence for evolution. There just isn't any evidence that blind, undirected (chemical) processes (what the theory of evolution posits) A) produced living organisms from non-living matter nor B) can account for the diversity of living organisms starting with some population(s) of prokaryotic-like thingies that just happened to have all the bells and whistles required to live and reproduce.
But thanks for stopping by and spreading your ignorance.
At 10:47 PM,
Joe G said…
Dawkins believes that his own atheism is the logical extension of his understanding of evolution and that religion is incompatible with science.
Liars trying to cover up for other liar. You rock NE....
At 2:26 PM,
Anonymous said…
Joe G my friend,
If you read what Dawkins said, you will see that I was right, not covering anything:
"his own atheism is the logical extension of his understanding of evolution"
And I said:
"It (evolution) might lead you there"
Again, not quite the same thing as equating evolution with atheism. None of your cited paragraphs says such thing. Dennett said that it supports atheism indirectly, not that atheism is the same as evolution.
So, again, there is a distinction you don't seem to be grasping. Evolution *might* lead you to atheism, but it is not the same.
Also, that Dawkins said that science is corrosive to religion. Indeed it can be, but it can also depend on two things: which religion, and how easily a person can compartmentalize religion and science. He did not say that thus every scientist is an atheist. Again, not quite the same to be corrosive to religion than to make every scientist an atheist.
Remember, your blog is called "Intelligent Reasoning," not "I can't make a few distinctions unless I win."
At 2:39 PM,
Anonymous said…
Joe G,
All that said in correcting you, yes there is evidence for evolution.
Of course there is. Glad to hear you know.
There just isn't any evidence that blind, undirected (chemical) processes (what the theory of evolution posits) A) produced living organisms from non-living matter
This is not what evolution posits. Evolution posits that new species arise from previous species. Abiogenesis would be the work on the origin of life, and its a work in progress. And yes, it contains some processes that are quite evolution-like, if not evolution-exactly. But these are different scientific fields.
nor B) can account for the diversity of living organisms starting with some population(s) of prokaryotic-like thingies that just happened to have all the bells and whistles required to live and reproduce.
I think it does indeed account for the diversity of life from common ancestry among most of life. If it was from a single population of prokaryotes, or progenotes, or whatever, that might still be something harder to be convinced of. Yet, that it accounts for what we see starting or deriving from a few common ancestors, there is enough evidence. Sure. That there is no need but for natural processes for this to occur, sure, enough evidence too. However, it is not about "undirected" processes. The processes are quite directed, but naturally, by environments and by the histories of living forms, for example.
So, yes, there is evidence that natural processes can do the job. I don't see why not.
At 3:45 PM,
Joe G said…
NE:
Again, not quite the same thing as equating evolution with atheism.
Nick-picky semantic quibble.
If evolution leads to atheism or it allows one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist my claim is supported.
You didn't read that whole chapter by Dennett, did you?
I bet you haven't read anything by him.
Ya see what IDists say mirror exactly what dawkins, Dennett, Provine et al say about atheism and the theory of evolution.
At 3:49 PM,
Joe G said…
There just isn't any evidence that blind, undirected (chemical) processes (what the theory of evolution posits) A) produced living organisms from non-living matter
This is not what evolution posits.
I didn't say it did. Please try to pay attention.
B) can account for the diversity of living organisms starting with some population(s) of prokaryotic-like thingies that just happened to have all the bells and whistles required to live and reproduce.
NE:
I think it does indeed account for the diversity of life from common ancestry among most of life.
Good for you. Too bad you can't provide ay positive evidence beyond "it looks like common ancestry to me".
NE:
However, it is not about "undirected" processes.
Yes, it is. All genetic changes are allegedly accidents/ errors/ mistakes.
The processes are quite directed, but naturally, by environments and by the histories of living forms, for example.
Environments don't direct anything because they change. Whatever survives, survives.
At 4:34 PM,
Anonymous said…
Joe,
I didn't say it did. Please try to pay attention.
Then what did you mean when you wrote this:
There just isn't any evidence that blind, undirected (chemical) processes (what the theory of evolution posits) A) ...
Bold added by me so you can see. Seems like was paying attention.
Good for you. Too bad you can't provide ay positive evidence beyond "it looks like common ancestry to me".
