Wednesday, April 27, 2005

If you want to be on the front page, just say so.

Scientism, this calls for brain boy!

Just kidding.

The text of the mind of the day,
"I don't know why it is so hard for you to understand. People who defend science don't defend every scientist. They defend scientific inquiry...."

Apparently it is hard for you to understand that when it comes to origins research and scholarship we are dealing with more than science. Also, the believers in Naturalism have a growing track record of rejecting empirical evidence and scientific knowledge that just does not seem to fit in to Nature the way they wanted it to. E.g. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem which indicates that in any closed/finite system the state of knowledge will always be incomplete. Empirical evidence indicates that Nature is indeed finite. Therefore it can be known that Naturalists are incorrect in their belief that Nature contains all answers.

Another example of how the study of Nature refutes Naturalism,
"Origin-of-life theorists rejected the biologic universals, ["Man, there is no way that the building blocks of cellular life can "just happen" by rocks dissolving in some primordial pool. What nit-wit came up with that one? So there must be other forms of life, like crystalline clay organisms or somethin'.] While main-stream evolutionists claimed biologic universals as a major prediction of evolution. [Hey, DNA and the building blocks of life are the same in all organisms, this must mean that they share a common ancestor from some primordial goo or somethin'. And that's what Nature makes her selections on, so all life is from her, Nature be praised!]

This contradiction existed for decades, yet it was successfully hidden. The contradiction went unnoticed because evolutionists artificially separated the origin of life from its subsequent evolution — as though the two were unrelated problems. This ‘false separation’ was their strategy at the Arkansas creation-science trial (Act 590), as noted by the judge.

Although the subject of origins of life is within the province of biology, the scientific community does not consider origins of life a part of evolutionary theory. The theory of evolution assumes the existence of life and is directed to an explanation of how life evolved.
(Overton, 1982, part IV(B)).

This false separation concealed the contradiction, so evolutionists continued to present biologic universals as evidence in their favor.
Dobzhansky said the designer of life must be accused of cheating because “He deliberately arranged things exactly as if his method was evolution, intentionally to mislead sincere seekers of truth.” Dobzhansky was mistaken.

Nowhere is his error greater than on this very issue: the unity of life. Message theory says all life was constructed to look like the unified work of a single designer. This prediction is fulfilled in biologic universals and the unity of every living being. Evolutionary theory does not predict anything either way about biologic universals. It is compatible with any outcome. It is completely flexible on the matter.

Despite this unrestricted flexibility, evolutionists have been forced to retreat. Science (together with probability arguments) shows that nothing resembling known life could have directly originated naturalistically. Evolutionists want to protect naturalism, so they claim the first life forms were unlike anything known. ["Maybe there were some clay organisms or somethin'!"] So where are those alternative life forms? Why haven’t they been found? Message theory predicts they will never be found because they never existed. Message theory is an explanatory, testable theory. It is science. Evolutionary theory is falsified or unfalsifiable — either way it is not science."
(The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus Message Theory, By Walter Remine :94)

"....which you shit on in favor of "narrative construction" or some crap."

Your knowledge of origins scholarship seems to approach nil. What do you think anyone engaged in the origins debate is doing, if not constructing a narrative about the past? Something that you have yet to engage in, although you seem to think you are engaging in the origins debate.

"You are casting an enormous straw man by trying to imply that people who are swayed by science can't explain why. They can and they do--and they have in this discussion."

I suppose you think that the fellow who proclaimed that dinos with feathers is evidence of the dino ancestry of avians had a sound scientific argument. He didn't. There are numerous problems thrown in the way that can be gone into if anyone actually engages in the origins debate instead of thumping non-existent "peer reviewed science." On the issue of the evolution of flight in avians and numerous other organisms too do you really expect rational people to believe that the aerodynamics, the respiratory system, the bone structures, the echolocation systems of bats (which happened to happen two separate times, no less!), the use of vortexes by insects, etc., were all created by random mutations and designed by natural selections? Is mutation that creative? Is Nature that "selective"/intelligent?

All these things just happening to happen...another example, the sandlance and the chameleon. They have the same optical system, the same design. One lives in the sea, another lives in trees and the evidence says, "Here I am, I used the same design." Maybe the designer did that sort of thing repeatedly so that some fellows couldn't come along later with their urge to merge and say, "This must be from havin' the same ancestor." Did the common ancestor live in the sea and then hop on out into the trees, while Mother Nature benevolently selected to keep the same exact design for its eyes while changing the rest of it into a different life form? This is why I say, write a narrative.

Check out the sandlance's eyes, he's another odd little fellow. Look into his eyes, they seem to say, "We were designed by the same mind that designed the chameleon's eyes, one which has a sense of humor."

If message theory is correct then there will be various things thrown in the way of evolutionists, on purpose, by a more intelligent Mind than their own.

For instance, some things are morphologically identical, yet when their mitochondrial DNA is studied the sequences do not match and they seem to be different types. So the evolutionist is left arguing that nearly identical forms of life evolved just the same, not once, perhaps not even twice, but three separate times, as if the first time was not quite unlikely enough, i.e. impossible. It is quite an amazing claim to argue that random mutation and Nature's supposed "selections" created and designed nearly identical forms of life through two separate paths.

"I will repeat: scientific inquiry requires hypothesis testing of falsifiable questions using repeatable experiments."

How is the Naturalism that evolutionists preach falsifiable? What can falsify it?

"....I defer to scientists and scientific discoveries BECAUSE they have a reliable system of inquiry.You don't. I don't expect this post to make it to the front page, though. You are only interested in this crazy claim that science=pack mentality. Projection, much?"

You defer to scientists because you run with the herd. I'm not interested in the claim, yet if the opposition's main argument is thumping science texts while failing to actually make an argument or write a narrative then that is all that is there to reply to. You do not demonstrate a knowledge of a "reliable system of inquiry" or origins research. You have opportunities here. But instead it seems that you will continue to engage in science texts thumping, which is scientism, especially if you don't know about what you are thumping. So far you have not engaged in a dialogue on any of the evidence or taken the opportunity given to write a narrative on various issues of origins. If the texts you thump supposedly contain a good evidence based narrative for the evolution of avians and flight then just summarize it or cite it.

No comments: