Open Thread
by Joy
This entry was posted on Saturday, July 26th, 2008 at 4:08 pm and is filed under Random Stuff. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
adobe acrobat new version Download Adobe Creative Suite 5 Web Premium software crack for adobe photoshop cs adobe acrobat writer 50 for download Download Adobe InCopy CS5 for Mac software adobe premiere 6 5 demo adobe photoshop manual pdf Download Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 software adobe photoshop basic training adobe illustrator cs23 download Download Adobe Dreamweaver CS5 software adobe photoshop 8 serialz adobe premiere pro tryout expired Download Adobe Creative Suite 5 Design Premium software adobe photoshop free evaluation adobe photoshop free trail Download Adobe Photoshop CS5 Extended software adobe cs2 creative suite activation code adobe download full premiere Download Adobe Creative Suite 5 Master Collection software serial adobe premiere cs3 adobe photoshop elements documentation Download Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro Extended software adobe creative suite mac download adobe photoshop camera raw Download Adobe Premiere Pro CS5 software free download adobe acrobat writer adobe photoshop effects tutorials Download Adobe Illustrator CS5 software adobe acrobat 7.0 professional download crack
-
Featured Books
The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene 
Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body 
Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology 
System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts 
The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart 
Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge 
Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris 
Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey 
The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies 
Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch 
Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman 
Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur 
Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee 
The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards 
The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold 
The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet 
Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb 
The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse
July 26th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Thank You Joy.
I like the sign.
I'll be good and only repost the less controversial comment.
My wife got us Netflix which allows you to watch all the movies you want to watch on-line for free (from a very limited list). Therefore, I have been watching Science Fiction movies.
I ran across one that I hadn't seen before titled The Man from Earth.
It may be a remake, but I don't remember one like this one.
It is a low budget film with is simple premise. What would an immortal man who lived, say 14,000 years, be like?
The man is normal in every way except for an improved healing system that reverses long-term aging effects, including scars.
I found it interesting. But, then again, I am not easily offended by things others might consider blasphemous.
Consider that a warning to those of you who are more susceptible to such things.
At, any rate, you might want to consider picking it up when you can't find any other CDs worth watching.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 26, 2008 @ 4:55 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
TP:
I've seen some spectacular healing systems in my time. Son's appendix burst when he was 12, the fatty tissue in his abdomen moved to seal off the rupture, absorbed the toxins so effectively that blood tests prior to surgery didn't indicate infection at all. Got written up in a medical journal. Years later my father suffered a perforated colon, his abdominal fat did the same trick. I figured it's genetic, though my hubby's healing powers are fairly legendary.
They died/we'll die in the end. That's okay with me.
I think immortality would be boring. I also think heaven as portrayed by the gated community elitists who don't mind telling us all what it'll be like would be terminally stifling. All the most fun folks will be in hell. So if there's such a place and I find myself there, I've plenty of old friends to look up.
Take it as[if] it comes, I always say… §;o)
I'll get The Man From Earth if I can remember it next time we rent something. Have you seen What Planet Are You From? Almost as good as Galaxy Quest, way sub-prime against Space Balls and not as much fun as a single season of Stargate (particularly with the eye-candy). I'm not THAT old yet… §;o)
Comment by Joy — July 26, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Hi Joy,
What Planet are You From? looks interesting. Maybe a bit of a mushy chick-flick, but still an interesting premise. I will look for it the next time I'm in a position to pick out a CD (it isn't downloadable on Netflix yet).
I hope you enjoy The Man from Earth if you get a chance to see it. I think you will.
Personally, I don't dwell too much on the afterlife. I would be pleasantly surprised to find out it does exist, but I wouldn't have any regrets. Even if I was convinced that my consciousness lived on it wouldn't change my philosophical outlook very much.
I would still be interested in things like Penrose/Hameroff's Orch OR model. In fact, I would probably be even a little more interested.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 26, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
July 27th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
John, Bradford, TP & Zach have engaged the possibility of life being ubiquitous in the universe over in the Remarkable Nucleotides thread I am unable to follow or post to. So I'm putting my question to them here.
I previously mentioned in a somewhat light tone that there are a lot of humans – including astronauts from the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions – who claim to have encountered sentient extraterrestrial beings. I also mentioned the fact that these ETs are described as "humanoid" in form. And that it's not impossible to think of a scenario for an alien civilization to have designed and front-loaded the first cells on this planet just to see how the evolutionary tape would replay in this environment. It resulted in the appearance (after a mere ~600 million years) of sentient, intelligent "humanoids."
Yes, I know that single-celled life has been here for around 3.8 billion years. It just didn't reach a level of cooperative complexity that enabled the appearance of specialized information processing and sensory structures until the early Cambrian. At which point life 'exploded' in a veritable orgy of creative expression of genes that had been present all along. All forms of complex life that evolved from that Golden Age of creative excess have come and/or gone between then and now.
I suspect Hameroff is correct in his theoretical extrapolation to that event in the history of life on planet earth as being triggered by the development of sufficient information processing structures to cross the threshold from simple awareness to actual functional consciousness. A quantitative measure, a scientific hypothesis that makes a lot of conceptual sense and could explain a lot that blind, accidental, agent-less evolution simply cannot explain.
