Comments by seeker_of_truth

101. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173671 by seeker_of_truth on May 1, 2008 at 5:16 am

When I read the MSN link-headline 'Unbelievable' softball play, I was skeptical to say the least. However, this ended up being one of the better sports-related stories that I have read all year. Through this experience, I'm still trying to place my [undue?] skepticism in perspective.

http://msn.foxsports.com/olympics/story/8091708?GT1=39002

Comments on the story?

102. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173018 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 8:33 am

In other words, if you don't provide any data for your opinion that the Earth is at least 4,500 years old, I will simply dismiss this as opinion, without the need to say why, or evidence to the contrary.

Utter silliness of which I tire.

I'm off for the day and may be back tomorrow. I don't know why I refuse to accustom myself to the bias that whittles 'argumentation' down to the level as is evidenced by this post.

Maybe you would be interested in providing evidence that an objective reality exists while I'm away?

103. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173008 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 8:27 am

Could this be the offending article on K-Ar dating of Mount St Helens rocks? Published in

Creation Ex Nihilo Technical journal
comic. Serious peer review there!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i3/argon.asp

If so talk origins has some responses.

*exit stage left*

Good job, now is anyone planning on reading this series of rebuttals to see that merit exists on both sides?

104. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173002 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 8:23 am

Where is the evidence to support your 99% belief?

Surely, the onus is on the claimant to support his claim, i.e. you believe the earth is 4500 years old so please support this claim.

Actually my statement was "at least" 4500 yrs old. I hope that helps to clear up any misunderstanding that might have occurred. If that is still a problem, I would suggest you do your own research to verify this claim as it would be a waste of my time.

105. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172987 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 8:16 am

You don't get to make the rules.

I'm afraid when it comes to my willingness to respond... I do make the rules. This is my last response to you until you provide a reason to reconcile. Feel free to look desperate and talk around me though.

106. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172965 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 8:02 am

If you are of the opinion the Earth is at least 4,500 years old, please provide peer-reviewed papers and sources for this assertion.

Since I believe I may be in the 99% majority on this one, I believe the impetus would be on you to provide papers to the contrary.

107. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172961 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 7:58 am

Comment #172956 by Steve Zara

Do you actually have any specific point to make?

You claim to not ignore the information within my posts, yet, when I ask more than once for an argument to reconcile after you initiated a separation, you appear to ignore them.

108. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172957 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 7:51 am

Ref's would be good if you want your assertions to be taken seriously.
I may be mistaken, but Argon dating may have a limited range of usefulness (almost sure it does), of which the samples were likely outside the range of. From wiki:

Due to the long half-life, the technique is most applicable for dating minerals and rocks more than 100,000 years old

So, young rocks from Mt St Helens are not within the useful range of this method. The "evidence" is bogus.

Wiki is correct but your conclusion is a fallacy. If there were only miniscule amounts of K-Ar conversion, then dating is unreliable. However, in the tests I am presenting, the labs 'found' sufficient amounts of argon to date into the equivalent of millions of years.

Perhaps the problem lies in the assumptions that are made prior to physical testing?

109. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172952 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 7:45 am

No one was talking around you. You said you were leaving, i.e. everyone thought you were gone. Are you just trying to instigate an argument?

Rather petty in my opinion but here we go anyway. I finished responding to one party for a 24 hour period but I don't remember saying bye or that I was leaving.

If this is the case, would you then agree that I was being talked around?

110. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172946 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 7:41 am

Seeker,

I have read the article you are alluding to. If I remember correctly, it was intentionally deceitful because the radiometric method that was used was incorrect.

I found the first article and the testing was done by Geochron Laboratories. Do you have information on this company which would shed suspicion on their level of reliability and/or respectability?

111. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172940 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 7:36 am

I think this is where he needs to be pressed. We have provided links to a variety of evidence. As yet he has provided nothing at all. He needs to be pressed to provide references to empirical data.

I think this is where he seems to be indicating a desire for a link-war instead of personal, intelligent debate. Don't we love talking around people who are listening?

112. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172936 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 7:27 am

What is this "comparable quality of evidence"?
Most of the "theories" for a young earth are either flat out wrong (or as the saying goes "not even wrong")

I remember reading a couple of different articles where near, argon-free lava of known ages from recent eruptions taken from Mt. St. Helens and one other volcano was presented to a K -Ar lab and told to expect low argon readings. The results not only missed by millions of years, but were extremely inconsistent in the different samples.

I could probably find them if you are interested in reading the entire articles.

113. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172915 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 7:00 am

seeker_of_truth:

These evidence based theories abound on both sides of the dating issue. Would you honestly ask me to consider one valid and the other 'forced' despite comparable quality of evidence presented?

Comment #172893 by riandouglas

What are the evidence based theories on the other side? Do they explain all the available evidence better than the "old earth" scientific ones, or do they ignore uncomfortable things (like the lake varves epeeist linked to). You can't have a 4500 yeah old earth which has lakes showing 40,000 years of varves.

Reading comprehension says... I have not ignored evidence on this side of the debate when I write things like, "... despite comparable quality of evidence presented?"

No loaded questions please.

114. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172897 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 6:47 am

I'm no astrophysicist, but if you seriously want to argue that gravitational phenomena and non-vacuum areas of space could realistically account for a 99% reduction in the observed ages of the stars then I'm sure there are plenty of better qualified minds here to pour scorn over your ignorance.

I'm afraid I don't play the personal insult game well. I am done responding to any of your posts until this time tomorrow.

115. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172890 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 6:41 am

I guess we're confused as to what your position is, seeker.
With such a long "age of stuff" belief, it is a little difficult to understand what you might believe.
I haven't gone through all your old posts, but what are you arguing here?

Related to the article which opened this debate, did you read this early post of mine?

"It would appear that religious faith is neither a prerequisite nor a disqualifier for performing good science."

This is my sole point.

116. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172887 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 6:38 am

Comment #172858 by riandouglas

These evidence based theories abound on both sides of the dating issue. Would you honestly ask me to consider one valid and the other 'forced' despite comparable quality of evidence presented?

117. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172870 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 6:25 am

Comment #172865 by Steve Zara

So it is all just a game to you?

I think ID trying to wreck science is very serious

Did I miss your compelling argument for reconciliation?

118. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172868 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 6:23 am

I suspect when anyone points out to Seeker that the principle of parsimony does not make it easier to explain a complex God.

Can you or someone else here please explain the temptation to bring the concept of a divine being into this conversation?

119. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172863 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 6:18 am

Have a glance on the fora here at the formal debates, particularly at the ones that AFDave participated in. Note how he gets his arse handed to him on a plate.

Yes, well wouldn't it all be so easy if we cherry-pick debates where our position is supported by a superior debater. Did ever watch a good debater when positions are switched mid-debate and the better skilled debater continues with the upper hand despite the positions switch?

120. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172853 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 6:09 am

You might care to look at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-4G65VG2-2&_user=3962339&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000061901&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=3962339&md5=73d62d4875b7eaa88f6e1f5ed2bca5c4 and http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2462040 before you make comments like that.

Can you paraphrase the jist of these sites for me please? I usually will ask for a site-link if I am desirous of one.

Once you get that under your belt you might start to look at things like tree ring and ice core data and the consilience between these, C14 data an known natural catastrophes.

Are these factors you have in mind here worldwide and consistent is scope to match the consistent age range of C-14 on fossilized bones?

121. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172842 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 6:03 am

So, given a number of different theories of differing complexity, which explain the available data, and no other way to choose between them, you'd pick which?

Did I not already say that parsimony is a good principle?

122. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172837 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 5:59 am

Radiocarbon dating, Potassium-Argon dating - the difference is one of details not of principle. It's all scientific data analysis based on confirmed facts of physics and chemistry.

