If one ‘theory’ which happens to be widely accepted in a particular group which doesn’t always mean it’s factual, then can this ‘theory’ be used to explain another widely accepted ‘theory’ about the universe?
Co-founder of DNA, Francis Crick said, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved..” In 1996, atheist Richard Dawkins said in his book “The Blind Watchmaker”, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
The reason why nature appears designed is because it is designed! If nature didn’t look designed, Crick wouldn’t have given biologists such advice neither would Dawkins. Many secular scientists know observations point to design rather than a random purposeless process but must to adhere to an erroneous type of framework so you will see from time to time, scientists trying to disprove those observations.
A couple of Oxford evolutionists decided since assumptions in Darwinism have been so successful within their philosophy of science, they applied it to the fine tuning of the universe! How did the universe become finely tuned? Having something finely tuned is not an ideal environment for evolution. The ‘theory’ requires flexibility! If fruit flies would have become more flexible in the experiment with change rather than resisted to change while showing a loss in fitness over time, then evolution would have hard evidence rather than assuming those fruit flies could still change into another species.
Fine tuning of the universe are like fruit flies. Both are finely tuned and both are winding down rather than evolving up. It’s a great analogy, here is the Oxford’s scientists analogy…
“Cosmological natural selection proposes that, if new universes are born inside black holes, a ‘multiverse’ of many possible universes could be shaped by a process similar to natural selection so that successive generations of universes evolve to become better at making black holes…”
However, they admit...”evolution of universes is very different from the evolution of animals,” but they conclude...“models of evolving universes are quite similar to models of bacterial evolution.”
Is a black hole simply in a quantum mechanical state which will eventually decay over time and ultimately disappear through Hawking radiation or a new universe? I would think the former, meaning a black hole is in a quantum mechanical state which will decay over time! When evolutionists try to explain fine-tuning, this is what one would call using God-given talents to promote man-made stories which adhere to no science at all which claims precise fundamental constants in our universe being changed from another universe to the next universe and so on!
New Discoveries & Comments About Creationism 
Yawn.
The same old nonsense, Michael. Obviously the word “Darwinisme” is only used by creationists, and has nothing to do with science. You could use the term ‘Darwinistic evolution’, or ‘neo-Darwinistic evolution’, that would be correct.
And yes, ‘neo-Darwinistic evolution’ is a theory, not a ‘theory’, and a very good one.
Michael, putting it in quotes doesn’t make it go away. The only thing that makes a theory go away is good evidence against it, which you never show.
Dr. van Kampen, what would be “good evidence” against evolution in your area of expertise?
Only laboratory repeatable science please.
My name is Eelco.
Your question simply shows your ignorance on how science works: science is not limited to labs, obviously. I would be out of a job straight away.
Fine Eelco, I know science broadly defined is not confined to lab work. However, there should be at least one lab experiment that you can do in your area of expertise which can validate evolution. If you would dismiss Michael’s evidence (i.e. interpretation of data), then surely you have something more testable and repeatable which can show the average layman the scientific validity of evolution.
Michael once again sneers[1] at speculation in science.
This is ironic, since creationism comprises nothing but speculation. The difference is that scientific speculation arises from an extension or generalization of another theory, or a promising analogy, or an observed fact that doesn’t seem to fit anywhere. Speculations in science are presented and critiqued in journals by peers, who then devise ways for testing the speculation, and then gather evidence both for and against it. Speculation in creationism, however, arises solely from interpretation of a holy scripture that was never meant as a historical narrative.[2] Creationists seem singularly uninterested in conducting research putting their speculation to any kind of test that would distinguish them from mainstream science. Creationist speculation is not criticized by any peer group, and perishes only when it becomes so stupid that a sufficient number of people laugh it to death.[3]
But Michael doesn’t always condemn speculation in science. When one of Fred Hoyle’s unsubstantiated musings on, say, panspermia comports with Michael’s beliefs then Michael fawns all over it. Hermann Bondi’s speculations on continuous creation? Creationists are all for it.
.