Once consciousness enters the causal realm of the Prime Directive, it obviously drives an evolutionary engine that is rather amazingly swift and efficient. There's a big difference between 600 million and 3.8 billion years. A 3.2 billion year difference. Once creativity exploded, it exploded big time and things happened really, really fast. Relatively speaking.
If we were to find that humanoid ETs were involved, it would suggest that humanoid life forms are (one of) the inevitable results of biological evolution under the guidance of increasing quantitative expression of consciousness. That increasing sentience (self-awareness) and intelligence (learning, problem-solving) is inevitable to at least one line of the possible forms front-loaded into the global genome.
Q: Can it be agreed that quantitative expression of the physical mechanisms of consciousness is likely to be a telic aspect of life's evolution toward increasing complexity (organic/ecological 'loopiness' and adaptive form/behaviors)?
Q: Can we agree that a sufficient concentration of those mechanisms may enable a causal role (interfacing with the environment) for consciousness in shifting evolution into overdrive (after 3.2 billion years of relative quietude)?
Q: Can we agree that causal (and telic, toward expression of itself) consciousness playing a role in relatively rapid adaptive evolution qualifies as "Intelligent Design?"
Comment by Joy — July 27, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
July 27th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Hi Joy,
If you are up to it. You might consider starting a separate thread for this discussion so people won't feel free to stray off-topic in the open thread.
If you do this, please feel free to move this comment to the new thread(otherwise I will copy and paste it myself).
You asked…
My version is to suggest that, at the very least, our telic universe has an apparent purpose of existing and being consistent with itself.
Such a universe will literally move heaven and Earth to make happen whatever needs to in order to fulfill its purpose.
I don't find it overly difficult to imagine that life is necessary to fulfill this kind of universe's purpose.
I have intentionally used terms and concepts that are a compromise between the two standard dueling metaphysical positions. You asked "Can it be agreed that…" Highly doubtful, but I am interested to see.
Once we get past the first part, this should be easy (famous last words).
I still would prefer "Conscious Design" or "Telic Design" but that is old news.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 27, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
July 27th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Joy,
I have no problem with the idea of spacemen visiting Earth, many people have wasted their lives looking for artifacts to provide evidence of these visitors. I'd be thrilled if any of them succeeded in finding alien artifacts, that would mean there's a way off this rock so our species might be able to out live our sun. But space aliens cannot solve the OoL problem. If they seeded the Earth then the OoL simply becomes a question of how they originated. Of course I would be highly surprised if we discover alien life and it just happens to be humanoid in appearance. If we found that aliens seeded the earth with nothing but primitive cells and those cells evolved to look like the original aliens then we'd have the first ever evidence for Front Loading.
Its seems that the trend towards complexity existed prior to conscious intelligence. Perhaps the emergence of intelligence accelerated that trend, perhaps not.
Sure, organisms are an important part of their own environment, so their learned behavior patterns would surely effect their further evolution. It seems likely that once you rely on intelligence for things like gathering food and selecting mates then that same intelligence could cause slight physical differences to have a larger selective pressure then they might otherwise. Experiments would need to be preformed in order to confirm or deny this intuition.
No, this would be hard to agree on. Its not a deliberate and purposeful act, their intelligence is simply another selective force shaping natural selection. The giraffe doesn't choose to have a longer neck even though his intelligent behavior of eating tree leaves can lead to that result. The female peacock doesn't design the male's elaborate tail, she simply chooses the most attractive mate from the available variations and the design emerges from this choice. I supposed there is a blurry line at which choice and preference becomes design but I think even humans are only now becoming intelligent enough to cross that line. Something like the Nazi eugenics programs could be called Intelligent Design since they were specifically and purposefully choosing what traits they want to select.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 27, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
July 27th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Cytosine Deamination and Evolution: A View From Both Sides
By Mike Gene (2/1/03)
http://idthink.net/biot/deam/index.html
http://www.idthink.net/biot/deam2/index.html
The role of “error-prone” polymerases and deamination of cytosine in immunization (adaptation) has been well established. My question is if the same principle applies to DNA replication. Do "error-prone" polymerases perform the same function on DNA in replicating it as they do in immunization?
Comment by Rock — July 27, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
July 27th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Todd B.:
I understand this. Even more, I understand that the 'experiment' (if Earth life is such a thing) could be nothing more than a "replay the tape" situation where they'd hope to gain a little insight into where THEY came from. Maybe they don't know any more about it than we do, they just have the technology (and longevity) to make a 'best guess' as to what their LCA's genome looked like, and to seed it here to find out if it'll replay in a similar fashion.
Just speculation. Those astronauts weren't looking for "evidence," they saw the ships up close and uncomfortable. "They're HUGE," Buzz Aldrin exclaimed from Tranquility Base…
"Just happened?" Surely you jest in reference to the old Neodarwinian 'accidental' orthodoxy, right? I mean, if the accumulated anecdotal evidence of people who claim they've actually seen/met these ETs, they're "humanoid." So why would you be surprised if ETs come in "humanoid" forms?
Of course, it would then be necessary to determine why the ETs seeded here, and how much twiddling they did with the genomes of the seeds. If they just copied the hard-wired, evolutionarily conserved 'toolkit' genes they found on their own planet and surmised to have been present in the original LCA, "humanoid" would strongly look to be a front-loaded product of genome-based evolution itself. As would bears, spiders, crabs, possums and snakes, obviously.
