tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post8379286131610013604..comments2024-03-14T14:41:17.663-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Evolutionary PressuresRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79210204464954398782011-01-31T12:11:22.365-05:002011-01-31T12:11:22.365-05:00Halo, thanks for recommending Dembski's book. ...Halo, thanks for recommending Dembski's book. I have been remiss in not reading that one and just ordered it. Thor bless you, TAM.The Atheist Missionaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07191035196328725888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41409018208447581852011-01-30T17:48:05.762-05:002011-01-30T17:48:05.762-05:00TAM,
you seem to have gone rather quiet. But if y...TAM,<br /><br />you seem to have gone rather quiet. But if you are still listening, chapters 30 & 31 in the book I linked to in my earlier comment specifically address the 'God of the gaps' charge.<br /><br />If you ever bring up that charge again without engaging those answers, then it will be even clearer to everyone that you are not interested in truth.Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06242793531954844979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27704252412270095822011-01-30T17:32:27.469-05:002011-01-30T17:32:27.469-05:00TAm, also see this book by an atheist,
http://www...TAm, also see this book by an atheist,<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/Seeking-God-Science-Atheist-Intelligent/dp/1551118637/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1296426670&sr=1-1Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65979044208777568912011-01-30T10:28:44.286-05:002011-01-30T10:28:44.286-05:00TAM,
You don't have the intellectual right to...TAM,<br /><br />You don't have the intellectual right to bring the 'God of the gaps' argument up with out engaging the refutation of it that has been done by ID theorists. See this key book before spouting out tired objections, it is a comprehensive source for arguments against ID:<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0830823751/qid=1089415677/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/104-7208934-4273535<br /><br />Until you can engage with these arguments you are just shaming yourself by your ignorance of where the debate actually is and thereby discrediting your atheism.Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06242793531954844979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52145179651636398522011-01-29T15:25:40.125-05:002011-01-29T15:25:40.125-05:00THE ATHEIST MISSIONARY SAID:
"steve, expecti...THE ATHEIST MISSIONARY SAID:<br /><br />"steve, expecting an academic response to 'the curse' is like expecting an academic response to the suggestion that there are fairies in my garden. Both assertions are gibberish and devoid of even a scintilla of evidence."<br /><br />i) That's an argument from analogy minus the argument.<br /><br />You use rationalistic rhetoric as a substitute for rational argument. There's nothing behind the pose. <br /><br />ii) There's no "scientific" evidence for the existence of abstract objects like numbers or possible worlds. Which doesn't mean there's no such thing.<br /><br />iii) I used to walk my dog to a local park. That was years ago, before she died, and I moved away. I have no "scientific" evidence that I used to walk my dog to a local park. Just my memory of doing so on numerous occasions. Should I disbelieve that event in the absence of "scientific" evidence?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-5414696252291785542011-01-29T15:03:31.984-05:002011-01-29T15:03:31.984-05:00The Atheist Missionary said...
"OK, I'll...The Atheist Missionary said...<br /><br />"OK, I'll drink your kool-aid. Let's assume that there is an Adamic prototype. Just find one fossilized example and you will throw 150 years of evolutionary theory on its ear."<br /><br />i) Since there was only one prototype, why would we expect to find the fossilized prototype? <br /><br />Even from a Darwinian standpoint, how many fossilized prototypes of various species survive? Any?<br /><br />ii) Suppose we found a fossilized bone of Methuselah. What do you think that would prove or disprove?<br /><br />If the rate of aging was slower before the flood, would the bone of a prediluvian 900-year-old appear different from the bone of a modern 90-year-old? <br /><br />Compare the skeleton of a dog that died of old age at 20 with the skeleton of a man that died of old age at 90.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37172586706099626032011-01-29T14:18:18.318-05:002011-01-29T14:18:18.318-05:00The Atheist Missionary writes:
“steve, expecting ...The Atheist Missionary writes:<br /><br /><b><i>“steve, expecting an academic response to ‘the curse’ is like expecting an academic response to the suggestion that there are fairies in my garden. Both assertions are gibberish and devoid of even a scintilla of evidence.”</i></b> <br /><br />Go read the <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/11/no-evidence.html" rel="nofollow">"No Evidence?"</a> post I’ve linked for you at least three times now. When you’re interacting with people who have argued for the reliability of the Bible as much as we have, it’s frivolous and dishonest to make dismissive comments like the ones you’ve made above. You’re assuming what you haven’t demonstrated. We’ve argued for our view of the Bible at length, and your response is to make vague references to “fairies” and “gibberish”. That’s irresponsible and unconvincing.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-23753042077630069522011-01-29T14:14:52.604-05:002011-01-29T14:14:52.604-05:00Good grief, see what I miss when I sleep in on a S...Good grief, see what I miss when I sleep in on a Saturday?<br /><br />The Atheist Missionary, if you don't actually begin to interact with the arguments that have been presented and only continually spout off your stupid one-liners, I'm going to begin deleting all your subsequent posts in this thread. <br /><br />Don't worry, I'll leave what you've written so far, because you did such a bang-up job of proving how stupid the average Darwinist is; but this is not your blog, and I'm not going to let you waste my time further.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-20221295861214887892011-01-29T13:43:38.424-05:002011-01-29T13:43:38.424-05:00The Atheist Missionary wrote:
“A shameful pitcher...The Atheist Missionary wrote:<br /><br /><b><i>“A shameful pitcher throws a lob and ... a swing ... and a miss. Anyone else care to try?”</i></b> <br /><br />I wasn’t swinging at your latest change of subject. I was swinging at your shameful behavior, and I hit it.<br /><br />Why are we supposed to follow you down every tangential trail you open up, yet you can ignore our arguments and change the subject as much as you want?<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>“Cites please. I like those.”</i></b> <br /><br />Like a citation from Iron Chariots? Or posting a quote from Jerry Coyne without any documentation? You don’t come across as somebody who has much interest in evidence.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-4079579013534027312011-01-29T13:05:23.141-05:002011-01-29T13:05:23.141-05:00"Please don't embarass yourself by naming..."Please don't embarass yourself by naming scientists who are engaged studying how the aging process might be prolonged or by regaling me with biological topics you already know that I am not conversant with."<br /><br />This is the punchline to this entire thread.Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15030792638120558640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-14750191162045948792011-01-29T12:30:44.847-05:002011-01-29T12:30:44.847-05:00The Atheist Missionary said:
OK, I'll drink y...The Atheist Missionary said:<br /><br /><b>OK, I'll drink your kool-aid. Let's assume that there is an Adamic prototype. Just find one fossilized example and you will throw 150 years of evolutionary theory on its ear.</b><br /><br />You're wasting our time. <br /><br />You don't respond to our questions. Why should we bother continuing to respond to yours.<br /><br />Not to mention you're hardly asking in earnestness. You'd just find yet another ill-conceived objection once we respond anyway.<br /><br />All this is in addition to your utter unreasonableness and intellectual poverty.<br /><br />Or to put it in words you might better grasp: hey bubba, i reckon yer thinking yer one high falutin' fella, but doggone it if it ain't the truth, you ain't even got peas for brains, that's fer sure!Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-30460592955669462692011-01-29T12:15:01.305-05:002011-01-29T12:15:01.305-05:00steve, expecting an academic response to "the...steve, expecting an academic response to "the curse" is like expecting an academic response to the suggestion that there are fairies in my garden. Both assertions are gibberish and devoid of even a scintilla of evidence.The Atheist Missionaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07191035196328725888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-45193819343512400702011-01-29T12:12:05.331-05:002011-01-29T12:12:05.331-05:00THE ATHEIST MISSIONARY SAID:
"Ah, the curse....THE ATHEIST MISSIONARY SAID:<br /><br />"Ah, the curse. Sooner or later the academic debate devolves to an appeal to superstitious munbo jumbo."<br /><br />That's not an academic response. It's just one of your cutesy rhetorical one-liners.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-85185518956617760222011-01-29T12:06:30.148-05:002011-01-29T12:06:30.148-05:00steve writes: Modern scientists can only examine p...steve writes: <i>Modern scientists can only examine post-Adamic bodies, which are degraded by the curse</i><br /><br />Ah, the curse. Sooner or later the academic debate devolves to an appeal to superstitious munbo jumbo.<br /><br />OK, I'll drink your kool-aid. Let's assume that there is an Adamic prototype. Just find one fossilized example and you will throw 150 years of evolutionary theory on its ear.The Atheist Missionaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07191035196328725888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-16797608117809729622011-01-29T11:54:50.301-05:002011-01-29T11:54:50.301-05:00THE ATHEIST MISSIONARY SAID:
"Just answer on...THE ATHEIST MISSIONARY SAID:<br /><br />"Just answer one simple question: are you aware of one PH.D. expert in the natural sciences who has written one peer reviewed paper to suggest that the human lifespan has ever exceeded, say, more than 150 years."<br /><br />This illustrates AM's chronic inability to think for himself. All he can do is to mindlessly regurgitate the clichés he picked up from Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, et al.<br /><br />Modern scientists can only examine post-Adamic bodies, which are degraded by the curse. They don't have access to the Adamic prototype to furnish their standard of comparison. So AM isn't attempting to engage the Christian position on its own grounds.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-18409823160487574782011-01-29T11:51:46.623-05:002011-01-29T11:51:46.623-05:00The Atheist Missionary excerpts the following:
&q...The Atheist Missionary excerpts the following:<br /><br /><b>"Perhaps the only fact that all those engaged in aging research will agree on is that the individual lifespan of animals (or at least of mammals) - and of man - is limited by biological factors. It has not required modern experimental science to uncover this fact, it is, for example, stated expressis verbis in Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland's admirable and still contemporary treatise 'Macrobiotics': The Art of Prolonging Life, first published in Jena, 1798. The great physician states clearly and as accepted fact that for each animal species and for mankind there is an upper limit to lifespan, that this limit is fixed, is different and specific to each species and that for man it has not changed since the earliest written records of human history. Recent careful study by phylogenetic analysis, with the help of an empirical equation using brain - and body weight estimations from fossils, has led to the conclusion that for Homo sapiens the maximum potential lifespan (Hufeland's 'absolute' lifespan as opposed to 'relative' or average lifespan of a selected population) has remained unchanged at around 95 years for the past 100,000 years": The biological aging process, H. P. von Hahn, Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 47-49.</b><br /><br />Speaking of "embarrassment," your use of this article is a case in point. Among other problems, this article dates from 1983 (see <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/w81143x3015718q5/" rel="nofollow">here</a> or <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6825774" rel="nofollow">here</a>). We're in 2011. There's been a considerable amount of scientific advance in the intervening years. Advance which in particular challenges the view that "there is an upper limit to lifespan, that this limit is fixed." I've cited some of the challenges above.<br /><br />Of course, I'd reiterate I don't necessarily agree with any of this myself. Rather what I've simply done is call your bluff.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48845435984648006822011-01-29T11:31:04.147-05:002011-01-29T11:31:04.147-05:00The Atheist Missionary said:
Please don't emb...The Atheist Missionary said:<br /><br /><b>Please don't embarass yourself by naming scientists who are engaged studying how the aging process might be prolonged or by regaling me with biological topics you already know that I am not conversant with.</b><br /><br />1. Since you admit you're not conversant with "biological topics" let alone a cross-disciplinary topic like cellular senescence and aging which integrates multiple fields and ranges across a wide spectrum, then what's the point? It'd be like trying to explain algebra (or, in fact, more advanced mathematical subjects) to someone who admits they don't know any math. First go and learn some basic addition and subtraction. Learn some multiplication and division. Just for starters. Then come back here and maybe we can talk.<br /><br />2. Not to mention you don't appear at all to know how to pick a reliable journal article out from an unreliable journal article. As far as you're concerned, any journal article published by any academic journal is worth citing. It's obvious you don't even know how to conduct a literature review to vet the wheat from the chaff.<br /><br />3. Otherwise, yes, you're embarrassing yourself.<br /><br /><b>Just answer one simple question: are you aware of one PH.D. expert in the natural sciences who has written one peer reviewed paper to suggest that the human lifespan has ever exceeded, say, more than 150 years? You seem to be a smart guy. I'm sure you can answer this simple challenge.</b><br /><br />1. Once again, you're moving the goalpost. You're asking a subtly but significantly altered version of what you originally asked. Astute readers can compare this question with his previous one.<br /><br />2. I cited several secular scientists above. Not to mention gave you resources so you can do your own searching (e.g. PubMed). Put the two together and do your own research. <br /><br />3. Okay, fine, I'll lend you a huge helping hand. See <a href="http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020012" rel="nofollow">here</a> for starters. Check <a href="http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v6/n2/full/7400339.html" rel="nofollow">this out</a> too, part of which sums up some of the research:<br /><br />"The prospect of halting or at least slowing down the body's ageing processes is not so far-fetched. Several promising scientific developments may lead to interventions that could extend human life expectancy beyond the longest lifespan observed so far: 122 years, a record held by a French woman. Researchers are trying to use the enzyme telomerase to overcome the limit of somatic cell divisions to stop or slow cell senescence (Flanary, 2002; Hayflick, 2003). Others are searching for substances that mimic the effects of caloric restriction, which has been shown to extend the lifespan of mice by up to 30% (Ingram et al, 2004). The Human Genome Project has also provided new targets for pharmaceutical therapies that could slow ageing or prevent various age-related diseases (Guarente, 2003). On the basis of such developments, intervening in the biological process of ageing is now discussed in the scientific literature as a real future possibility (Aaron & Schwartz, 2004; de Grey et al, 2002a)."<br /><br />4. So I've called your bluff. Now it's your turn. Why don't you answer the questions we've raised in this combox - if you can.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-54787104353386263642011-01-29T11:26:43.570-05:002011-01-29T11:26:43.570-05:00The Atheist Missionary said...
