Holmes, so do I get to assume you are incapable of honestly responding to the following query:
But where are your examples of Irreducible Complexity?
Reminds me of the number one requirement for a scientific mind – Good Faith approach to learning from all the available evidence. The learning is more important the the Ego. --CCI almost started a new thread, "Is Science Scientific?" A bit snarky, but I have introduced my questions about the unfinished work of the Enlightenment, so philosophically, there are a lot of ways to take that question. It's circular, we all admit that. But that's the opposite of dogma. Science allows questions about everything in science including the scientific method. I just heard again yesterday, Weinstein's podcast I think, that scientific journals need to make money, so they are more likely to publish things that will be accepted. They need to pass review of course or risk backlash, and a well presented finding that challenges convention will get through the process, but, point is, they police themselves and take criticism.
@Holmes
Thank for yet another disparaging unprovoked character attack, actually a little hurtful but that’s people for you, my two little Italian Greyhounds never treat me that way.
This is bit of a different subject, but could it be because you don’t treat them as persons in their own right? And who says Greyhounds are little? Those dogs are HUGH! I don’t think they’d like being treated like they are little. Dogs aren’t dumb. They know when a human animal is belittling them.
Oh wait! Maybe I’m not too far off topic- dogs aren’t as dumb as they look. Neither are cats. Studies have shown that other animals mourn their dead, are able to learn how to count (especially other apes), use tools (goes for many species), etc. This is all part of their relationship to us, which takes us back to Evolution. The brain is a very complex. Much like the eye, it has complex neuro activity, communicating with part of the body, including the eye. You find this in every species, although the brain isn’t as fully developed in a frog’s head as it is in the great apes, which includes humans. The frog pretty much functions with his brain stem and lower parts of what is in our brain. The higher up in the chain of species you go, the more layers of brain you have, which leads to emotions, use of tools, and complex thinking. I’m sure an elephant would just love you, because you don’t see it as related to you and unable to show anything complex. For Pete’s sakes, even an elephant mourns their dead and even cries when a mama rejects him.
Even your stupid Xian sources picked this story up too. Do a search and you’ll see that Xians aren’t beyond noticing these things.
I see so no apology for the disparaging remarks and you’re a moderator too…
It’s kind of hard when one views non-science/pseudoscience as fact.
Sherlock, if you’re going to say things like this
This is what science delivers predicatbility, yet none of the regular goons here seem have any grasp of this.It’s hard for me to consider this
I see so no apology for the disparaging remarks and you’re a moderator too…an actual statement of how your feelings are hurt, or a legitimate interpretation of the rules. If I was to enforce the rules evenly, I’d have to ban everyone, including me. So, let’s all be adults, huh?
And here, you say to me and imply it about others, the exact same thing that you are complaining was said to you. This is the lowest of low troll behavior.
you’ve closed your mind because you consider evolution to be 100%, -- Sherlock
Fine, so your satisfied evolution is 100% certain, 100% true – cool good for you. == SherlockHow many times are we going to go over this? Science never proves anything to 100% certainty. If I did that, I would not be speaking scientifically.
That’s it? that’s the “controversy” you examined? Man, you do need to look a bit further.I have not heard anything from you that was not covered by the many witnesses that presented at those trials. And as I said, "a few others".
To discuss things that interest me. -- SherlockThen DISCUSS! stop telling us to go somewhere else and read something that you haven't even named. That's not discussion.
Stop shouting man, compose yourself this is just a chat forum, calm down,More troll behavior. Using language that encourages a response in all caps, then complaining about it.
I’m sorry, Lausten, but you have to admit when one talks about Intelligent Design/Creationism, you can’t help but remember Genesis:
So God said, “Let there be light” and there was light, but it was a vast void, so he spoke again and put a big blue marble over there, with only two people to populate the earth and animals that he told them to enslaved and eat… Oh I forgot before all of that, but after the big blue marble, he said, “Let there be grass” (at least in some translations, some say “weed”). Adam and Eve had all that funky grass to smoke and met a talking snake. ROFLMAO!
Trying to stop laughing Now tell me you can’t read various translations of Genesis Ch. 1 and 2 and not laugh. And here’s Sherlock, an atheist, who supports ID/Creationism… As Picard said in TNG “Up The Long Ladder”, while laughing, “Sometimes you have to bow to the absurd.” Right now, I see all of this much like that episode and Picard’s statement.
Here is a clip and this is how I see this thread:
@SherlockHolmes
Holmes, so do I get to assume you are incapable of honestly responding to the following query:
But where are your examples of Irreducible Complexity?Holmes may I consider continued silence on this specific question - as an acknowledgement that you have no serious examples of "Irreducible Complexity" to present.
Would that explain why you’re so full of What If’s and childish distractions away from the topic at hand - (as you’ve displayed so heroically in the above comments.)
Clearly I must introduce you to one of the oldest breeds of dog we have, the Italian Greyhound, I didn’t write simply “greyhound” Mriana.These aren’t mine but they could just as well be.
Here is an example of speed.
Enjoy.
Ah! A very fine example of evolution, albite due to breeding by humans, but take the dog in general, which Dawkins discussed in one of his books (I believe it was “The God Delusion”). He discusses the evolution of dogs far better than I ever could. I think you may find his book a good read, unless your really hooked on your religious books of how everything happened.