What other accelerant would you name to account for the "Cambrian Explosion" (including pre and post developments, of course)?
I see that your a priori commitment to the conclusion that evolution is solely a product of selection won't allow you to entertain the possibility that telic design might have played a much stronger role in evolution than you are willing to concede. I am not surprised, but thanks for the response.
Comment by Joy — July 27, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
July 27th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
What I'm saying is that independently evolved life from another planet having a human form is something that would require an explanation. Obviously coincidence is not a satisfying explanation. As for the accumulated anecdotal evidence of alien visitors, its on par with the evidence for angels, demons, gods, and deities. Which is to say there is no credible evidence. When it comes to little green men the sci-fi geek in me really wants to believe, but there just isn't proper warrant.
Instead of simply guessing a possible cause I'd try follow the chain of evidence instead. I might start with the intuition that it relates to the development of intelligence. The question is how do we test that theory? Primates have big brains, does the evidence support the idea that primates diversified faster or more than, say, horses?
Trying your hand at some selective quote mining? That's a bit dishonest of you. What I said is that Intelligent Design implies deliberate purposeful design and not simply the further evolution of an already intelligent organism.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 27, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
July 27th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
To All,
Here is a link to Buzz Aldrin talking about his UFO encounter.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 27, 2008 @ 7:00 pm
July 27th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Todd B.:
Orchestrated Objective Reduction and its well-developed sub-theory of consciousness is more than a simple guess, Todd. It follows both the equations and the evidence. And it's more than intuition.
??? Is that what your 'intuition' tells you to expect if evolution contains intelligent causal agency on the origin end?
I cited your conclusion, not your reasons. Then I responded to your conclusion. That's not quote-mining, and it's not dishonest. Insults will get you nowhere but lost in the memory hole.
Comment by Joy — July 27, 2008 @ 7:46 pm
July 30th, 2008 at 10:16 am
How open is this thread?
The reason I ask is I'd like to know what many here think about the CRS, Dr. Gish, ICR, Dr. Sarfati and such.
I got quite an earful at AtBC and to be honest, they seem pretty sincere in their belief that some creation sites are not honest.
Thank you,
Ed
Comment by lcd — July 30, 2008 @ 10:16 am
July 30th, 2008 at 11:16 am
lcd:
Of course they believe that. And they're not the least bit shy of proclaiming it from the rooftops. But, like all participants in these never-ending arguments, they're also lying.
Deal is, people tend to believe what they believe. Those who believe something else are all "liars" because the primary purpose is – always – to insult the 'other' into submission. Psychologically it can be fascinating (for a little while, then it becomes boring). Some people simply cannot allow for others to believe something they don't believe, and if someone does, that means they must be evil, unscrupulous liars.
That's very, very seldom true.
I don't know much about "creation sites." Don't go there, am not interested. The only ID sites I've spent much time on are ARN and TT. And while these tend to get some disreputable characters on both sides, it's usually the die-hard game-players who end up banned. UD is obviously not like that, they run a tight 'yes-man' ship. It's their site, if they don't want to play WoW with juvenile delinquents, that's their right and their choice. I don't mind. Neither should you.
Comment by Joy — July 30, 2008 @ 11:16 am
July 30th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
lcd,
Well, I’ll tell you what I think. Young earth creationists can be of the Kurt Wise type—that is they state that they believe that the earth is young in spite of the scientific evidence to the contrary. This is an honorable position. Or they can believe the earth is young and that “real” science, i.e., creation science, supports that view, because that’s what they have been told and they are in no position to evaluate the claim on its flimsy merits. That is sad, but understandable. Or they can, such as the ICR (H & J Morris, et. al.) and AIG (Ken Ham), be the willful perpetrators of falsehood. That is, they can create a cottage industry of teaching to the ignorant that science, done properly, supports a young earth. And that mainstream science is wrong and its practitioners are minions of the antichrist. In my opinion, this group is comprised of many charlatans, frauds, and hucksters, along with their innocent victims.
And when they compound their scientific travesty with theological travesty, such as arguing (as they often do) that any death before the fall would render Christ impotent in terms of his ability to redeem fallen men, they cross over into blasphemy.
Comment by David Heddle — July 30, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
July 31st, 2008 at 8:28 am
Thank you Dave and Joy,
For me, I want to learn more about what science has found in support of Creation. I like ID in that it shows that there was an Intelligent Designer, though I do not think that Front Loading is something the Creator would do.
Where can I go to find these things? I've been to other sites promoting Creation. In them I see many things like the idea that, I'd like to know if this is true, the "Darwinian strangle hold on real science" is almost at an end. The problem is I've seen exactly the same thing with different ideas before. If one were to read history and Communist propaganda, th imminent fall of the West was always around the corner.
I believe the Earth is Young as it says in the Bible. If I were to compromise and say that the Earth and Creation could be billions of years old, what else in the Bible do I compromise? Liberal Theologians have already compromised God's Word, the Bible, to the point where it seems Jesus is not the only way and call into question Christianity itself.
