Quotes and comments;
1. 'Science Daily blindly reproduced an audacious claim from the University of Liverpool that Neanderthals were promiscuous on the basis of – what? – their finger bones.
“Neanderthals Were More Promiscuous Than Modern Humans, Fossil Finger Bones Suggest.”
The thinking was that a thick finger bone suggests larger amounts of male hormone during development, which in turn suggests that the men were more masculine, therefore aggressive, therefore promiscuous. [1.]
- We might call this promiscuous thinking; what it isn't is empirical science. We might call it a disorderly mix of science and fantasy. There's no way they can know this. This is another (egregious) example of the refusal to accept any limits when it comes to science. The majority of scientists seem to believe there's nothing they can't find out; that all questions are answerable by science. Even if this were true (and I don't believe it is) this isn't science.
One could only know this (if then) by actual observation. Observation is supposed to be the basis of the scientific method; but for some reason Darwinists regularly ignore this fundamental of the trade. A story isn't science. (For reasons that are somewhat obscure, Darwinists are allowed to get away with substituting stories for observation.)
The editor who accepted such drivel was being as indiscriminate as an intoxicated teenager at a rave. There seems to be a lack of rigorous standards, when any Darwinian just so story comes across the desk. It appears that any bit of speculation that fits the evolutionary worldview is deemed fit to go.
Conclusion;
This story received widespread coverage in the press. I wonder why. Is it because it allows people to imagine we're getting less decadent over time, instead of more decadent as the regular charge has been?
Notes;
1. Dumbing Down the Science Reading Public; Creation/Evolution Headlines 11/05/2010
'In their rush to grab attention-getting headlines, are reporters doing more harm than good? An essential part of science education is critical thinking. Some headlines and articles state ideas that far outstrip the meager data on which they are based.'
- editor's comment.
3. The title of this post reflects the idea Charles Darwin began this process of substituting stories for observation; speculation for empirical method.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
The living longer myth
Just a question for people who accept evolutionary theory; something to ponder on your way to work or school this morning.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Think about how society has changed in 160,000 years, since the first humans appeared. For them, there was never any evolutionary pressure to temper the long term effects of stress, because few people lived past thirty-five.' [1.]
- We're told endlessly that humans now live longer than did the first humans. Is this true? Is this an empirical observation, or just empty speculation? Now the question; If it's true, is it true of squirrels and sharks also? Is it true of any species of bird or animal?
- I personally don't think it is so of other species. My second question then is this; How could could it be true of human beings?
Notes;
1. Happy at Last - Richard O'Connor p.30
- I'm not quoting O'Connor because he's any authority on evolutionary theory, but because his opinion is par for the course with people writing popular books on science... and I just happened to be reading his book last night. (The book isn't much; not nearly of the quality of his book 'Undoing Depression' - which is the best book on the subject that I've read.)
2. We're told endlessly that humans are now both longer-lived and more intelligent (by orders of magnitude) than the first humans, but I don't see evidence this is true of any other species. How's come, as our gang used to say as lads.
3. This idea humans have gradually lived longer and longer over the ages, goes against the biblical record; where mankind is seen as living shorter periods over time. (I find it comical to hear writers claim that people only lived an average of 30-40 years in Greek and Roman times, when the in the Old Testament man life's span was given as 70 years. Maybe people had evolved the ability to count accurately yet :=)
- Moses lived to be 120 if I remember correctly.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Think about how society has changed in 160,000 years, since the first humans appeared. For them, there was never any evolutionary pressure to temper the long term effects of stress, because few people lived past thirty-five.' [1.]
- We're told endlessly that humans now live longer than did the first humans. Is this true? Is this an empirical observation, or just empty speculation? Now the question; If it's true, is it true of squirrels and sharks also? Is it true of any species of bird or animal?
- I personally don't think it is so of other species. My second question then is this; How could could it be true of human beings?
Notes;
1. Happy at Last - Richard O'Connor p.30
- I'm not quoting O'Connor because he's any authority on evolutionary theory, but because his opinion is par for the course with people writing popular books on science... and I just happened to be reading his book last night. (The book isn't much; not nearly of the quality of his book 'Undoing Depression' - which is the best book on the subject that I've read.)