Applying Darwinian processes to systems other than biological has been attempted. A few linguists see them in the way the languages change, for example. The requirements for generalizing these processes are that a system’s components replicate with variation, and that some of the variations are more successful than others in producing new components.
Gardner & Canlon speculate that universes replicate in black holes with variations in physical laws and constants. The ”fitness function’ of the daughter universes is their ability to produce black holes themselves.
Eelco knows a lot more about this area than I. Previous cosmologists had proposed that black holes are the womb of universes. But this is still speculation. The idea that the daughter universes have different laws and constants is still speculation. Although some cosmologists are devising tests, I don’t think there is any significant physical evidence for either of these concepts at the present time. The point is, however, that research is being conducted to find evidence for or against.[4]
Michael is being two-faced in denigrating speculation. First, he swallows rampant creationist speculation whole, without even a sip of water. Second, he relies on the most ungrounded speculations in science—if they happen to agree with his preconceived beliefs. This is sometimes called hypocrisy.
=====================
[1] Actually, it was David Coppedge who sneered, in Cosmologists Use Natural Selection to Explain Fine-Tuning of the Universe, Michael himself is too ignorant of the subject matter to know when to sneer and when to sweep it under the rug.
[2] See Hyers, The Meaning of Creation (Westminster 1984)
[3] For example, Answers in Genesis maintains a list of arguments creationists should avoid. Becaue they’re wrong? No. Because they’re illogical? No. Because people started laughing at them.
[4] Scientists, you see, follow the evidence wherever it leads. Thomas Gold abandoned the steady-state theory in favor of the big bang when cosmic microwave radiation was demonstrated. Bondi followed some time later, and Hoyle eventually caved in light of this new evidence..
If creationism comprises nothing but speculation, then the foundation of modern science is nothing but speculation. Unless one is God, it is impossible to state that creationist speculation arises SOLELY from interpretations of holy writ and that Genesis is not historical narrative (this is still being disputed unless Olorin has published the definitive systematic theology solution). Creationists do critique peer work as anyone familiar with creationism would know. As for a multiverse, that research is ongoing does not make it scientific beyond the level of hypothesis. Research is ongoing into creationism as well, does that make it scientific? I guess that would be expecting you to be consistent, my apologies. Given that you claim to be a Lutheran creationist, it would behoove you to stop using the term to refer to Michael alone as if you were an atheistic evolutionist. Unless you are an atheistic evolutionist fronting as a Lutheran, which I strongly suspect is the case.
An obvious non sequitur. Creationism is not science. Creationism provides no foundation for modern science. Their basic goals differ. The purpose of science is to understand the physical universe. The purpose of creationism is to establish a religious dogma.
What else does creationist speculation arise from? Certainly not from any positive physical evidence for one or more creation events. To borrow a well-worn phrse, Where are the laboratory experiments that demonstrate creation?
An overwhelming trove of scientific research negate the hypothesis that genesis is a historical narrative. An overwhelming majority of theologians argue that the purposes of Genesis and the context of its writings[1] are incompatible with its historicity.
====================================
[1] Remembering that Genesis I and Genesis II were written several centuries apart, by two very different civilizations.
You keep making claims but not showing exactly how that is the case.
Interpretation of the evidence through a catastrophic framework
None of these are evidence for special creation by any stretch of the imagination. You are engaging in a flagrant false dichotomy at best. Some of them are not evidence for or against any theory. None of them is capable of distinguishing between creation and evolution, because both predict them.
There has never been a laboratory experiment that resulted in even the tiniest special creation event or demonstrated any mechanism for creation. Never.
Lame.
I thought you meant creation as in creationism. Rather, you meant creation as in the initial creation event. My bad. I have stated previously that such would be a special one time event and thus would not be scientific due to its lack of repeatability (and testability). For you to thus ask for lab experiments for the initial special creation event is thus indicative of your atheism hiding behind a Lutheran veil. Either that or rank stupidity. Since there are no lab experiments for the big bang or abiogenesis, both of which are pillars for biological evolution as presently postulated, these would be unscientific as well. Since evolution is a form of special creation, that your question is due to rank stupidity has been confirmed. So yes Olorin, your question was lame, very lame. Now please enlighten us as to what evidence you have that Gen 1 and 2 were written years apart and from different civilizations, when they were written and what civilizations exactly? Unleash on us your inner theologian, Mr. atheist wolf.