Thanks in advance,
Ed
Comment by lcd — July 31, 2008 @ 8:28 am
July 31st, 2008 at 8:30 am
Ed,
One last thing for now. Have you found any evidence for a Young Earth in Science? Is there anyone in the YEC, OEC, ID or other science that promotes even a hint of God's glory that is actually working on science and not "hucksterism"?
Comment by lcd — July 31, 2008 @ 8:30 am
July 31st, 2008 at 9:44 am
lcd:
Support for creation? That's entirely in how you look at the world around you, and what you believe about its origin. It could be an island on the back of a turtle. It might be Babe Ruth's last blasted baseball. It might be a shadow-play on a cave wall, it might be all in your head. Science wasn't invented to find support for anyone's origin mythology or interpretations or beliefs. Since that's not its intelligently designed job description, it's not surprising that science doesn't seek and hasn't found support for creation.
It has quantified a chunk of creation, though. Matter, energy, dimensions, interactions, a wide variety of physical/energetic constructs, forces and phenomena. For our [human] practical purposes [of control].
The Bible doesn't say anything about how old or young the earth is. Some humans over the years have made pronouncements about it, but some humans over the years have made pronouncements about a lot of things, and been utterly, completely wrong.
Since the Bible doesn't say anything about how old or young the earth is, there are a couple of possibilities that occur to me about you and your presence here. First, you are a hard core YEC fundamentalist Bishop Ussher worshipper. In which case you should studiously ignore any and all religious and scientific websites on the internet, they'll only make you mad by challenging your surety.
Besides, most of the hardest core YEC True Believers [TM] I've ever seen/met aren't very internet savvy and are highly distrustful of the technology, don't go looking for fights with rudie-boy haters like your friends at the Swamp.
Or, considering that you came here from the Swamp, you could be play-acting a role but not getting it very well because you've injected a gross stereotype into it that nobody here is likely to buy. We've seen it too often not to know these stereotypes by heart.
So… which is it?
Comment by Joy — July 31, 2008 @ 9:44 am
July 31st, 2008 at 10:51 am
Joy, on lcd:
Poor lcd. I tell ya, he don’t get no respect. Over at ATBC (the swamp) he gets accused of possibly being a sock puppet. And here on TT he faces the same charge! It reminds me of the late, Alistair Cook, former host of Masterpiece Theater. He lamented that Americans thought he was a distinguished English gentleman, and the English thought he was an enlightened American.
Comment by David Heddle — July 31, 2008 @ 10:51 am
July 31st, 2008 at 11:56 am
Hi Lcd,
I'll take pity on you and attempt to answer your request.
I think Walt Brown makes a good attempt at trying to argue YEC scientifically. Here is his web site…
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
Salvador T Cordova also tries. Here is his web site…
http://www.youngcosmos.com/
The primary problem with these and many other YEC arguments is that they assume their conclusion ("Begging the Question").
That, and the strong temptation to discount evidence and logic that is inconsistent with their assumptions. Many YECers are not above crossing ethical lines in their attempts to convince others to believe what they believe. It is the typical case of where some people feel moral imperatives trump ethical standards.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 31, 2008 @ 11:56 am
July 31st, 2008 at 11:59 am
David:
Perhaps there's a logical reason for that. #1 being that it's extremely unlikely that a true YEC would find his/her/its way to the Swamp or to TT looking for 'scientific support' for a 6,000 year old universe.
"Learning things" like, say, how to cuss like a sailor, is better done by joining the Merchant Marine. At least you'd get paid.
Comment by Joy — July 31, 2008 @ 11:59 am
July 31st, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Why thank you Joy,
As Heddle has stated, I've been accused of being Denyse by one or two who ofrn post on the AtBC board. All I got to say is "Wow".
Yeah, "The Swamp" is where I started my crusade. It all started with a VBS at the church and our delving into Creation vs Evolution. The gentleman who showed us many things about the controversy pointed out many different websites which promote the theory of Special Creation. That is what believe. He told us about many things that are ongoing to show that there is more than Darwinian Science.
However, he also pointed out Talk Origins which lead me to "The Swamp". I was fascinated by the idea that there were Christians who believed in Evolution. While the other websites that promoted Creation were good and my kids go to a few to read up, I found them to be a bit lacking in science.
It was that I wanted to use science to tell my friends who believed in Evolution and have them say to themselves at least that they just might be wrong.
So I came here to the TT board to learn more about ID. Now I like ID and I think it shows that our Lord did make all that we see. Front Loading, not so much. I don't like the idea that God planned things out like that.
So let me ask you Joy a question.
Who is the Intelligence behind the Design?
I say God.
To tell you a little bit about myself, I am an engineer and I help build things. One of my jobs is to determine who built what. That really helps me get a good idea on how the rest of it is built out. I can tell which engineer made what by looking at how the items were built. So I am interested in showing that the Designer must be God.
Now let me ask you again, who designed what we see here in your opinion Joy? You can't tell me that ID doesn't care who the Designer is as half of the battle to determine if something was designed is who that was. Was it a Minoan or was it a Greek? Was it Mayan or Olmec?
If ID is not going to do that, I guess the "designer" could be whatever someone wants to make it and they can slide it on in.