I assume you are trying to say if it's based on 'confirmed facts of physics and chemistry' is should be reliable? Since both dating methods qualify, why does one show tens of thousands of years and the other billions?

And the light from distant stars travels at a fixed speed through the vacuum of deep space, so it is a very reliable way of telling us how long ago those distant objects emitted light, and hence how old the universe must be at minimum.

Can you prove all of space is a vacuum as you conceive it and where does the force of gravity fit into your equation?

123. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172828 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 5:51 am

How do you explain Tiktaalik then? Thats way over 4500 years old!

Philip

Hi Philip. Do I need to explain a fish fossil when my age of the universe/earth proposal allows for millions, even billions of years on the high end?

124. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172825 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 5:49 am

I would truly like to read these logs. Can you point me in the right direction?

To follow the notes on the same debate, start with TalkOrigins then do a keyword search on AiG [homepage] to match up the debaters by name.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-debates.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/?q=debate&search=Go#q=debate&site=default_collection

125. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172808 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 5:40 am

It matched the available evidence. You're saying that because your god might exist, we should throw out the principle of parsimony and think that it does?
Which god by the way? not sure if you've mentioned

How did anyone's concept of god get into this discussion?

I hate to repeat myself, but what I'm driving at is that parsimony is a good principle but also subject to prove false. Is this too difficult to conceptualize?

126. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172805 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 5:36 am

Why should the artistic stylings of early Egyptian ceramics be a better source of evidence than the radiocarbon dating of prehistoric bones and the light distortions from distant stars?

My 4500 year belief is based on historical writings from that period, not mere art.

I don't think radiocarbon C-14 dating is used for fossilized bones anymore. The results always come up less than 50,000 years old. We've moved to more 'advanced' methods since like Potassium-Argon dating, though I find the latter more questionable myself.

What does distant starlight tell you about the age of the universe?

127. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172798 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 5:30 am

I see some individuals that could benefit from reading some of the debate logs.

128. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172792 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 5:25 am

Comment #172148 by seeker_of_truth
Before the telescope, it was believed there were no more than three thousand stars in the universe. Why? That's all that could be seen.

Comment #172150 by epeeist
Sounds like a theory that was falsified to me. I don't see the problem.

The only problem was at the time, there was no good reason to speculate that there were billions of stars in the universe. Parsimony was served with the three thousand [observable] estimate. Parsimony in this case, led to a false conclusion.

129. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172786 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 5:20 am

How old do you think the Earth is?
How old do you think the Universe is?
Do you think that ID is actually science?

I believe both the universe and our planet are at least 4500 years old and beyond that, the sky's [and the theories are] the limits.

If ID were junk science, then why do so many educated and professional naturalists find themselves stretched in debate with those who hold to intelligent design? An answer would be appreciated.

130. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172782 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 5:12 am

Comment #172152 by Steve Zara

I seem to remember this from you a couple of days ago;

Steve Zara quote No more responses from me. Good luck with the others.

I was glad to hear you take this position as your repeating style while ignoring new and relevant proposals by me was beginning to get boring.

Do you have a compelling argument for reconciliation?

131. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172778 by seeker_of_truth on April 30, 2008 at 5:03 am

Comment #172122 by irate_atheist

Congratulations. You too can cut'n'paste a generalised dumbed-down statement.

That sounds a bit sarcastic? Ask S. Zara, I can bite too.

I often copy-paste when introducing a concept. I value my time so why reinvent the wheel? If the discussion delves deeper into a given principle, I am more than happy to continue in my own words.

What are your qualification in this particular field?

Layman. You?

132. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172148 by seeker_of_truth on April 29, 2008 at 9:15 am

Putting in a supposedly omnipotent being into a theory tends to rather throw out the idea of parsimony.

Parsimony is a fine principle except when it does not apply. Before the telescope, it was believed there were no more than three thousand stars in the universe. Why? That's all that could be seen.

And gtg for now. Be back tomorrow.

133. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172118 by seeker_of_truth on April 29, 2008 at 8:47 am

What are your views on Einstein and the cosmological constant by the way? Are we to discard the whole of relativity because of the "biggest blunder" in his life.