You yourself have previously made repeatable lab experiments the criterion as to whether or not evolution is science. If special creation cannot fulfill this requirement, then it is not science, by your own definition..
Dear Olorin, I have stated before that BOTH creationism (C) AND evolutionism (E) are not scientific due to their inability to be tested directly. Both C and E are postulates both with varying strengths and weaknesses. We are thus tasked with finding which model best fits ALL the data (and even then we could be wrong). Biological evolution does fit some of the data (biology and to an extent, geology) but it does not fit with other data (math, physics, chemistry, philosophy, engineering). Creationism loosely fits most of the data IMO but fails on mechanism.
So again, please enlighten us as to what evidence you have that Gen 1 and 2 were written years apart and from different civilizations, when they were written and what civilizations exactly?
Well, you could do a little research yourself on this subject. Creationists are overly fond of making the opposition prove their points, while refusing to exert any effort whatsoever to demonstrate their own theories.
My sources include a number of books and lectures. A good one written for general audiences is Karen Armstrong’s The Bible: A Biography (Grove Press 2008). Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (Summit 987) provides the social context and history of the Pentateuch. Lectures in Religion in the Ancient Mediterranean World (Teaching Company, undated) provides the religious contexts of the area in which the Genesis accounts arose. The first two lectures of The Old Testament (Teaching Company 2001) describe the authorship of Genesis.
A concise summary of the history and authorship of Genesis 1 and 2 is located in Linder, In the beginning: Two Stories of Creation” (2004),[1] noting that centuries, large distances, and different civilizations produced the two accounts. Wikipedia also has a summary of the view accepted by mainstream theologians.[2]
Most of the online references found by Google have an obvious bias in favor of the traditional holding that Moses himself wrote all 5 books of the Pentateuch—in spite of the fact that some people and events in the books occurred long after Moses’ lifetime. These are apologetic in nature, and conflict with historians’ views ever since Thomas Hobbs..So do not try to overwhelm with screeds from The Creation Institute or Apologetics Press (***//www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=451***)—although the latter does bend significantly in the direction that Genesis 1/2 is not a historical narrative.[3]
The different authorship of Genesis 1 and 2 is held by mainstream Christian and Jewish theologians. If you differ, please cite some non fundamentalist theologians who can provide actual evidence[4] to the contrary.
======================
[1] Online at ***//law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/gen1st.htm*** (The URLs are disabled, to avoid the WordPress limitations on embedded links.
[2] ***//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative#Genesis_1:1.E2.80.932:3***
[3] The Roman Catolic view embraces this concept. See, e.g., ***//www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0034.html*** from the Catholic Education Resource Center.
[4] That is, more than mere ideological pronouncements or unsubstantiated opinions.
These are examples of evidence FOR special creation? This is beyond delusional. It is deranged.
> Lenski’s e. coli changes were documented almost daily throughout the entire decade-long history of the experiment. Every small mutation, every change in the genome can be documented as to where, and in which populations—without any indications whatever of divine intervention. it occurred. Even hard-core creationists quiver when Lenski is mentioned, trying to minimize the evolutionary aspects. If you claim Lenski is evidence FOR creation, you are quite alone, soli di mundi.
> Changes in finch beak size are often denigrated as not “real” evolution. But no one, even creationists, claim that they resulted from a creation event, or are evidence FOR special creation. This is ridiculous on its face.
> Homology occurs within an evolutionary branch. Creationists claim that it could also result from common design. However, none of them adduces any evidence as to why it occurs in certain clades but not in others, or what the different designs comprise. Homology is not evidence FOR creation, because it has never offered any evidence to distinguish homology of common design from homology from evolution. Evidence that cannot distinguish between two rival theories is useless in demonstrating either one.