Just my $0.02
Ed
Comment by lcd — July 31, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
July 31st, 2008 at 1:11 pm
One last question Joy,
When you started out learning about Telic ideals, Evolution and more, where did you start?
Comment by lcd — July 31, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
July 31st, 2008 at 2:30 pm
lcd:
ID doesn't show that our Lord did make all that we see. ID attempts to show that life and evolution are telic (purposeful) phenomena. Front-loading in the original life forms, or in those forms that went on to develop into all the biodiversity we see around us, displays teleological specificity.
Your belief that God planned and implemented everything to be just the way you see it is your belief, and you have an absolute right to your belief. I personally believe there is more empirical evidence of purpose in life and evolution than there is empirical evidence that it's all random accidents sifted by the universal death machine. Still, these are just beliefs by scientific standards. Science holds to its own sets of beliefs. Obviously, this is how human minds work.
But it is not science's job to prove or disprove our personal beliefs. It merely gathers empirical evidence, develops hypotheses, intelligently designs tests that will support or falsify those hypotheses, and then tweaks them further based on the evidence available through repeats of this system.
I personally suspect life intelligently designs life. More or less consciously, upon the gradient measure of consciousness as it manifests in life forms large and small. I also know that accidents happen, bad genes (frozen past accidents) get passed, and different critters/plants reproduce more or less prolifically. Only those lives that contribute to the population genetics of the through-time descendants play a role in evolution. Life that does not reproduce, or whose offspring do not reproduce, doesn't contribute to evolution. But it still qualifies as life, and is still more or less intelligently designed.
But that's just me. You can of course believe God did it. There's no objective difference.
God is not here to undergo our cross-examination, answer any pointed questions, or show us his lab notes. Human beings – including human scientists – cannot ever expect to understand or control anything in or out of manifestation (creation) that is greater-than ourselves. If there is God/gods, S/He/It/They are exponentially greater-than us and everything else in manifestation. That's just the way it is, nobody's little propiations and cheats have ever served to control God/gods, and never will. It's just a psychological game people play because we are so small and helpless. And yes, 100% mortal.
I've known telic ideals all my life. I learned about Darwin and Neodarwin in school. I learned chemistry and physics too. Then I went to college and learned some more. Then I did some practical applications. Then I moved on after discovering that science was every bit as politically corrupt and ideologically arrogant as any other human endeavor, but exponentially more adept at killing the most people with the least amount of effort.
I discovered these interminable debates on a major news service forum while researching modern Islamic terrorism and discussing subjects of scientific interest (a pastime). Some inter-pseud showed up and started spewing outrageous lies related to biology and evolution, pretending to be a scientist. I was shocked, wondered what the heck was going on that science felt it had to force-feed a crock of you-kow-what to people who just honestly wanted to know. And why the heck any of 'em would attempt to do that to real scientists on a worldwide science forum. The technology was new in those days, not everyone had home computers, and very few people knew anything about forums.
So I went to a website linked in follow-up discussion to see what was going on. That website was ARN. I observed for a few months, then dipped my toes in the turbid waters. I have been constantly amazed ever since at how low some insecure scientistas are in their ill-conceived faith. That amazement arises from a different interest of mine – psychology.
I keep at it because I have a personal dislike for authoritarians and wannabe mind-tyrants. I believe in liberty and responsible freedom. Was born, raised and married into the military establishment, have some familiarity with Life in Wartime. To me, no one else's hatred of our liberty and freedoms – anywhere in the world, for whatever reasons – justifies us giving our liberty and freedoms away. My sidelong interest in deep political science leads me to believe that all authoritarian pretensions are related to the same ultimate goals. And none of them bode well for liberty and freedom.
INCLUDING theocracy and wannabe authoritarian theocrats.
Comment by Joy — July 31, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
July 31st, 2008 at 5:01 pm
How does ID show that?
Why not? God would make all that we see without planning things out? That makes no sense.
Comment by Bradford — July 31, 2008 @ 5:01 pm
August 1st, 2008 at 7:29 am
Hello Bradford,
ID I believe shows us that God is the Designer. As ID and IC show that there are some systems that are too complicated and can't be thrown together "ad-hoc". So what made these IC things? Some other lifeform? Then the Darwinists can ask, "How did they come about?"
So instead we acknowledge that the Designer is God.
I don't believe God didn't plan for the fall nor for the millions if not billions who were not saved and never found Jesus. God has Love that is Just. Punishing people who didn't know better was never part of God's Plan.
Hello Joy,
God will undergo no such thing. As I said to Bradford above, all that needs to be said is that God is the underlying cause of it all. Otherwise anyone can insert anything as the creator.
I believe that the hand print of God is in our bodies as God created them. So ID really needs to acknowledge God as the Designer before some cult starts saying that it was Rigelians or beings from Venus. I said it before that in my job I have to identify the engineer responsible for the work. ID should acknowledge nothing less or it is not complete and like Darwinism, refuses to acknowledge God.
Comment by lcd — August 1, 2008 @ 7:29 am
August 1st, 2008 at 8:47 am
Had to cut it short,
As for going to the "swamp" first to pick a fight, I did no such thing. I went to learn how someone could believe in Evolution when there is so much against it. If all one does is go around to pick a fight, one creates enemies and learns very little. I am looking to learn.
As far as "internet savvy goes", I guess I'm not.