2. We're told endlessly that humans are now both longer-lived and more intelligent (by orders of magnitude) than the first humans, but I don't see evidence this is true of any other species. How's come, as our gang used to say as lads.
3. This idea humans have gradually lived longer and longer over the ages, goes against the biblical record; where mankind is seen as living shorter periods over time. (I find it comical to hear writers claim that people only lived an average of 30-40 years in Greek and Roman times, when the in the Old Testament man life's span was given as 70 years. Maybe people had evolved the ability to count accurately yet :=)
- Moses lived to be 120 if I remember correctly.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Thanks to the BBC, we all now know
Quotes and comments;
1. “We now know that evolution is a fact. Well, I mean there are some slightly bonkers people out there who don’t believe that I suppose. But, nonetheless, we do know that.” - John Humphrys [1.]
- We now know, he says. Famous last words. Only about ten years ago 'everyone' knew that the brain never produced new brain cells, that all that ever happened was that brain cells died. Now we know different; now we know that new brain cells are produced all the time. It's my belief that one day this 'certain knowledge' of materialist evolution will be as obsolete (and mistaken) as the old view on brain cells. New discoveries continue to M2M evolution more and more unlikely. (Funny how the 'facts of science' can suddenly dematerialize isn't it John.)
- In my experience the more certain people are that evolution is true, the more likely it is they are unfamiliar with critiques of evolutionary theory... and the more likely it is they are deliberately ignorant of these weaknesses. (Do you think there's any chance John has read 'The signature in the cell' by Stephen Meyer?) The more aggressively people push evolution the less they tend to know about creationist writings. They wear blindfolds and point out the scenery for the rest of us.
- If you took evolution seriously (which virtually no one does, not even Darwinists) nothing could be called either crazy or sane; as there would be no standards for such a statement. If evolution were true, all things would be in constant flux, moving in a directionless way... and there couldn't be any truth... there couldn't be any facts.
- All pronouncements of this kind depend on the pretense all people are the same; a belief that isn't empirical, and thus not scientific. (Let's see now; is 'bonkers' a scientific term? Not here in Canada at any rate :=) People assess the data on the basis of their experience, knowledge and worldview; this means that varying assessments can be equally rational. [3.]
Notes;
1. Creationists are slightly bonkers, says award-winning BBC broadcaster - by Dominic Statham
'In yet another example of biased broadcasting, the BBC’s John Humphrys declared all who doubt the Darwinian paradigm to be a bit crazy. While interviewing two leading ‘evolutionary biologists’, Dr Anjali Goswami of University College London and Professor Scott Armbruster of the University of Portsmouth, he remarked, “We now know that evolution is a fact. Well, I mean there are some slightly bonkers people out there who don’t believe that I suppose. But, nonetheless, we do know that.”
2. M2M = molecules to man
3. This isn't the same as saying truth is relative.
1. “We now know that evolution is a fact. Well, I mean there are some slightly bonkers people out there who don’t believe that I suppose. But, nonetheless, we do know that.” - John Humphrys [1.]
- We now know, he says. Famous last words. Only about ten years ago 'everyone' knew that the brain never produced new brain cells, that all that ever happened was that brain cells died. Now we know different; now we know that new brain cells are produced all the time. It's my belief that one day this 'certain knowledge' of materialist evolution will be as obsolete (and mistaken) as the old view on brain cells. New discoveries continue to M2M evolution more and more unlikely. (Funny how the 'facts of science' can suddenly dematerialize isn't it John.)
- In my experience the more certain people are that evolution is true, the more likely it is they are unfamiliar with critiques of evolutionary theory... and the more likely it is they are deliberately ignorant of these weaknesses. (Do you think there's any chance John has read 'The signature in the cell' by Stephen Meyer?) The more aggressively people push evolution the less they tend to know about creationist writings. They wear blindfolds and point out the scenery for the rest of us.
- If you took evolution seriously (which virtually no one does, not even Darwinists) nothing could be called either crazy or sane; as there would be no standards for such a statement. If evolution were true, all things would be in constant flux, moving in a directionless way... and there couldn't be any truth... there couldn't be any facts.