> Complexity of DNA is at best an unsupported claim about inadequacy of evolution. It is not evidence FOR creation. This is an obvious false dichotomy.
> How can mitochondrial Eve be evidence FOR creation? The identity of mEve has changed many times over the past thousands of years. How could all these different people be the one Eve of creation?[1] I’m not aware of any creationists who even make this claim anymore; the laughter is too intense.
> I’m not sure what you mean by “directed” mutations. No one has ever been able to identify mutations in the wild that were “directed,” by God or anything else. How can such non-existent entities by evidence FOR creation? As to increasing information in the genome, it happens all the time, right under our noses.[2][3] So how can a bare claim that is false on its face be evidence FOR creation?
> Regularity in natural law. Now that’s really outside the coconut;. By what possible reasoning could this be evidence FOR creation? Or even against evolution? Would you make the same argument about chemical laws? Mathematical theorems? How about laws that are later shown to be incorrect? Does God make mistakes like that often, or only occasionally?
Again, none of these examples constitute any positive evidence whatsoever for special creation. That is ridiculous.
==========================
[1] You can see the same phenomenon in Chinese family names (and Swedish as well). When the last carrier of the oldest name dies without issue, then some other name becomes the “oldest” name in the country, and everyone thereafter is descended from him, rather than from the earlier dude. .
[2] Well apparently not under your nose.
[3] Also, I keep having to remind you that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not admit of any exception for intelligent design or creation. In fact, Maxwell’s Demon and the recently verified Landauer’s Principle explicitly preclude decreases in entropy from the actions of intelligence. Some people never learn. .
Is that like your random google slavery scholarship? Or should I call it a “screed”?
Karen Armstrong is not a theologian or a PhD holder. Richard Friedman promotes the JEDP which no Lutheran in his right mind should even be considering. He is probably not even Christian and his book ‘Who Wrote the Bible?’ was not published by a theological, academic or scholarly press. JEDP is said to be obsolete [1].
As far as I am aware, there are no apologetic works concerning your claims of different Genesis authorship times and civilizations. For instance, the Apologetics Press article concerns historicity, not time and civilizational origin disputation. The views of Catholics are irrelevant.
The author Doug Linder is a lawyer, not a theologian or ancient language expert.
Ah yes, a true Wikipedia scholar you are. Not a liberal atheistic screed at all. I guess that’s why the Wikipedia author uses JEDP as well.
[1] http://web.archive.org/web/20091002022303/http://www.dougbeaumont.org/SoulDevice/writings_dochyp.html
Jewish views are somewhat irrelevant as they have given up truth [Jesus] for their own messiah [whatever that is]. Mainstream theologians are, as I have stated previously: (1.) pagans like Hector Avalos (2.) Christianized and/or Christianized pagans (3.) Christians with an improper Western framework for proper interpretation [hint: the bible is an Eastern book] (4.) Occasional servants of science above holy writ (5.) quasi-Christians a la Mat 7:21.
There is no need to denounce fundamentalist theologians as those given to “mere ideological pronouncements or unsubstantiated opinions” before even being presented with their views. Your statement would indicate that you are given to “mere ideological pronouncements or unsubstantiated opinions” since they [the fundies] would at least try to entertain your nonsense before replying. Most apologetics is done by evangelicals who are not fundamentalists [though I doubt an atheist like yourself would know the difference even if it bludgeoned you], so you can rest assured that their “mere ideological pronouncements or unsubstantiated opinions” would not reach your blogging eyes.
You also seem to not understand how logic works. You make claim, you present evidence. There is no ‘burden of proof’ on me which requires me to do my own research nor to present contradictory data if I disagree given the level of your response. Since you have provided no hard data from any bible scholar or ancient language expert, your claim is baseless as would be expected from an atheist wolf who thinks biblical scholarship is found via Wikipedia, non-Christians, non-scholarly books and atheist link aggregation blogs, names unknown.
But the main issue is this: does Olorin now believe that evolution is unscientific due to its lack of repeatability and testability as well as contradictory evidence from the hard sciences and math?