Ed
Comment by lcd — August 1, 2008 @ 8:47 am
August 1st, 2008 at 9:46 am
Icd:
Icd prior to that statement at the Swamp:
Your ignorant creationist act does not cut grade B acting. When you lie keep your story straight. No staunch YEC would have been OK with front loading (which is at odds with YEC) until a contrived question from one's wife convinces him it was wrong in one fell stroke.
Comment by Bradford — August 1, 2008 @ 9:46 am
August 1st, 2008 at 10:07 am
Hey Bradford,
I can't act? good thing as I'm not an actor. No change in any story. I like ID as it is an alternative to Darwinist thinking that there is no design and everything is just so.
At first I liked the idea of Front Loading and then I recoiled because to me it puts the Designer in a bad light, planning the Fall, and that doesn't sit well with me.
Using those to snippets where am I lying to keep my story straight? Please point it out or retract it. See Bradford real Christians and Real Men admit their mistakes. Now show me at least you are real.
And yes, I've been treated better in the "swamp" than here. I am sorry you feel that way but if you are so used to deception, perhaps you should change your friends.
In Christ
Ed
Comment by lcd — August 1, 2008 @ 10:07 am
August 1st, 2008 at 10:12 am
That's *exactly* what a troll would say.
Comment by Zachriel — August 1, 2008 @ 10:12 am
August 1st, 2008 at 10:13 am
Joy and Bradford,
I see what Dave means now. People who claim God but then shrink away when push comes to shove. Again re-read Mathew 26:34 and John 13:38.
If you want to put God in, do so and say it loudly. If you don't well, that is between you and God.
Comment by lcd — August 1, 2008 @ 10:13 am
August 1st, 2008 at 10:23 am
Zach,
I give up. What won't a troll say? Also, a troll for which side? I've been accused of being Denyse at AtBC.
The sad fact is I came looking to learn and neither side seems to want to teach. I said my peace over at the AtBC board and how myself and many feel about scientists. I disagree with Front Loading but want to see ID taught and let students decide and promote critical thought.
So now I'm really not welcome here and I've already decided to leave AtBC as that somehow hurts me for actually trying to learn both sides and the arguments. You take care and I'll trust in the Lord. Perhaps TT will become far more open and at least be like UD as UD comes out and claims God instead of dancing around the issue as they do here.
I guess I really am a bad troll. I should've stayed at the UD board but as I agree with much of what they say, what would I have learned?
Hope your days are blessed and productive,
Ed
Comment by lcd — August 1, 2008 @ 10:23 am
August 1st, 2008 at 10:31 am
lcd:
Science doesn't know that and by the parameters of its job description cannot assert such a thing. Thus anyone can indeed insert anything as the creator based entirely on their own personal metaphysics. Humans designed science for specific practical purposes. It is not a branch of theology and does not serve theologians (of any variety).
Too late, the Raelians are already on the job.
If you are not just playing internet footsies and are indeed the college educated engineer you claim to be, you should have a better understanding of science than you display. You are free to spend your entire life trying to prove objectively that God exists, is who you want him/her/it/them to be, and is in charge of all things that occur in the material world. Good luck with that.
Science (and people who believe differently than you do) are never likely to bow to your metaphysical demands. There exists an "ID Movement" championed by people who have made no secret of their theological commitment to ID as a weapon against materialism. TT does not represent that movement or its leadership, so again you are in the wrong place.
You should probably get used to that situation. Individual scientists are as free as you are to believe Goddidit. Or not. Science says nothing about final cause.
Comment by Joy — August 1, 2008 @ 10:31 am
August 1st, 2008 at 10:53 am
I was joking. (I rarely use smilies, so you have to read my intent from context.) I am perfectly willing to accept you as you purport to be.
Trolls have no limits, except their imagination and their own self-control. Their motives are to disrupt. Some are overt, but the most successful trolls are covert. (This is an open thread, by the way, an appropriate forum. On another thread, we would be diverting the discussion.)
A pure troll is not on any side, but the less pure only attempt to disrupt one side of the argument.
I'd be happy to talk about the science.
ID, as a scientific claim, is vacuous. There's no there there. But if you want to support a particular claim, I would be happy to engage it.
Bad, Troll. Bad. Bad.
{Just kidding!}
Comment by Zachriel — August 1, 2008 @ 10:53 am
August 1st, 2008 at 11:05 am
So a YEC like you liked the idea that God front loaded an evolutionary process until you realized that would mean he front loaded man's decision to sin.
Does front loading evolution sound like the same thing as young earth creation Zachriel?
Comment by Bradford — August 1, 2008 @ 11:05 am
August 1st, 2008 at 11:31 am
They are different concepts, but I wouldn't expect an engineer off the street to understand the differences, much less to have thought through the theological implications. Front Loading is a rather arcane incarnation of the ID Community.
Comment by Zachriel — August 1, 2008 @ 11:31 am
August 1st, 2008 at 11:49 am
Zachriel:
Why not? Most engineers are bright people. A young earth is not a difficult concept to grasp. Even non-scientists have a working definition of evolution which does not entail sudden creation by a deity. The theology is not all that complex either.
The issue is whether it is plausible that one could think it compatible with YEC.