Humphreys' theory is consistent with relativity. In Albert Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," special relativity postulates, among other things;

Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an observer's "stationary" clock.

Relativity of simultaneity: two events that appear simultaneous to an observer A will not be simultaneous to an observer B if B is moving with respect to A.

134. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172106 by seeker_of_truth on April 29, 2008 at 8:38 am

See, scientists (those worth the name) from my understanding try to start and end with the least assumptions. As far as I can tell, Yahweh is one very large, very complicated assumption.

Agreed. Unfortunately, no one was present at the moment of the inception of our universe so assumptions must abound for this particular field of science.

Although Humphreys makes a huge assumption by using Yahweh as his stated source, he also eliminated the need for a stop-gap theory to compensate for the distant starlight problem. Traditional big-bang still relies on 'inflation' for this purpose and I have seen a few recently published papers attempting to integrate big-bang and white hole cosmology from naturalist.

So one assumption made and another eliminated in the same process?

135. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172096 by seeker_of_truth on April 29, 2008 at 8:28 am

Plain lucky - and cheating. See about 3/4 of the way down this page:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/07/18/

From that link. This is about as laughable as it gets -

"But his guess was that they were intermediate in strength between Earth's and Saturn's, which is a pretty safe bet given their masses."

The obvious question then becomes, "If a safe bet, why the heck was all of naturalistic astronomy 100,000 times off the mark?"

Does self-delusion have no bounds?

136. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172065 by seeker_of_truth on April 29, 2008 at 7:46 am

So, a notable absence of anyone born in the 20th century.

Talk about a bold claim by a theist; [Born in 1941]

In Russell Humphreys' book, Starlight and Time, he presents a controversial cosmological model in which the Earth is only several thousands of years old, but the outer edge of an expanding and rotating 3-dimensional universe is billions of years old, with various ages in between. According the Humphreys, this "White Hole" cosmological model is based on the Genesis account combined with one other 'verse' from the New Testament. Most interesting to me were the predictions made, based on this model, for the strength of the fields of the planets Uranus and Neptune - still theoretical at the time of Humphreys' publication. Humphreys' field strengths were 100,000 times that of established, big-bang naturalists. For those who know the outcome, Humphreys was correct.

I have to ask myself - blind luck, deceptive representation of the origins of his theories, or did Humphreys resource something that naturalists have already discounted, thereby limiting related-source discoveries to a small minority of researchers?

137. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172047 by seeker_of_truth on April 29, 2008 at 7:22 am

So, a notable abscence of anyone born in the 20th century. And very few born after the publication of 'On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection' by Charles Darwin...

Also notable is that the majority of scientists on that list are in unrelated fields to Darwinian biology.

138. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172043 by seeker_of_truth on April 29, 2008 at 7:18 am

What does it prove? That a number of scientists were faith-holders (why did you only choose Christians by the way? Why not Ramunjan or Chandresekhar. Why not Abd Allah ibn Sina). Does it show that a deity exists? Or does it just that one should not commit the argument from authority fallacy?

I chose those with the Christian faith as this seems to be where 90-plus-% of the focus is placed by Dennett and this debate in general. That was my read on Breaking the Spell anyway.

139. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172033 by seeker_of_truth on April 29, 2008 at 7:04 am

What do we do with the scientists of old who began their search before the bible was written?

Since you did not name any, we will continue with this hypothetical question anyway.

It would appear that religious faith is neither a prerequisite nor a disqualifier for performing good science.

140. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172024 by seeker_of_truth on April 29, 2008 at 6:51 am

What do we do with the scientists of old who claimed that they began their search for truth with the assumption that God exists, the bible is true, and that God had created an orderly universe that reveals himself? It is upon these shoulders that many devout naturalists/atheists stand, apparently disregarding the historicity of the men who brought advances within their respective fields.

Is science and faith incompatible or is someone attempting to rewrite history?