It is becoming increasingly clear that you do not know half as much as you pretend to know. Georgia Purdom does not “quiver” from Lenski’s research, nor does the Discovery Institute or anyone else. Even the IDers laugh that Lenski was the ‘intelligent designer’ of a failed macro-evolutionary experiment.
It is becoming increasingly clear that you do not know half as much as you pretend to know about the creationism you despise.
Yes, but that does not mean that the data does not fit both models. As far as engineering and information theory is concerned, creationism is more probable that evolutionism a la homology.
Degraded DNA via mutations in time is evidence for the genetic degradation as postulated in Genesis. It is also counter-evidence for information producing events required by evolution UNLESS such evolution was guided (call the IDers!).
The actual mEve is not the issue. The issue is that there was a common origin or bottle-necking event discernible in the human genetic code. This is again evidence for BOTH creo and evo.
Directed mutations would be Lenski’s e-coli which were directed by his selection pressures. This did not increase information, did it? Increasing information does NOT occur in the genome as far as I am aware. Feel free to present a list of peer-reviewed journal articles to aid your view here.
Laws are immaterial. Evolution works only on naturalistic (material) events. Hence, immaterial entities exist … evidence for creationism [if you can’t follow the logic, I would not be surprised].
Yes, it is ridiculous that you have eyes and still cannot see [hint: refuse to see]. See, the bible even prophesied you thousands of years before you were born. Oh wait, you can’t see …. bummer.
Apparently, Eelco’s pager is dead or evolving.
I already answered, Chazing.
I can’t help it that you don’t like the answer ,,,
Indeed you can’t. Neither can you directly answer a question. If scientific evidence for evolution only exists in the theoretical and not the practical as well, it is not scientific. It’s conjecture.
Jewish views are irrelevant as to Jewish history! BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA.
Mainstream theologians are pagans. BWAHAHAHAAAAAA.
No Western Christian can analyze an ancient Eastern text. BWAHAHAHAAAAA.
Grotesque. Grusomely grotesque.
No, I clearly said that I did answer your question. Is reading so hard ?
Furthermore, you are again spouting nonsense about science. You have no idea how science works, clearly.
Conjecture must be science else you would be out of a job is not a valid argument.
That was not my answer. You really have a reading problem.
And an even bigger attitude problem.
SOMEWHAT irrelevant, SOME mainstream theologians are pagans [pagan = non-Christian, Hector Avalos = atheist = non-Christian = pagan], Western Christians unfamiliar with the Eastern context of the Bible would not be able to PROPERLY interpret ancient text. Grotesque misrepresentations or is it grotesque comprehension skills?
But anyways, does Olorin now believe that evolution is unscientific due to its lack of repeatability and testability as well as contradictory evidence from the hard sciences and math?
Recall your words:
I have given you ample opportunity to present evidence for evolution from your own specialty yet you refuse to do so. How is my attitude problematic? Because it does not stroke your ego?
And here you just demonstrate your attitude problem again.
Bye.
Goodbye Eelco, try to evolve an answer (and less dismissive attitude) will you.
No need to provide even more evidence for your attitude problem, Chazing. There is quite enough of that on this blog already. More than enough, I’d say.
They claim it does not demonstrate macro-evolution. They do NOT claim that this experiment is positive evidence FOR design by an external intelligence. If they do, it would by an egregious false dichotomy.
Since this flies in the face of evidence accepted by all but half a dozen of the 420,000 biology researches in the world, you need more than a mere arm-wave to support your contention. And you need to explain why engineers know more about evolutionary theory than biologists do. If data fit both models, then it obviously cannot be evidence of one of them over the other. Don’t you know anything about science?
Genesis does not constitute physical evidence. Genomes have not degraded overall–if they had, all life would be extinct by now, and you would not be here to make such ridiculous claims. Intelligence is not required to decrease entropy and thus increase information—as explained to you several times before, intelligence is not capable of reducing entropy. Entropy is decreased—and information increased—solely from the flow of high quality energy through a system. You must have slept through thermodynamics class. The IDers apparently also dozed off. Well, they probably never took the course—Stephen Meyer certainly did not.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. The “bottleneck” had an mEve, but there have been thousands of different mEves since then. They are still being produced, although tracking the vast amount of data needed to identify specific individuals is technically unfeasible. And not very interesting.
You are absolutely right. You are not aware.. The only selection pressure he applied was one that would occur in the wild. The only difference is that it was applied in a lab rather than by environmental abundance of their normal diet. No mutations were “directed” by Lenski. Some of the bacteria died out; these did not mutate enough to avoid starvation. Others went down a different path.Only a few samples mutated in a way that could take advantage of what was intended to be only a physical substrate material, and not a nutrient under aerobic conditions.
Lenski himself was surprised by this result, and it took his staff a number of months to figure out what in fact had happened, which mutations contributed to the new capabilities, and which of other thousands of mutations, linkages, duplications events did not. If Lenski “directed” these events he certainly did not know it. You should actually read Lenskis papers; maybe it will actually sink in. Although I doubt it.
Information easily ncreases in genomes. Foir example, a duplication produces a copy which is then free to mutate on its own—the duplication and subsequent differences in the copy increase information. This is too basic to require “journal articles.” Stupid.
That’s the most bizzare non-sequitur you’ve come up with in a long time. Have you been practicing? This is an elementary category error. Laws do not “work on” material objects; laws do not have any influence over natural objects, much less direct them The materials objects exist and change; Laws merely generalize those natures and changes, but have no effect on them. You have this concept backward..
The existence of immaterial objects is evidence FOR creation? The crocoduck cries “BWAHAHAHAAA” The fruit-salad tree shakes it leaves in mirth.
.
If all of this is an attempt at humor, you must remember that creationists’ sense of humor atrophies and disappears in a sort time. That’s why their sallies in this direction are so lame. And it is the mechanism behind Poe’s Law (q.v.).. .
If Lenski was the ‘intelligent designer’ of his experiment, would he not be positive evidence for an ‘intelligent designer’? I am arguing that homology better fits creationism than evolutionism considering all we do know. Engineering is more pertinent to evolution as the process of evolution is about the creation of purposeful information for survival.
No one is saying that Genesis constitutes physical evidence. I am saying that the claims of Genesis is consistent with what is known scientifically, even if Genesis turns out to be wrong. However, repeated lab experiments with forced mutations have produced beneficial mutations but loss in information. Since molecules to man [or macro] evolution requires an information increase, macro-evolution is not scientific. Even if you were to find informational increase via mutation experiments, then you would have to show that said new information was responsible for novel functionality which aid organism survival and promotes offspring survival. So here again I will ask both you and Eelco for said experiments.
So what if there were multiple mEves? Both worldviews fit the data and that’s all that matters. When more data is unearthed, we would be better able to say which worldview is more scientific. Even if Lenski tried to accurately recreate the conditions of the ‘wild,’ he would not be able to do so because nature is not a simple variable that can be controlled for in a lab. Lenski did not have to ‘know’ if he directed the experiment because all experimenters must by necessity do so.
When creationists talk of information increase, they mean purposeful information. Show where new information was generated through mutation which produced novel functionality, aiding survival in a particular environment at a particular time for a particular organism.
Evolution is a naturalistic or material process and cannot explain the existence of laws which are immaterial. Thoughts are also immaterial as are numbers and functions. These immaterial entities are evidence for super-natural objects even if they have natural applicability. So yes, ‘immaterial objects’ is evidence for creationism [though not necessarily YEC alone].
And one more time, does Olorin believe that evolution is unscientific due to its lack of repeatability and testability as well as contradictory evidence from the hard sciences and math?
The obtuse perversity of your comments is becoming appalling. There is no point in discussing anything further until you understand a few very basic concepts, which have all been explained many times. Here is a partial list; these are off the top of my head. I may in future refer to them by letter for brevity; e.g. “Stuff a sock in it and start over; (e), (f).”
(a) Evolution is prospective, not retrospective. Forget teleology.
(b) Individuals do not evolve. Populations evolve.
(c) Adaptation and speciation are very different things, and are often not linked.
(d) Evolution is not the same as natural selection.
(e) Science does not have to consist of repeatable experiments in a laboratory. Most of it in a number of fields does not.
(f) A lab experiment in evolution under controlled conditions does not make the experimenter the “designer” of what results.[1]
(g) Mathematics that does not fit data is not physical evidence against anything.
(g1) Mathematics cannot by itself show that a theory is physically possible or not possible.
(h) Evolution does not require an “increase in information” in the genome. In some cases, it does not even require a change in genomic information.[2] In any case, generating new genomic information is ridiculously simple by a number of natural mechanisms.
(i) Natural laws and theories are not objects of any kind, either material or immaterial.
(i1) Natural law has no connection with supernatural creation. Material objects do not “obey” natural laws.[4]
(j) Evolution frequently does not lead to more complexity. Sometimes it leads to simplification [3] Often it leads to no phenotypical change at all.
(k) Evidence against Theory A does not constitute any evidence for Theory B. You should have covered this in Remedial Logic 1.
Chazing, you are like a man trying to translated a foreign-language text with only a word-for-word dictionary gives only a single sense for each word, and no knowledge whatever of how to string them together. The word for that is “pitiful.” Remember that willful ignorance can easily become massive apoptotic stupidity. You may already have crossed that line.
================
[1] Requiring both (e) and (f) would make lab experiments of any kind impossible in any scientific field. A lab can never duplicate exact conditions in any scientific field.Nice try., but no kumquat.
[2] Please do not invoke “complex specified information” or “functional information” or purposeful information.” These have no meaning. No one has been able to define any of them in a way that they could be measured or tested, even qualitatively. They do not exist. Pure smoke and mirrors.
[3] Behe’s “irreducible complexity” often performs this function; that’s why it was originally proposed in 1918 as evidence for evolution.
[4] If you think differently, you might wish to attack the question that no one has been able to answer since René Descartes posed it 4 centuries ago: By what means could an immaterial object of any kind affect a material object?
It is time for you to officially come out of the atheist closet. Dance around with ignorance all you want, just don’t do so while claiming to represent Christ.
Another (partial) list of concepts that you cannot grasp. This time theological—-
(A) Anyone whose beliefs differ from yours is not an atheist.[1]
(B) Anyone who examines his own faith is not an atheist.[1] (By that measure, all theologians would be atheists. They analyze faith for a living.)
Massive apoplectic—or was that apoptotic?—stupidity..
==========================
[1] Remember this one?
So brazen yet so dull. The argument is that you simply do not display the theological training that is indicative of being a Lutheran. Rather, your theology, science [or lack thereof], research methodology and reasoning [a kind term given your record] is atheistic.
I don’t have formal training in Lutheran theology, because I grew up as United Brethren, and later converted. However, I do have a Lutheran close cousin with a doctorate in theology from Göttingen, a rather solid Lutheran institution. (Before retiring, he taught theology at Princeton, and was dean of a major seminary in Manhattan.) There are all kinds of Lutherans, from ultra-conservative Wisconsin synod to ELCA and ultra-liberal Scandihoovian churches.
You are full of crap. What is your theological training, please?
As far as science, I have an MS in physics, 28 years with IBM Research, and another 12 years working with research scientists in biology, medical devices, bioinformatics, and many other fields. I read Science, Nature, and other peer-reviewed journals every week.
You are full of crap. What is your eduction and experience in scientific research?
Always demanding answers from others, but avoiding giving them to others. You are a fake.
I am referring to your general theology, not your theological training. Plus that’s ad hominem. It does not matter if you read scientific journals or worked in the science field. There are PhD university professors who get caught having sex with students in the parking lot. Clearly, intelligence does not always equate with simple logic. That you go to atheistic blogs and Wikipedia for information should alert you that something is very wrong.
More importantly however, Christianity is first about spiritual revelation, then soulish science (logic, culture), and then physicality (emotion, hormones). It seems to me that you have the soulish science first. I humbly urge you to reconsider your ultimate priorities.
Do you feel smug enough yet?
Try harder.