Comment by Bradford — August 1, 2008 @ 11:49 am
August 1st, 2008 at 11:52 am
lcd,
No one is welcomed by everyone, but I kind of like you. You are not trollish as far as I can tell, even if your views are not welcomed by any of the staked out positions offered here. As a proponent of true freedom of thought, I say, "welcome".
If there is "trollish" behavior at TT, it comes from those who repeat and repeat and repeat the same scientismic pablum over and over and over, interspersing with National Geographic channel pop science facts to make themselves sound like they are experts. This kind is really not here to learn or share anything, but to preach the gospel of scientism.
I haven't seen any converts yet.
Comment by chunkdz — August 1, 2008 @ 11:52 am
August 1st, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Because being educated in one field doesn't imply knowledge in another. An engineer isn't by training a scientist, and the methods of engineering are quite distinct from those of science, being the application of known science, rather than the discovery of new scientific principles. And even then, normally only within a limited field of application.
Front Loading is arcane, as I said. Young Earth is contrary to known geological and biological science. As to theology, the last I heard they offer doctorates in the subject. And I don't think it's an engineering degree.
Anyone stuck on YEC or ID is already disconnected from plausible science. Nothing unusual about that on this forum. Unless you examine the claims in detail, it is not possible to reach any reasonable conclusion. I would suppose someone might visit this forum for just such enlightenment.
Comment by Zachriel — August 1, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
August 1st, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Bradford: A young earth is not a difficult concept to grasp. Even non-scientists have a working definition of evolution which does not entail sudden creation by a deity. The theology is not all that complex either.
Right. It does not take an engineer's skills to understand a claim that the earth is 6-10,000 years old does it? Do you know any evolutionary scenario that fits in that time frame? Do you have to be scientifically trained to realize that? You have a history of supporting socks that are eventually revealed for their true identity. I haven't forgotten valerie and keiths. Don't you have better things to do than disrupt other blogs?
Comment by Bradford — August 1, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
August 1st, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
"sniff" I'm so happy I could cry.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 1, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
August 1st, 2008 at 12:55 pm
It takes an understanding of the relevant science to know that the claim is without scientific merit. Or, at least a reasonable appeal to scientific authority.
"In fact, creationists believe that extremely rapid evolution occurred after the Flood to create the species that we see today from the smaller number of species that were on the ark."
Possibly by Front Loading. Your ignorance of this does not mean you are not a "bright person", just that you were unaware.
No, that would require knowledge of Creationism, not scientific training.
This is an open thread. I was bantering with lcd when you asked me a question.
Comment by Zachriel — August 1, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
August 1st, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Zachriel quoting:
Here is another quote from your link:
Icd claims to have read The Design Matrix and to have arrived at the old atheist argument about God's responsibility for evil through Mike's FL concept as revealed through his book. The old atheist argument in a cheap tuxedo and all as a result of Mike's book. The above quote accurately ascribes life to a supernatural act for "creationists" like Icd. So Icd already believed God was the cause of life before reading the book. He could have blamed God for evil at that point. Since The Design Matrix deals in biological processes and not theological front loading why would the cheap tuxedo be put on only after reading the book?
Comment by Bradford — August 1, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
August 1st, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Icd,
If you're still around, I'm curious what your line of reasoning is that leads from front-loading evolution to front-loading the fall.
Comment by Bilbo — August 1, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
August 1st, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Bilbo to lcd:
It's a little difficult to fathom from where I sit, Bilbo. Don't know how Ed would answer that. I suppose it might arise from a complete and total confusion of the material and the spiritual, where a front-loaded genome for diversification of life on Earth must also contain prescient determinism down to individual life forms' behaviors, activities and (at the human level) thoughts and choices too. Do YECs deny that the fall came as a consequence of choice?
That's a real question, maybe only a YEC could answer. I've never seen how predestination and free will were compatible, and the story of Adam and Eve is very specific on the 'sin' (disobedience) that caused all the trouble. Disobedience couldn't occur without a choice to disobey. I've never taken Genesis literally, but you can't have it both ways and still claim consistency in literalist readings.
Comment by Joy — August 1, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
August 1st, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Joy,
It's actually not too complicated. In a nutshell:
1) Calvinism has the most libertine version of the free will. Namely, its version of the free will is you always do what your strongest inclination is at any moment. You never actually do anything you don't want to do, when all options and ramifications are considered. Your actions are determined, but not by an external power. They are self-determined. God is not a puppet master–you are a slave to your own desires.
2) Because of the fall, what you don't won't is God. That is what original sin means, to a Calvinist. You have no desire for God, therefore you won't choose him. Even though you have free will, your lack of desire makes it impossible for you to choose God. You are morally incapable of responding positively to the gospel. The best imperfect analogy I know is that a mother, who is in her right mind, cannot, in spite of her free will, choose to to place her baby in a microwave oven. She is morally incapable, even though she has free will.
3) The elect will, in due time, be regenerated. They will be given a new heart. The new heart has a desire for God. Therefore the regenerated person, with his free will, chooses God.
Nobody is coerced, either into choosing God or not choosing God.
That is a thumbnail sketch as to how how free will and predestination are reconciled. As I said, it is not very complicated.