- All pronouncements of this kind depend on the pretense all people are the same; a belief that isn't empirical, and thus not scientific. (Let's see now; is 'bonkers' a scientific term? Not here in Canada at any rate :=) People assess the data on the basis of their experience, knowledge and worldview; this means that varying assessments can be equally rational. [3.]
Notes;
1. Creationists are slightly bonkers, says award-winning BBC broadcaster - by Dominic Statham
'In yet another example of biased broadcasting, the BBC’s John Humphrys declared all who doubt the Darwinian paradigm to be a bit crazy. While interviewing two leading ‘evolutionary biologists’, Dr Anjali Goswami of University College London and Professor Scott Armbruster of the University of Portsmouth, he remarked, “We now know that evolution is a fact. Well, I mean there are some slightly bonkers people out there who don’t believe that I suppose. But, nonetheless, we do know that.”
2. M2M = molecules to man
3. This isn't the same as saying truth is relative.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Employing the User Illusion
A few comments on the 'User Illusion' by Tor Norretranders. The book presents the thesis that initiative originates in the unconscious (or in the brain) and not with the conscious self. I want to take a look at a couple examples.
Quotes and comments;
1. '...it is not even possible for the conscious I to control the urges it is presented with.' [1.]
- I don't see that he has the warrant to make such a blanket statement. In addressing this subject we have to ask where do 'urges' come from? It seems clear to me that a person's mindset (imagination, etc.) has an influence on what desires a person has - and which of these desires he allows to have free reign in his imagination. It's one thing to experience momentary attraction (this is not what Christ condemned) but another matter to go one and engage in lustful fantasies about the person (which is what Christ was referring to).
Libet and the author caricature and falsify what Christ's teachings were, and what the christian sexual ethic is. Libet foolishly says you cant' get a sexual ethic from the golden rule. This is a rather juvenile response. Christ was speaking seriously, and expected his remarks to be considered thoughtfully. He never repudiated so called 'Jewish' law regarding sex and marriage (as Paul's letters make clear).
- The veto model of consciousness presented by Libet is presented as being favorable to 'Mosaic' law, and incompatible with the golden rule. This is largely (not wholly) a false contrast. It's popular in our day to mock the golden rule (e.g. A.C. Grayling) by offering absurd examples of what it might imply. (Our author brings up the sad example of rape.) This attempted refutation fails because it ignores plain Christian teaching against sin. (e.g. rape. The golden rule is a capsule treatment of Christian morality - and is not meant to trump other teachings recorded in the New Testament. It is a way to help people understand (and imagine) what the loving thing to do would be - not merely the legal or lawful thing. (Are people really so ignorant, that they don't realize Christ was presenting an ethic of love? "Love thy neighbor as thyself," he told the crowd.
2. N. quotes Hillel as claiming morality is a question of what you may no do.
- Our author is correct in saying Jesus taught against this. The law (strictly speaking) isn't so much about morality, but about duty. i.e. everyone has a duty to their creator to obey His law. I think most of us would agree that true morality calls for more. It calls for love and charity. (Christ was in agreement with the Old testament teaching on the call to love one's neighbor It's not the case that 'Mosaic' law was solely negative.
3. Our author (p. 247) says of our consciousness that it 'has no ability to manage what happens inside a person's mind.'
- Really? I find this a strange remark. I suggest he reread his New Testament. There (dealing with this very problem) Paul tells the Christian to ''think on what is beautiful, true, right," etc. By how we think (and live) we train the whole self, the whole person - including shaping the very structure of the brain. We most surely have an ability (however imperfect) to manage what happens in the mind.
Summary;
Orthodox Christianity teaches that Christ knows what is best for man because he himself (as a member of the Trinity) created man. As Paul writes in Colossians; "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth..." [25.]
Notes;
1. The User Illusion - Tor Norretranders
2. He relies a lot on the work of Benjamin Libet. (Numerous references in the bibliography.)
3. The traditional image of the ego is of a mind that uses a body or brain. If this is an illusion, what is making use of the brain/body? e.g. what is it that decides to do experiments on consciousness? and why?
4. If the executive ego is an illusion, how do we know this? Isn't it the delusionary ego that's making this claim the ego is a delusion? How does that work?
