Re: Lewontin: "NS explains nothing because it explains everything".


Ray Martinez wrote:
Frank J wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:
(snip)


When Creos say NS is unfalsifiable they are talking about Evos who
explain everything by saying "NS-did-it". But forget Creos, your own
geneticists admit the obvious:

(snip pathetic quote mine that tries to slip out of a classic
intra-creationism contradiction)

(snip what Dana Tweedy answered)


BTW, Richard Dawkins, in "The Blind Watchmaker", 14 years after the
quote you mined, and 20 years ago, took pains to differentiate
Darwinian evolution from the "NS is everthing" caricature.


I own a copy of BW, what page is this on ?

In my 1996 paperback, on pages 308-312. If it's not in the original,
I'll change that to
"24 years after..10 years ago."

Of course one of the reason pseudoscience almost always beats science
among the sound-bite-addicted public, is that the reference I gave you
gives you more opportunity to misrepresent.

Another reason that pseudoscience has the public advantage is that
scientists' public scientific and philosophical disagreements can
always be spun (wrongly) as a weakness in their theories. That's why
pseudoscientists, especially of the ID variety, mostly downplay their
internal disagreements for the sake of the big tent.

I hope that your paper is a refreshing change from that strategy.

(snip)


Do you mean "independent abiogenesis"? You can't say no, because, if
you falsified common ancestry, that's all that's left. So you might as
well use technical terms.


I mean Mind caused matter (First Cause), and not Darwin's paradigm of
matter causing Mind ("Darwin's inversion" Dennett 1995:66).

That's not what I mean. I am specifically referring to the first
appearance of each member of an independent lineage. That has no
bearing on what Charles "breathed bt the Creator" Darwin or Dennet
thinks he believed about ultimate origin of mind or matter.



Do you say exactly which species originated independently, and when?


When the above Mind caused First Cause fact is established we then
refer to the only source we have for sequence (Bible).

I'll let others ask the obvious "Why not the Vedic or Native American
scriptures?" My interest is, if the Bible, which of the mutually
contradictory interpretations all claimed to be "literal" do you favor,
and will your paper clarify why all the others must be wrong?


"When" is about 600 mya according to Darwinists

Uh, no. The few "Darwinists" who think that any groups of life
originated independently think that it was ~3.8 BYA years ago
(archaebacteria and eubacteria) and well over 1 BYE (eukaryotes).

If by 600 MYA you mean the Cambrian "explosion", not even Stephen Meyer
of the anti-evolution activist Discovery Institute (tell me you never
heard of him either) claims specifically that the lineages lack common
ancestry.


, but Woodmorappe has
shown in "Studies in Flood Geology" how the geological ages, if
submerged in water, could yield deceptive observations resulting in
Darwinian deep timescales.

Could, but don't. If you really have some new young-earth hypotheses
that haven't been thoroughly refuted, why the particular interest in
evolution? You will have revolutionized, geology, astronomy, even
general disciplines like chemisty and physics.

And if you really have some new young-earth hypotheses, wouldn't you
want to first try to convince those old-earthers at the Discovery
Institute who don't have a prior commitment to (methodological)
naturalism, and unlice classic OECs, are not interested in debating
YEC?

Why are you ignoring your potentially greatest cheerleaders?




Do you reference Schwabe or Senapathy, who are AFAIK, the only ones who
even attempted to make independent abiogenesis sound scientific.

And please don't tell me you never heard of them either.


I haven't, sorry. I have no interest in abiogeneis since it is an
atheist invent based on need and anti-religious reasons.


Another Chez Watt.

Abiogenesis is defined as life-from-non-life, and thus occurred at
least once by definition. Trying to call it something else may fool
nonscientists, but only tells scientists that you are more interested
in playing word games than doing science.




2. design = Designer. Paley remains true.

Dembski apparently disagrees. Do you challenge him directly in your
paper, or is every pseudoscientific anti-evolutionist "sacred" in the
"big tent"?


Nonsense. The only thing Dembski is in error about is the cause of
Darwin's loss of faith. Like Darwinists, he asserts the death of Annie
in 1851 is the cause = counterfactual conclusion.

Dembski said that design does not necessarily imply a designer. And
Behe even said - under oath to boot - that the designer might even be
deceased. Does your paper address those inconvenent facts?

(snip)


You guys have way more in common with Conrad than me.

Well he did let a few anti-YEC comments slip, but every time I asked
him to expand on them he scurried under the big tent.

Ray

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lewontin: "NS explains nothing because it explains everything".
    ... (snip pathetic quote mine that tries to slip out of a classic ... quote you mined, and 20 years ago, took pains to differentiate ... According to Genesis ocean based creatures were among the first. ... nonscientists, but only tells scientists that you are more interested ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: It vs ID
    ... for the system to form in step fashion by mutation. ... designer, do not do research, and dispute supported science. ... thread, science starts with evidence, not conjecture. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes"
    ... means of introducing Creation studies into the classroom. ... Astrophysicists (or something like "Mainstream scientists") checked ... Putting quotes around the word "science" in this context is a veiled ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: More Religious debate
    ... because the placement of the needles seems to be mostly based on ... , and very particular needle placement is used, ... nothing to do with scientists, be they in or out of the establishment. ...
    (uk.people.support.depression)
  • Re: Ice cap melting FAST !
    ... on Climate Change and provide further assessment of what climate ... scientists, has also released a strong statement describing ... Now because Greenpeace was wrong on that case, and an oil company was ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
Quantcast