tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post6608942996021144407..comments2024-03-14T14:41:17.663-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The scientific communityRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22082836757971056262018-01-29T16:57:14.285-05:002018-01-29T16:57:14.285-05:00And here are the papers cited in Shapiro's boo...And <a href="http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/evolution21.shtml" rel="nofollow">here</a> are the papers cited in Shapiro's book. Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63631878449494327392018-01-29T16:54:21.555-05:002018-01-29T16:54:21.555-05:00BTW, along the same lines, there are tons of paper...BTW, along the same lines, there are tons of papers cited in James Shapiro <i>Evolution: A View from the 21st Century</i> as well as Denis Noble's <i>Music of Life</i> and its companion sourcebook (which is available to download for free <a href="http://www.musicoflife.website/pdfs/The%20Music%20of%20Life-sourcebook.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>).Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-85367514874365413462018-01-29T03:03:56.573-05:002018-01-29T03:03:56.573-05:00Thanks, Jesse! I appreciate it.Thanks, Jesse! I appreciate it.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37069531252998424372018-01-28T21:58:46.913-05:002018-01-28T21:58:46.913-05:00Hello Patrick,
I've come across some shocking...Hello Patrick,<br /><br />I've come across some shocking admissions from Darwinists regarding the existence of evidence contradicting evolutionary theory/common descent. See here, if you are interested:<br /><br />https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2018/01/evidence-contradicting-evolutionary.htmlJesse Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-32292724322729265072018-01-27T14:46:33.574-05:002018-01-27T14:46:33.574-05:00Thanks, Jesse and Danny! Good points.Thanks, Jesse and Danny! Good points.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19461797840166456062018-01-27T10:20:00.196-05:002018-01-27T10:20:00.196-05:00Atheists seem to think they do not shoulder a burd...Atheists seem to think they do not shoulder a burden of responsibility. A 'default position' and an endless promissory note of 'Science will get there!' appears to be sufficient for the 'New Atheist.'Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03954530962872661952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-18946748064829778462018-01-27T10:10:21.112-05:002018-01-27T10:10:21.112-05:00Indeed. We bave all seen the atheist assert, '...Indeed. We bave all seen the atheist assert, 'We do not yet understand [fill in conundrum] but science is working on it and in time we will have the answer.'<br /><br />This can indeed be classed as a science-of-the-gaps argument. <br /><br />Isn't faith wonderful :)Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03954530962872661952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13106355507787821962018-01-27T01:04:32.285-05:002018-01-27T01:04:32.285-05:00What I find ironic here is that most of the Foundi...What I find ironic here is that most of the Founding Fathers in scientific development were religious. This most certainly refutes any notion of "Christians are unintelligent."Jesse Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48073532895412390452018-01-26T16:53:11.558-05:002018-01-26T16:53:11.558-05:00In addition, neo-Darwinism as a grand unified narr...In addition, neo-Darwinism as a grand unified narrative arguably falls under the purview of historical science more than experimental science. It's not as if we can test or re-test and re-experiment with, say, the evolutionary history of the whale in a laboratory. Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-4020802074314976942018-01-26T16:48:22.579-05:002018-01-26T16:48:22.579-05:00"The atheist, rather than actually answer pro..."The atheist, rather than actually answer problem questions, leans back on "time will reveal more," or "error, and even unintended deception (!) will help us as we develop our understanding over time.""<br /><br />This might count as a science-of-the-gaps argument? :-)<br /><br />Also, there are many atheists who are just as hidebound and dogmatic as any caricature they paint about the Christian. Take people like Dawkins or Coyne. Take those who espouse scientism. <br /><br />In any case, I don't think the relevant distinction is between science vs. religion (Christianity). Rather, I think the more relevant and pertinent distinction is between an atheistic worldview vs. a theistic (Christian) worldview. Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31399491966096367742018-01-26T16:45:31.964-05:002018-01-26T16:45:31.964-05:00"Hey, we're always learning, error is a g..."Hey, we're always learning, error is a good thing, unlike you Christians who are not open to growth in your discipline. You call it "absolute" and then stop studying."<br /><br />I think that's highly ignorant and insular on the atheist scientist's part. "Science" isn't the only field of study which advances and progreses. There are textual advances in biblical studies. There are archeological and historical discoveries and advances (e.g. the Dead Sea Scrolls). There are philosophical and theological advances. For example, we have a clearer and better understanding of many Christian doctrines thanks to analytical philosophy. Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77945111504294314932018-01-26T16:11:57.405-05:002018-01-26T16:11:57.405-05:00that's an interesting metaphor - thanks. It do...that's an interesting metaphor - thanks. It does seem that way. The atheist, rather than actually answer problem questions, leans back on "time will reveal more," or "error, and even unintended deception (!) will help us as we develop our understanding over time."<br /><br />Maybe it just frustrated me because it left scientists with a back door, an escape hatch. There's no way I know of to keep a scientist's proverbial feet to the fire. But as soon as I say "that's an escape hatch," I get thrown back at me "you're playing the god of the gaps card!"Coreysanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10088111514772374098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41561865720426136102018-01-26T15:39:48.690-05:002018-01-26T15:39:48.690-05:00Thanks, Corey Fleig. That's a good point. Give...Thanks, Corey Fleig. That's a good point. Given the number and size of the holes, one would think at some point people will recognize the ship is sinking. However, evolutionists keep attempting to deny the holes or plug the holes with woodchips and sawdust, all the while exclaiming the ship is perfectly seaworthy!Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37839476815039989922018-01-26T15:07:23.894-05:002018-01-26T15:07:23.894-05:00I was just listening to a debate this morning, tha...I was just listening to a debate this morning, that I think has issues related to what you raise here. One atheist scientist referred to groups and publications he trusts. When his opponent pointed out errors, contradictions, and mistakes by those groups and publications, his response was: Hey, we're always learning, error is a good thing, unlike you Christians who are not open to growth in your discipline. You call it "absolute" and then stop studying.<br /><br />The Christian scientist talked about how original sin cursed the ground, but it would be hard to specifically and didactically explain how weeds reflect original sin. So too, the evolutionist has gaps of information all over the place. So what do you do when both sides recognize details that are intrinsically hard to explain? This was the question I was referring to earlier in the other thread.<br />Coreysanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10088111514772374098noreply@blogger.com