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


Frank J wrote:
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."

Thanks, I will check it out.


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.


All you are saying is that Lewontin did not mean what he said. If true,
then why did he say it ?

In fairness to you, your kind (sympathetic toward TEists ?) believes
the Bible does not mean what it says either. At least you are
consistent. The bad news here is that you are defending a false
impression (NS not as Lewontin says) against a fact established by a
big-time scholar. This is called subjectivity, dogma, or
Fundamentalism. To avoid these charges you need to say Lewontin is
wrong and provide a source cite and then we can argue validity.
Parroting "quote mine !" is easily refuted by reading the quote and
pointing out you did support your charge.

You are also attempting to call into question the legitimate spreading
of knowledge (facts established by scholars) all because of the
unpleasant fact produced by one of your own kind. Everyone is against
quote mining, all you need to do is back up your claim, and if you are
correct, I will be on your side in a N.Y. minute.


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)


Everyone downplays their internal disagreements.



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 by the Creator" Darwin or Dennet
thinks he believed about ultimate origin of mind or matter.


Okay I now understand.

I believe YOUR theory says ocean based organisms were first, correct ?

Genesis 1:20, 21

"And God said, Let the ***waters bring forth abundantly the moving
creature*** that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in
the open firmament of heaven.

And God created great whales...."

The original Hebrew says "large fishes" and not necessarily "whales".

According to Genesis ocean based creatures were among the first. The
Bible confirms your theory here, and your theory confirms the Bible.
Since we know the Genesis text was written before the 19th century, did
evolutionists steal this prediction from the Bible ? I say this because
you guys claim that every claim of yours is a prediction confirmed.



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?


Your comment contains too many false assumptions for me to correct
here. My paper will prove how and why the Bible is the correct version
of creation origins, IOW, I will show that Genesis 1 and 2 are
absolutely correct.

Frank: there are too many monkey wrenches falsifying common ancestry.
It looks possible from a distance, but the devil is in the details.
Anyone who does not NEED common ancestry to be true and takes a look at
the monkey wrenches and details instantly discovers what a deceptive
concept that it is. Since special creation is not a First Cause option,
this fact takes care of the monkey wrenches and details (anti-religious
reasons).



"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.


Negative, that is the basic ID and Creo belief: Cambrian explosion =
scientific evidence falsifying common ancestry, and yes I know who
Meyer is. Even Dawkins in BW recognizes that opponents claim CE
supports special creation and falisfies CA. Do you want the page number
?


, 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?


I am an OEC too. My point was what you also acknowledged ***could***.

The underlying point is that no one really knows how long ago the CE
was, we have a legitimate scientific doubt established. Deep time does
not threaten Biblical veracity anyway because the Bible supports the
OEC view, and no where does it say that Genesis 1:1 or the creation
days happened triple or double or single digit thousands of years in
the past. The Bible is also legitimately interpreted to say shallow
times are true. The point is that objective scientific facts conflict
pertaining to time and age of Earth, as does Biblical interpretation =
Bible corresponds with reality perfectly - its chief claim.

Pastor Melissa Scott (Dr. Scott's successor and a master linguist
with at least 14 languages mastered, including, of course, ancient
Biblical languages): "Time is conspicuously absent from Genesis...there
is a massive amount of time, deduced from the phraseology of the text,
unknown in length, between Genesis 1:2 and 1:2".

Dr. Scott (OEC): "No one knows for sure how old the Earth is....God
retains some secrets".

The Bible says God is eternal and dwells outside or time. We can trace
God's name (YHWH) to the Sanskrit, it means "Light". In the Bible
"light" is always associated with God's presence. Jesus said "I am the
light of the world".

Science has established that time ceases to exist at the speed of
light.

If the Genesis text was controlled by God (and not by man who is bound
by time) then we would expect it NOT to have any mention of time, since
the Author dwells outside of time. This is true and scholars like Dr.
Scott call this: "intrinsic evidence of truth".




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?

Dembski said no such thing. Everyone lies under oath, how do you think
the AtheistCLU secures its atheist victories with "Christian" witnesses
?

Besides, Behe believes apes morphed into men, these types are very well
known to lie - obviously.


(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

Believe me, will you never catch me in a tent with Conrad.

Ray

.

Quantcast