Oh I can provide plenty of evidence, positive evidence. But all you will do is deny that such evidence exists:
1. Biogeographical thinking lead to discovering fossils intermediate between ancestral forms of apes and humans (looking where our most similar species to ours exist). How is that not positive evidence?
2. Those fossils have intermediate brain capacities and other anatomical clues that make them intermediary between ancestral ape forms and humans. How is that not positive evidence?
3. So many parasitic insertions in common places cannot be explained but as inherited from a common ancestor. How is that not positive evidence?
4. Genetic similarities and differences put us close to chimps, almost as close to gorillas, and so on. How is that not positive evidence?
5. Variable regions. These are obviously not important at least in their particular sequence. yet, as variable as they are, we share them with the other apes. Why would we share similarity in sequences that are not important for the sequence sake if not because of common ancestry?
6. Such variable sites, same that are useful for paternity tests, put chimps and gorillas as relatives to us. Only farther removed than other humans. If they work within the species, why would they not work between species? How is that not positive evidence?
7. That all of the above plus many other evidences are easily explained by common ancestry is positive evidence.
So?
As for undirected. Nope, that mutations are accidental does not mean any of these mutations can survive. Environments select, and selection is not random. Thus, there is direction. Also, the possibilities depend on the genetic background and variability potential, which are dependent on the history of the organisms. Thus, also directed. Only not "intelligently." That the environment changes does not mean it can't direct something. Au contraire, such changes add to the directionality. So, yes, whatever survives survives is a direction.
At 4:35 PM,
Anonymous said…
Oh, by the way, I read the chapter as you suggested. It does not equate evolution with atheism. And you are right, I had not read anything by Dennett before.
At 7:29 PM,
Joe G said…
NE:
Then what did you mean when you wrote this:
There just isn't any evidence that blind, undirected (chemical) processes (what the theory of evolution posits) A) ...
The theory of evolution posits blind, undirected chemical processes and origins are key to evolution.
NE:
Oh I can provide plenty of evidence, positive evidence.
You cannot provide any positive evidence for blind, undirected chemical processes constructing a functional multi-part system.
NE:
1. Biogeographical thinking lead to discovering fossils intermediate between ancestral forms of apes and humans (looking where our most similar species to ours exist). How is that not positive evidence?
What is it positive evidence for? Definitely not for any mechanism.
2. Those fossils have intermediate brain capacities and other anatomical clues that make them intermediary between ancestral ape forms and humans. How is that not positive evidence?
Positive evidence for what? And how can we test that?
3. So many parasitic insertions in common places cannot be explained but as inherited from a common ancestor. How is that not positive evidence?
How do you know only inheritance from a common ancestor is teh only explanation? Do you have any idea of the bottle-necks required to bring that about?
4. Genetic similarities and differences put us close to chimps, almost as close to gorillas, and so on. How is that not positive evidence?
Common design and convergence can explain similarities.
5. Variable regions. These are obviously not important at least in their particular sequence. yet, as variable as they are, we share them with the other apes. Why would we share similarity in sequences that are not important for the sequence sake if not because of common ancestry?
6. Such variable sites, same that are useful for paternity tests, put chimps and gorillas as relatives to us. Only farther removed than other humans. If they work within the species, why would they not work between species? How is that not positive evidence?
7. That all of the above plus many other evidences are easily explained by common ancestry is positive evidence.
So?
So what? Common design and convergence can explain that. What you don't have is any idea what it is that makes any given species what it is.
As for undirected. Nope, that mutations are accidental does not mean any of these mutations can survive.
Many do survive. Just look at the variations in humans alone- million of variants surviving and reproducing- what direction are we going in?
The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity- Nobel Laureates Iinitiative
September 9, 2005
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.
Environments select, and selection is not random.
Except environments don't select. Many variants survive. And environments change.
But anyway do you have any evidence of this alleged direction? We see fruit flies remaining fruit flies even after many alleged new genes spread out over 35 million years.
There isn't any experimental evidence which demonstrates any evolutionary processes can construct useful protein machinery.
Nothing demonstrating any direction. Nothing, empty, devoid of content.
At 7:30 PM,
Joe G said…
NE:
Oh, by the way, I read the chapter as you suggested. It does not equate evolution with atheism.
No, but it does exactly what IDists claim.
At 7:44 PM,
Anonymous said…
That man variants survive does not mean that environments don't select. That fruit flies are "still fruit flies" is like saying that humans are still primates. Yes, we still are.