Please feel free to shoot down anyone on this list for a lack of the type of faith that my research shows that they possessed or the noted accomplishments assigned.

Georgias Agricola (1494-1555)- Founder of metallurgy
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)- Discoverer of the Laws of Planetary Motion
Johannes Baptistavan Helmont (1579-1644) - Founder of Pneumatic Chemistry and Chemical Physiology
Francesco Maria Grimaldi (1618-1663) - Discoverer of the Diffraction of Light
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) - Mathematical Prodigy and Universal Genius
Robert Boyle (1627-1691) - Founder of Modem Chemistry
John Ray (1627-1705) - Cataloger of British Flora and Fauna
Isaac Barrow (1630-1677) - Newton's Teacher
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) - Discoverer of Bacteria
Niels Steno (1638-1686) - Founder of Geology
James Bradley (1693-1762) - Discoverer of the Aberration of Starlight
Ewald Georg von Kleist (c. 1700-1748) - Inventor of the Leyden Jar
Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) - Classifier of all Living Things
Leonhard Euler (1707-1783) - The Prolific Mathematician
John Dalton (1766-1844) - Founder of Modem Atomic Theory
Thomas Young (1773-1829) - First to Conduct a Double-Slit Experiment with Light
David Brewster (1781-1868) - Researcher of Polarized Light
Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873) - Geologist of the Cambrian
Augustin-Jean Fresnel (1788-1827) - The Physicist of Light Waves
Augustin Louis Cauchy (1789-1857) - Soulwinning Mathematician
Michael Faraday (1791-1867) - Giant of Electrical Research
John Frederick William Herschel (1792-1871) - Cataloger of the Southern Skies
Matthew Fontaine Maury (1806-1873) - Pathfinder of the Seas
Philip Henry Gosse (1810-1888) - Popular Naturalist
Asa Gray (1810-1888) - Influential American Botanist
James Dwight Dana (1813-1895) - Systematizer of Mineralogy
George Boole (1815-1864) - Discoverer of Pure Mathematics
James Prescott Joule (1818-1889) - Originator of Joule's Law
John Couch Adams (1819-1892) - Codiscoverer of Neptune
George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) - Theorist for Fluorescence
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) - Pioneer in Genetics
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) - Physicist of Thermodynamics
Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866) - The Non-Euclidean Geometer Behind Relativity Theory
James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) - Father of Modem Physics
Edward William Morley (1838-1923) - Michelson's Partner in Measuring the Speed of Light
Pierre-Maurice-Marie Duhem (1861-1916) - The Physicist Who Recovered the Science of the Middle Ages
Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966) - The Priest Who Showed Us the Universe Is Expanding
George Washington Carver (c. 1864-1943) - Pioneer in Chemurgy
Arthur Stanley Eddington (1882-1944) - The Astronomer Who Ruled Stellar Theory

141. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171348 by seeker_of_truth on April 28, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Time for productive activity. I'm off to order some oil and a filter for my next oil change. Enjoy til I return.

142. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171337 by seeker_of_truth on April 28, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Based on the evidence, which has greater support:

God
Gods
Thor
Baal Shamin
Non-descript energy
Vishnu
Mahapumbra
Aliens of some sort

If we must play these games...

Thor would explain where the hammer idea came from but I wouldn't want to piss of any aliens with better weapons than mine if I choose Thor either. Will a typical elephant gun bring Mahapumbra down if I don't pick him? Non-descript energy sounds innocent enough but wasn't lightning in that category at one time? Baal Shamin reminds me of Leroy Brown, baddest man in the whole damn town so for the record; I like him... a lot :) God and Gods sounds like a broad range to keep in the running. Lastly, I have a Vishnu somewhere tucked away in a box in the garage. Maybe I should display it for a while just for safe measure?

143. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171311 by seeker_of_truth on April 28, 2008 at 12:24 pm

No more responses from me. Good luck with the others.

Probably for the best and thank you for the well wishes.

144. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171292 by seeker_of_truth on April 28, 2008 at 12:15 pm

Strike two.