Comment by David Heddle — August 1, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
August 1st, 2008 at 6:32 pm
David:
So… Adam and Eve WERE predestined to eat the apples? And if so, why did God get so blasted mad at 'em for it? He's the one who used reverse psychology on them and all, by telling them they couldn't have any fruit.
Do YECs generally believe that God was surprised by the fall – don't subscribe to predestination? Did God simply *not* consult his own omniscience when creating human labor for his garden? And if he cared that much, why didn't he just give 'em good hearts in the first place?
Honestly, sometimes the contradictory concepts are mind-boggling. Self-determination is a fair correlate of freedom. Within physical, social and psychological boundaries, that is. Freedom is not a fair correlate of predestination, seems to me. But that's just me. And apparently the YECs too!
Comment by Joy — August 1, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
August 1st, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Everyone’s a “wannabe.” I wanna be free. What does that mean and how do I do it? Nobody knows… But everyone has their ideas, That’s kinda like how “freedom” is—you decide.
I dare say, all of human history is the attempt to figure it out. Not so much for each other as for ourselves.
What an awful idea: I am the slave of my own desires. Who could believe in a god who makes people the slaves of their desires. Sounds vaguely “anti-Christian” to me. See Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness. Maybe only God himself is “free.”
Freedom is a dilemma. A choice. Not determined by God or anyone else other than ourselves. We choose how “free” we are. No other life form has that choice.
Comment by Rock — August 1, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
August 1st, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Joy,
No. All this model says is at the time she sinned, her strongest inclination at the moment was to sin, so she sinned.
Rock,
Well, the prevailing atheistic view is that there is no free will. See Provine's comments in that regard. In that case, you are a slave to differential equations, the initial conditions of the universe, and maybe Heisenberg.
Of course if you have a better model of free will, I'm all ears. I like the Calvinistic model, although admittedly as described it is a 1st order model only. But I am comfortable it captures, roughly, what is going on.
And at any rate Joy didn't ask me to present and defend a model of the free will. She just wondered how predestination and free will are reconciled. That's how.
Comment by David Heddle — August 1, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
August 1st, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Rock:
I never paid much attention to details, though Presbyterians are Calvinists, and I married one too. It wasn't until I had babies and encountered infant baptism that I rebelled. Your basic "My God doesn't send babies to hell because some guy with a different degree than mine neglected to sprinkle 'em with water! Who the hell came up with THAT?!"* Only go to church these days for weddings and funerals (and to hear bro-in-law preach when I'm visiting).
[* PCUSA no longer considers infant baptism a salvation issue]
I can see a view, especially in a splintered modern age, that holds Christ's offer of redemption applies only to those who choose to accept it. What happens to everybody else may be covered in some other mansion in that many-roomed house. Getting condemned to hell by some uppity Baptist or whatever is nothing new, I'm sure non-Christians and non-religious people care even less than I do. But doesn't this put a crimp in the whole evangelism thing? I mean, why convert anyone who's going to burn in hell anyway? Is this another of those strange JW deals, where they have tens of millions of faithful adherents even though they firmly believe only 144,000 of them get into heaven?
That sure sounds despicably deceptive, if someone else's heaven has room to spare. Cruel even (if you really do believe it). Just after the potential tithes?
There is no absolute freedom, there are only degrees of freedom. Nature hampers us plenty, as do our sociopolitical institutions. But I agree that it's a choice, because I've made it more than once. And I am freer than most people despite the boundaries I've imposed on myself. I could at any turn in the road have chosen to take a different fork.
But if I don't have a choice to make to accept the back door off the Wheel of Karma that Jesus Christ offered freely – because he didn't really offer it freely and may not have offered it to me at all – then there's certainly no sense worrying about it! And no reason for the evangelists to bother me. That in itself comes with quite the refreshing breath of freedom!
Comment by Joy — August 1, 2008 @ 9:08 pm
August 3rd, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Salvador: What did you do to get banned at Uncommon Descent? Or have they just run out of people to ban and turned on their own?
Comment by steve — August 3, 2008 @ 10:54 pm
August 8th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Joy,
Just a comment. When I go out and try to conclude which engineer did what, I have the added value that I know the system was designed. What I look for are the clues to determine WHICH engineer is was that did the design or was it a new engineer I've never seen before. When I do that, I annotate the documentation on the structure and put in the notes, after I verify, the engineer responsible.
So ID needs to identify the Designer, which I know as God, and needs to come out and say who did what.
Comment by lcd — August 8, 2008 @ 8:35 am
August 10th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Conspiracy theorist David Heddle has debunked the notion that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is the Antichrist. Further, he demonstrates, mathematically mind you, that Chinese actress Zhāng Zǐyí is the front-runner.
You've been warned.
Comment by Rob R. — August 10, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
August 10th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
lcd:
Um… nope. ID need do no such thing, since there are well qualified theologians out there who can make such assertions fully within the purview of their actual field. ID is not theology no matter how much you personally want it to be. It is, as Mike Gene said, a "nascent protoscience." Several 'lesser' hypotheses hoping to build a full theoretical framework for the study of biological phenomena.
Rob R.:
Hahaha!!! Well, at least Heddle's got a good sense of humor. But where did that +1 come from? Methinks he has fudged the numbers…
Comment by Joy — August 10, 2008 @ 2:24 pm