5. "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him." - Colossians 1:15-16
Quotes and comments;
1. '...it is not even possible for the conscious I to control the urges it is presented with.' [1.]
- I don't see that he has the warrant to make such a blanket statement. In addressing this subject we have to ask where do 'urges' come from? It seems clear to me that a person's mindset (imagination, etc.) has an influence on what desires a person has - and which of these desires he allows to have free reign in his imagination. It's one thing to experience momentary attraction (this is not what Christ condemned) but another matter to go one and engage in lustful fantasies about the person (which is what Christ was referring to).
Libet and the author caricature and falsify what Christ's teachings were, and what the christian sexual ethic is. Libet foolishly says you cant' get a sexual ethic from the golden rule. This is a rather juvenile response. Christ was speaking seriously, and expected his remarks to be considered thoughtfully. He never repudiated so called 'Jewish' law regarding sex and marriage (as Paul's letters make clear).
- The veto model of consciousness presented by Libet is presented as being favorable to 'Mosaic' law, and incompatible with the golden rule. This is largely (not wholly) a false contrast. It's popular in our day to mock the golden rule (e.g. A.C. Grayling) by offering absurd examples of what it might imply. (Our author brings up the sad example of rape.) This attempted refutation fails because it ignores plain Christian teaching against sin. (e.g. rape. The golden rule is a capsule treatment of Christian morality - and is not meant to trump other teachings recorded in the New Testament. It is a way to help people understand (and imagine) what the loving thing to do would be - not merely the legal or lawful thing. (Are people really so ignorant, that they don't realize Christ was presenting an ethic of love? "Love thy neighbor as thyself," he told the crowd.
2. N. quotes Hillel as claiming morality is a question of what you may no do.
- Our author is correct in saying Jesus taught against this. The law (strictly speaking) isn't so much about morality, but about duty. i.e. everyone has a duty to their creator to obey His law. I think most of us would agree that true morality calls for more. It calls for love and charity. (Christ was in agreement with the Old testament teaching on the call to love one's neighbor It's not the case that 'Mosaic' law was solely negative.
3. Our author (p. 247) says of our consciousness that it 'has no ability to manage what happens inside a person's mind.'
- Really? I find this a strange remark. I suggest he reread his New Testament. There (dealing with this very problem) Paul tells the Christian to ''think on what is beautiful, true, right," etc. By how we think (and live) we train the whole self, the whole person - including shaping the very structure of the brain. We most surely have an ability (however imperfect) to manage what happens in the mind.
Summary;
Orthodox Christianity teaches that Christ knows what is best for man because he himself (as a member of the Trinity) created man. As Paul writes in Colossians; "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth..." [25.]
Notes;
1. The User Illusion - Tor Norretranders
2. He relies a lot on the work of Benjamin Libet. (Numerous references in the bibliography.)
3. The traditional image of the ego is of a mind that uses a body or brain. If this is an illusion, what is making use of the brain/body? e.g. what is it that decides to do experiments on consciousness? and why?
4. If the executive ego is an illusion, how do we know this? Isn't it the delusionary ego that's making this claim the ego is a delusion? How does that work?
5. "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him." - Colossians 1:15-16
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Science and theory inflation
Materialists seem unable to decide whether human beings belong within the category called nature or not. The theory of evolution claims man is just one more product of nature, but the 'naturalistic' model of science demands that man is seen as separate from nature.
Quotes and comments;
1. Eugenie Scott put it this way: “modern science operates under a rule of methodological materialism that limits it to attempting to explain the natural world using natural causes.”
- Well; guess what Ms. Scott; intelligence is a natural cause. (Unless you think human beings aren't 'natural' products or products of nature.) By excluding intelligence she's excluding human beings (at the very least) from causation. Can you really explain the world we live in without reference to human beings :=)
- To limit causation to the material realm (excluding intelligence) is a case of theory inflation. Inevitably (in the history of any theory) people will try to push that particular theory too far; claiming it can explain far more than it can. (e.g. Freudianism, Marxism) The more we discover about the universe the more clear it becomes that there are limits to the 'naturalistic' (i.e. materialistic) explanation. It works fine for describing observable phenomenon; but it breaks down completely when trying to account for Origins. With new instrumentation we've been able to uncover biological phenomenon of such complexity they demand an intelligent explanation.