When I read this I didn't know whether to laugh or tell you to shove both strikes 1 & 2 up your ass. I'll laugh for now.

And you still haven't answered my question about why ID should be considered science when it provides no predictions and so is not testable.

Does it not predict that all species in existence today are a result of micro-evolution? Once all extant fossils and living things have their respective genome mapped, we should know beyond the shadow of a doubt if this is true or false. Is this testable, albeit still off in the future a ways?

145. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171277 by seeker_of_truth on April 28, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Maybe ask an elementary age child this question, "I'm going to read you a list of possible characters that may have created the world. Tell me if you think this list is serious or silly please?"

See what the obvious, simple interpretation is from a largely unbiased source.

146. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171260 by seeker_of_truth on April 28, 2008 at 11:54 am

He went on to say that if life can not be recreated by natural means without intelligent manipulations, then the only other explanation is the supernatural...

Well good thing my friend said 'if'... eh? I'd hate to see you upset over nothing.

And if you can't yet tell, I have no plans to answer you 'silly list' question other than in the manner I already have.

147. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171200 by seeker_of_truth on April 28, 2008 at 11:11 am

I have asked that 3 times and still have not received an answer.

You are mistaking the reception of an answer with receiving the type of answer you expected.

And I don't think you answered when asked about your personal religion. And if you did answer I was absent.

My official, religious position is open-minded. I don't eliminate my options without a through wrestling of all evidence.

148. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171138 by seeker_of_truth on April 28, 2008 at 10:30 am

I have told you before. It is Spartina anglica, the polyploid version.

The fact that this is unique is even more evidence that what you consider "macromutation" is very common.

Sorry I missed by one generation on the Latin. However, polyploids are not rare occurrences, at least not in plants. And macromutation needs to be viewed through the lens of an epigenetic explanation. Again, I don't see a clear conclusion myself.

Macromutation from Wiki;

"While macromutations appear to be the only explanation for differences such as the number of body segments among arthropods, at the genetic level where the original change occurs, very few changes to genes may actually be necessary to result in the large physical change. Some genes control other genes and the higher the level of control, the larger the change it can make. Biologists make a distinction between changes to the genotype, and the resulting body structure resulting from those genes phenotype."

149. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171115 by seeker_of_truth on April 28, 2008 at 10:17 am

But the likelyhood of it being aliens, gods, unicorns, space donkeys, fairies are all about equal based on the evidence, am I correct? Or do you have some other evidence you have yet to present?

So instead of insinuating that I am insulting God, perhaps you could answer my question?

I would call your list speculation at best. If ID were proven, the designer would have to step forward in some tangible way for us to know any specific details of his/her/its nature. Until then, ridicule may be a premature, default position.

And my insinuation had nothing to do with the 'God' you insinuate I might have had in mind. It was an attempt to draw this discussion away from what appears to be scientifically unattainable at this time.

The other night someone proposed the supernatural as a theory for the origin of life and I laughed. I responded, "Call it anything but a 'theory' please and just how do you plan on testing this?" He went on to say that if life can not be recreated by natural means without intelligent manipulations, then the only other explanation is the supernatural - defined as; pertaining to entities, events or powers regarded as beyond nature, in that they cannot be explained by the laws of the natural world.

That's about the closest thing I can give as validity to the concept of the supernatural.

150. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171087 by seeker_of_truth on April 28, 2008 at 9:57 am

As I have discussed before, ID is not a theory. An apparently irreducible design can never be shown to irreducible.

I am not as familiar with irreducible complexity as I am with the comparative evidence based on the likelihood of genetic mutations explaining the diversity that we see today (macro-evolution). I see IC as the reverse path of logic which questions whether macro-evolution could provide all that exists today from substantially less complex forms of life (e.g. single-cell organisms). I prefer direct, head-to-head comparison of macro vs. micro probabilities for any evidence in question.

Maybe somewhere else here has spent more time on the theory of IC that can give more information on it?

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next