@Holmes
This isn’t the thread for this but I want to point out that much of the Bible contains parables not only the things Christ said as parables. This alone unlocks a great deal of deep meaning that is otherwise inaccessible. Christ revealed that parables are a means of hiding information and explained this to his disciples, it includes much of the OT too.Genesis is littered with parables and symbols, if you’re unaware of that it often reads as dry or dull or lyrical.
Yes, I realize this, it even has midrash and technically, if one is talking about the OT, which I was, it is midrash. You are also assuming I believe Jesus existed as presented in the Bible. I do not. That said, ID/Creationism, is very much based on religious texts. Every society has a creation story and they are very much similar, so it really doesn’t matter which text I relate ID/Creationism to, it’s still pretty much the same. I’m just more familiar with the Hebrew text of creation, which actually, I, as well as everyone else, is more familiar with the butchered translation of Genesis from Hebrew to other languages. The worst translation is the KJV/NKJV. I could take just about any text, except maybe the Tao, and have the same laugh. Just as that which is described is not the true Tao, so is ID/Creationism is not true science.
This is for everyone. What I want is a decent forum. If that requires shutting someone down, it’s regrettable, but will have to be done. (This whole thing should be blue. Just one of the many quirks of this software)
Moderators have the sole authority to make such decisions.Those looking for unmoderated discussions should look to unmoderated forums on Usenet and the Web.
Duplicate or multiple posts on the same topic are subject to deletion.
“Trolling” is not allowed. This includes posting derogatory or inflammatory messages with the intent to bait an overheated response, as well as behavior that in the Moderators’ judgement is gratuitously argumentative, combative, or inflammatory with the apparent intent to prolong debate for its own sake rather than promote, defend, or critique a particular idea or point of view.
Threads and posts are not allowed that in the opinion of Moderators are impolite, vulgar, nasty, uncivil, or otherwise disruptive to the good functioning of the either the Forum or to CFI’s mission.
Disagreements should be kept, as much as possible, to the issues at hand and not become overly personalized.To take but one example, pointing out a person’s lack of scientific qualifications when discussing scientific issues is on-point, but referring to someone’s political beliefs is not.
Threads and posts that are disruptive to the flow of conversation by being off-topic, or which in the opinions of Moderators were written to drive up a post-count or otherwise not relevant to the mission of CFI and its Forum are not allowed. They are subject to locking, editing or deletion.
Threads that consist of repetitive posting of the same comments, information, or links without meaningful development or responsive discussion will be considered a form of spamming or trolling and may be locked or deleted at the Moderators’ discretion.
Problem members are subject to banning or deletion. – this refers to the regular violation of the above.
Sherlock Holmes said,Genesis is littered with parables and symbols, if you’re unaware of that it often reads as dry or dull or lyrical.
And you would consider parables and mystical symbols as biblically established science, but scientific equations and scientific symbols are not scientifically established and open to question?
The bible is not a scientific book. That 's why it contains parables and mystical symbols. It cannot cite scientific facts. It’s mythology.
This is an example of not engaging, just arguing sherlock.
If I’ve been silent on that question then its because you can easily find these yourself. I have no interest in digging these out and posting them only to whatch you then dig out purported refutations by “scientists” and thus begin another merry go round with you.Recall I’m not trying to convert you (as you are me) but disagreeing with certain things that I see posted here.
I think evolution is reasonable and plausible but I no longer believe it is true, something else happened of that I’m convinced.
This is an example of a repetitive post. We know you think this. You know what we think. Move On.
Empiricism (which is what you’ve adopted as your world view) is taken on faith, you can’t use science to prove that science is
trustworthy as a means of discovering truth.
@Holmes
Even if this were strictly true (and I don’t believe it is) that does not serve as proof or evidence against a creator being involved.
OK Sherlock… You say you are an atheist, yet you believe a pseudoscience that involves a deity [of your choice] and then you expect us to take you seriously and not laugh at the absurdity of that? Seriously? Atheist and a pseudoscience that involves Sha Ka Ree… Most illogical and absurd. We can’t take you seriously.
Sherlock Holmes said,The simplistic world view (empiricisim) that underlies most posts here is just one possible way to reason about the world, once you realize that empiricism (although rational) is just taken on faith you may start to see things in a different way.
This is the most absurd statement yet. Empiricism is based on faith in proof, but religious faith without proof allows you to see things in a different way?
Put on some rose colored glasses and I’m sure you will see things in a different way. That’s an empirical statement. Too simple for you?
Sherlock Holmes said,I think evolution is reasonable and plausible but I no longer believe it is true, something else happened of that I’m convinced.
Yes, something else that is not reasonable and plausible must have happened. Of that you are convinced? OK. now that you have explained it, we are all enlightened.
@Holmes
So even if ID was not science, did not technically qualify as a scientific investigation, that does not therefore mean it is wrong Mriana.
Only with species that birth litters of offspring does 1 + 1 = 8 So, yeah, I can see how 1 + 1 = 2 is not always 2, but I can see how that is not always true by observing cats, dogs, rabbits… Still that is scientific observation, not pseudoscience. I cannot say I’m a Vulcan who follows the teaching of Sarak and then search for Sha Ka Ree though. You cannot have logic and then follow your emotions to conclude some supreme being created all that we see and don’t see. At one time people thought germ theory was just that- a theory, but it turns out that germs are very much the basis of what causes illnesses not some deity’s wrath.