Summary;
If the laws of physics can't account for complex, specified information (CSI) then what's left? The only explanation I can see is some form of intelligence. (Mind trumps matter as paper covers rock.)
Notes;
1. Cosmic Accidents Are Not Scientific Explanations - Creation/Evolution Headlines 10/03/2010
2. 'Natural causes include natural laws, predictable patterns, probability, or combinations of these. Pure accidents, by contrast, contain no explanatory power.' - above
Quotes and comments;
1. Eugenie Scott put it this way: “modern science operates under a rule of methodological materialism that limits it to attempting to explain the natural world using natural causes.”
- Well; guess what Ms. Scott; intelligence is a natural cause. (Unless you think human beings aren't 'natural' products or products of nature.) By excluding intelligence she's excluding human beings (at the very least) from causation. Can you really explain the world we live in without reference to human beings :=)
- To limit causation to the material realm (excluding intelligence) is a case of theory inflation. Inevitably (in the history of any theory) people will try to push that particular theory too far; claiming it can explain far more than it can. (e.g. Freudianism, Marxism) The more we discover about the universe the more clear it becomes that there are limits to the 'naturalistic' (i.e. materialistic) explanation. It works fine for describing observable phenomenon; but it breaks down completely when trying to account for Origins. With new instrumentation we've been able to uncover biological phenomenon of such complexity they demand an intelligent explanation.
Summary;
If the laws of physics can't account for complex, specified information (CSI) then what's left? The only explanation I can see is some form of intelligence. (Mind trumps matter as paper covers rock.)
Notes;
1. Cosmic Accidents Are Not Scientific Explanations - Creation/Evolution Headlines 10/03/2010
2. 'Natural causes include natural laws, predictable patterns, probability, or combinations of these. Pure accidents, by contrast, contain no explanatory power.' - above
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Mendel, ID and genetics
Just a brief comment on a lecture from the series 'Science of Self' by Lee Silver.
Quotes and comments;
1. We're always told that people with an ID affiliation don't do experiments, and don't publish papers. What about Gregor Mendel? Couldn't we call his experiments ID? He certainly believed in a Creator... and I assume believed in the idea of design. (I've never read anything by him unfortunately.)
- Edward Blyth [3.] came up with the idea of natural selection before Darwin, and Mendel came up with genetics; both were creationists... so much for the idea ID proponents don't come up with important ideas.
Notes;
1. Mendel's theory of genetic inheritance - Lee Silver; Science of Self; lecture #4. [TTC]
2. He tells us that ten thousand years ago people learned how to breed plants and animals... e.g. the Mexicans and corn (bred from a weed) Isn't it interesting that it supposedly took people another five thousand years to learn how to write :=) Surely plant breeding is more difficult.
- He doesn't bother to explain to us how people got the idea of breeding a weed into an edible food. Well professor?
3. See Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X (1979) by Loren Eisley.
4. Silver tells us that until 150 years ago no one had ever seen an embryo! Huh? It doesn't give you a lot of confidence in the guy does it?
5. There are other scientists we could mention. e.g. Hubert Yockey. (I'm not making claims, only asking questions.)
Quotes and comments;
1. We're always told that people with an ID affiliation don't do experiments, and don't publish papers. What about Gregor Mendel? Couldn't we call his experiments ID? He certainly believed in a Creator... and I assume believed in the idea of design. (I've never read anything by him unfortunately.)
- Edward Blyth [3.] came up with the idea of natural selection before Darwin, and Mendel came up with genetics; both were creationists... so much for the idea ID proponents don't come up with important ideas.
Notes;
1. Mendel's theory of genetic inheritance - Lee Silver; Science of Self; lecture #4. [TTC]
2. He tells us that ten thousand years ago people learned how to breed plants and animals... e.g. the Mexicans and corn (bred from a weed) Isn't it interesting that it supposedly took people another five thousand years to learn how to write :=) Surely plant breeding is more difficult.
- He doesn't bother to explain to us how people got the idea of breeding a weed into an edible food. Well professor?