"I am happy t...The Atheist Missionary said...<br /><br />"I am happy to commend Henry Gee for your readers' continuing education on the fact of evolution."<br /><br />Of course, that's a typically addlebrained response from AM. Since he's too dense to get it, let's explain it for him:<br /><br />The fact that Gee is a Darwinian is hardly a defeater for my position. I cited him precisely because he is a Darwinian. That makes his concessions all the more significant.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64997014700214775532011-01-29T11:19:10.394-05:002011-01-29T11:19:10.394-05:00Notice that AM indulges in the framing fallacy, wh...Notice that AM indulges in the framing fallacy, where he tries to win the argument by framing the question in terms favorable to his own position. That's just a rhetorical ruse.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-88915742317158722842011-01-29T11:07:46.934-05:002011-01-29T11:07:46.934-05:00Patrick:
"Perhaps the only fact that all th...Patrick: <br /><br />"Perhaps the only fact that all those engaged in aging research will agree on is that the individual lifespan of animals (or at least of mammals) - and of man - is limited by biological factors. It has not required modern experimental science to uncover this fact, it is, for example, stated <i>expressis verbis</i> in Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland's admirable and still contemporary treatise 'Macrobiotics': The Art of Prolonging Life, first published in Jena, 1798. The great physician states clearly and as accepted fact that for each animal species and for mankind there is an upper limit to lifespan, that this limit is fixed, is different and specific to each species and that for man it has not changed since the earliest written records of human history. Recent careful study by phylogenetic analysis, with the help of an empirical equation using brain - and body weight estimations from fossils, has led to the conclusion that for <i>Homo sapiens</i> the maximum potential lifespan (Hufeland's 'absolute' lifespan as opposed to 'relative' or average lifespan of a selected population) has remained unchanged at around 95 years for the past 100,000 years": <b>The biological aging process</b>, H. P. von Hahn, Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 47-49.<br /><br />Please don't embarass yourself by naming scientists who are engaged studying how the aging process might be prolonged or by regaling me with biological topics you already know that I am not conversant with. Just answer one simple question: are you aware of one PH.D. expert in the natural sciences who has written one peer reviewed paper to suggest that the human lifespan has ever exceeded, say, more than 150 years? You seem to be a smart guy. I'm sure you can answer this simple challenge.The Atheist Missionaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07191035196328725888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-73316322766706470662011-01-29T11:07:18.366-05:002011-01-29T11:07:18.366-05:00AM,
Nice bait-and-switch. What does Gee have to s...AM,<br /><br />Nice bait-and-switch. What does Gee have to say about evolutionary genealogies?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9829464130862210592011-01-29T11:06:25.521-05:002011-01-29T11:06:25.521-05:00The Atheist Missionary said:
I am happy to commen...The Atheist Missionary said:<br /><br /><b>I am happy to commend Henry Gee for your readers' continuing education on the fact of evolution: http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf?gclid=CMuynbKpuZgCFQaA3godSxLYZQ</b><br /><br />I can't believe you work in the legal field given the paucity of your reading comprehension let alone logical reasoning. <br /><br />If someone positively cites Christopher Hitchens condemning fundamentalist Islam, does that mean the same person would also commend Hitchens' atheism? No, not necessarily.<br /><br />Likewise Steve citing Gee's critique of evolutionary genealogies doesn't mean Steve commends other positions for which Gee has argued (e.g. Gee's pro-evolutionism).Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48188711127948088922011-01-29T10:59:30.245-05:002011-01-29T10:59:30.245-05:00"please give me the name of one person on thi..."please give me the name of one person on this planet with a Ph.D. in the natural sciences who has written a peer reviewed paper supporting this hypothesis. Just one please. A cite would be greatly appreciated."<br /><br />Of course, anyone who's had the misfortune of trying to discuss these kinds of issues with unbelivers knows what goofy smokescreen this is. For as soon as a skeptic encounters a creationist or ID opponent who has a degree in biology or any other sciences, they dismiss them as nutcases anyways. You'd have to be truly naive to think that we haven't seen this kind of evasion before.Semper Reformandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14654695501552603164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19848799189336745962011-01-29T10:44:41.786-05:002011-01-29T10:44:41.786-05:00I am happy to commend Henry Gee for your readers&#...I am happy to commend Henry Gee for your readers' continuing education on the fact of evolution: http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf?gclid=CMuynbKpuZgCFQaA3godSxLYZQThe Atheist Missionaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07191035196328725888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67397876523075269962011-01-29T10:42:51.123-05:002011-01-29T10:42:51.123-05:00The Atheist Missionary said:
Cites please. I like...The Atheist Missionary said:<br /><br /><b>Cites please. I like those.</b><br /><br />Why don't you do the legwork yourself? Just search PubMed or Web of Science or somesuch. Look for your own journal articles.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.com