The evidence for this "alleged direction" is what you perceive as "specified information." It is what you see as "adaptation." If there was no direction then you would see no adaptations at all. Organisms seem very suited to their environments. That is a direction.
I gave you positive evidence for common descent. That you fail to see it is your problem. Note that you need different excuses for each, while common ancestry explains all of them and much more.
Mechanisms? Seriously? So inheritance is an unexplained "blind undirected" mechanism? You yourself said that many mutations survive, that this is why we see so much variation. then, what do I need to explain? You see the variation coming from surviving mutations. Those can give advantages to subpopulations. So? What else is unexplained that would make it impossible for us to be related to other apes by common descent? You got all the ingredients. None needs a designer that, by the way, you have not proven to exist. You just don't want to see them in action.
Obviously you have a strong mental barrier against evolution. You might deny as much as you want. yet, the barrier is right there. You don't want it to be true. As of me. What I want or not does not matter. The evidence is all over the place. It is just a matter of accepting reality.
Adios and have fun.
At 9:20 PM,
Joe G said…
NE:
That man variants survive does not mean that environments don't select.
Environments don't select, for other reasons too. They can eliminate, sometimes to the point of extinction.
NE:
That fruit flies are "still fruit flies" is like saying that humans are still primates. Yes, we still are.
The point is there isn't any evidence that fruit flies were anything but fruit flies and humans were anything but human.
NE:
The evidence for this "alleged direction" is what you perceive as "specified information."
I understand the propaganda. However there isn't any evidence to support the claim.
Also there is the fact that evolution doesn't have a direction:
Can evolution make things less complicated?:
“We do think there is a tendency to look at evolution as progressive,” he said. “We prefer to think of evolution as backwards, sideways, and occasionally forward.”
NE:
I gave you positive evidence for common descent.
You think that it is positive evidence for common descent. There isn't any way to verify that claim.
NE:
Note that you need different excuses for each, while common ancestry explains all of them and much more.
Actually there isn't any evidence that genetic changes can account for the morphologocal and physiological changes required.
The figure is that 90% of the genes are for everyday stuff. That would tell me a common design takes care of most of the similarities in genomes- it's the design standards thing you don't understand.
Then we have that 10% that have something to do with development. Yet we don't know what determines the final form- we can't find it.
So that is a prblem.
NE:
Mechanisms? Seriously? So inheritance is an unexplained "blind undirected" mechanism?
Umm ID, YEC, OEC, TE all accept inheritance.
The theory of evolution posits that all mutations are accidents/ errors/ mistakes.
ID says there isn't any evidence for that claim.
NE:
You yourself said that many mutations survive, that this is why we see so much variation. then, what do I need to explain?
You don't have any idea what is being debated, do you?
NE:
Obviously you have a strong mental barrier against evolution.
The mental barrier is all yours.
I was an evolutionist until I started looking more closely at the data.
The more science uncovers the better ID looks. I take it that bothers you.
The more we know about genetics the less likely the common ancestry scenario looks. I take it that bothers you also.
At 11:44 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
"I was an evolutionist until I started looking more closely at the data."
Care to share what specific data that was? Or perhaps you imagined it...
At 12:50 PM,
CBD said…
Joe
"The more science uncovers the better ID looks."
When will the balance tip towards ID then?
10 years?
20 years?
50 years?
At 1:13 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Care to share what specific data that was?
Everything that is biology.
IOW there wasn't anything that I saw in biology that suppoorts the claims ofthe ToE. And I figured the closer I looked the more obvious the theory would be.
Didn't work out that way.
At 1:15 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
When will the balance tip towards ID then?
As soon as the scientists who are aligned against it either die or pull their heads out of their asses.
At 12:12 PM,
CBD said…
Joe
"As soon as the scientists who are aligned against it either die or pull their heads out of their asses."
The next generation of scientists are not moving towards ID at all. In fact, if anything, they are moving away from it.
It seems to be mostly older religious people who are the bulwark of the ID movement. So your prediction simply can't come to pass.
At 3:25 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
The next generation of scientists are not moving towards ID at all.
You are just retarded. I didn't sasy what generation.
The problem will be that the next generation aligned against ID will also be unable to support the claims of tehir position.
Post a Comment
<< Home