3. See Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X (1979) by Loren Eisley.
4. Silver tells us that until 150 years ago no one had ever seen an embryo! Huh? It doesn't give you a lot of confidence in the guy does it?
5. There are other scientists we could mention. e.g. Hubert Yockey. (I'm not making claims, only asking questions.)
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Common ancestors and common muck (to forego common sense)
I've been watching a lecture series by Lee Silver, called 'The science of the Self'. I've got a few comments below on lecture three.
Quotes and comments;
1. Silver tells us that apes and humans had a common ancestor. [1.]
- No one seems to know what this mythical ancestor was. (We might call it the ghost in the Darwinian machine.) I find this claim comical at best. One wonders how such an important fellow could be unknown :=)
Maybe someone could tell me why the ape, who also had this ancestor, hasn't evolved (progressed) any farther than his ancestor, (we're told this ancestor, whatever it was, wouldn't be much different from an ape.) and man has. Isn't that a bit odd?
- Evolutionists can't point to any speciation event where the descendent is magnitudes superior to its ancestor. Despite this. the theory gets endless propagated. Are any of the Galapogos finches a thousand times smarter than their ancestors?
- This claim by Silver isn't an empirical observation. No one has seen anything remotely close to this happen. (Evolutionists love fossils because they can't speak, and can be used anyway people want.) Evolutionists arrange fossils the way movie directors arrange photographs. (We might say that the 'magic of evolution' is based on the illusion of movement.) i.e. the transformation from ape to man is an illusion based on a selective process of arrangement. (What is called natural selection might better be called theory selection :=)
2. 'There was no first human being...' he tells us. (i.e. there was a gradual transformation from animal to human.
- We might wonder why this only happened once. eg. why don't other animals (fish or birds) gradually become Einstein smart?
- He compares this process to going from the color green, gradually to blue. 'There is no cutoff from green to blue...' he tells us. I consider this pure myth. (The comparison itself meaningless.) Even within evolutionary theory there is no other example offered of an animal becoming gradually smarter and smarter... more and more able. At the very least this in itself is odd is it not?
Again; I have to stress that this is not science; not empirical.
A dog becoming a cat would be a million times more easy (and less astounding) but we know from a long history of breeding experiments that dogs never become anything but dogs. (Doesn't this matter? Don't experiments matter if they go against your theory?)
3. He tells us some people (Silver himself?) think chimps should have the same rights as humans.
- I wonder if they should get tenure :=)
I consider people like this to be clowns, and it's no wonder to me that Darwinism appeals to them. No one on earth really believes this notion; but clearly some people have a lot of fun pretending they do.
Notes;
1. The science of self - Lee Silver (TTC) lecture #3. (What is a human being?)
Quotes and comments;
1. Silver tells us that apes and humans had a common ancestor. [1.]
- No one seems to know what this mythical ancestor was. (We might call it the ghost in the Darwinian machine.) I find this claim comical at best. One wonders how such an important fellow could be unknown :=)
Maybe someone could tell me why the ape, who also had this ancestor, hasn't evolved (progressed) any farther than his ancestor, (we're told this ancestor, whatever it was, wouldn't be much different from an ape.) and man has. Isn't that a bit odd?
- Evolutionists can't point to any speciation event where the descendent is magnitudes superior to its ancestor. Despite this. the theory gets endless propagated. Are any of the Galapogos finches a thousand times smarter than their ancestors?
- This claim by Silver isn't an empirical observation. No one has seen anything remotely close to this happen. (Evolutionists love fossils because they can't speak, and can be used anyway people want.) Evolutionists arrange fossils the way movie directors arrange photographs. (We might say that the 'magic of evolution' is based on the illusion of movement.) i.e. the transformation from ape to man is an illusion based on a selective process of arrangement. (What is called natural selection might better be called theory selection :=)
2. 'There was no first human being...' he tells us. (i.e. there was a gradual transformation from animal to human.
- We might wonder why this only happened once. eg. why don't other animals (fish or birds) gradually become Einstein smart?
- He compares this process to going from the color green, gradually to blue. 'There is no cutoff from green to blue...' he tells us. I consider this pure myth. (The comparison itself meaningless.) Even within evolutionary theory there is no other example offered of an animal becoming gradually smarter and smarter... more and more able. At the very least this in itself is odd is it not?
Again; I have to stress that this is not science; not empirical.
A dog becoming a cat would be a million times more easy (and less astounding) but we know from a long history of breeding experiments that dogs never become anything but dogs. (Doesn't this matter? Don't experiments matter if they go against your theory?)
3. He tells us some people (Silver himself?) think chimps should have the same rights as humans.
- I wonder if they should get tenure :=)
I consider people like this to be clowns, and it's no wonder to me that Darwinism appeals to them. No one on earth really believes this notion; but clearly some people have a lot of fun pretending they do.
Notes;
1. The science of self - Lee Silver (TTC) lecture #3. (What is a human being?)
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Mr. Darwin, you have dialed a wrong number
An ever popular bone of contention between creationists and evolutionists is whether or not mutations have any ability to create new information.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Mutations allow organisms to evolve, as once in a while a mutation alters the DNA, and the corresponding protein advantageously.' [1.]
- I agree with the creationists who call mutations a loss of information. So how then could a loss of information be equated with adding new information? If you delete a number in an equation, the equation won't work. If you fail to add an ingredient in a recipe (or add the wrong one) the recipe won't work.
- DNA is often compared to letters in an alphabet. How good a comparison (or analogy) that is I'm not sure. Perhaps a better comparison would be to numbers in an equation. Evolutionists tells that all the new information for the E. process came from mutations; i.e. from damage to the genetic code. (This is the view propounded in popular writing at least.) [2.]
I might be a bit thick, but I don't see how this could be the case. We're not dealing with a poem or a piece of genre fiction after all, but with precise instructions. An error in the instructions can lead to harmful and even fatal results - or to no result at all. We might compare it to the getting a number wrong when trying to open a combination lock or safe. No amount of errors will ever be advantageous.
- Mike Johnson (M.V. Searider)
Notes;
1. Adam Zeman - A portrait of the brain p.29.
2. I've spent the last few months reading popular works on science; in an effort to see how the theory of evolution is being treated. These were supposed to be notes for a major essay on the subject, but it's a project I've abandoned. I can say this much; you can't read a single work in our day without coming across multiple references to evolution. (e.g. even a book like 'The Philosophical Baby' is filled with E. references.) Most of the references seem to come straight out of Richard Dawkins, and most (if not all) authors seem ignorant of pertinent critiques of the theory. They just pass on what they've heard in an uncritical manner.
- I wish someone out there would write a book along the lines I mentioned.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Mutations allow organisms to evolve, as once in a while a mutation alters the DNA, and the corresponding protein advantageously.' [1.]
- I agree with the creationists who call mutations a loss of information. So how then could a loss of information be equated with adding new information? If you delete a number in an equation, the equation won't work. If you fail to add an ingredient in a recipe (or add the wrong one) the recipe won't work.
- DNA is often compared to letters in an alphabet. How good a comparison (or analogy) that is I'm not sure. Perhaps a better comparison would be to numbers in an equation. Evolutionists tells that all the new information for the E. process came from mutations; i.e. from damage to the genetic code. (This is the view propounded in popular writing at least.) [2.]
I might be a bit thick, but I don't see how this could be the case. We're not dealing with a poem or a piece of genre fiction after all, but with precise instructions. An error in the instructions can lead to harmful and even fatal results - or to no result at all. We might compare it to the getting a number wrong when trying to open a combination lock or safe. No amount of errors will ever be advantageous.
- Mike Johnson (M.V. Searider)
Notes;
1. Adam Zeman - A portrait of the brain p.29.
2. I've spent the last few months reading popular works on science; in an effort to see how the theory of evolution is being treated. These were supposed to be notes for a major essay on the subject, but it's a project I've abandoned. I can say this much; you can't read a single work in our day without coming across multiple references to evolution. (e.g. even a book like 'The Philosophical Baby' is filled with E. references.) Most of the references seem to come straight out of Richard Dawkins, and most (if not all) authors seem ignorant of pertinent critiques of the theory. They just pass on what they've heard in an uncritical manner.
- I wish someone out there would write a book along the lines I mentioned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)