You know, like, yeah…
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Alfie
#7 “As for the theory itself, wasn’t it Christian scientists who first proposed this?”
No
#8 “The hottest chicks are against evolution,”
“Proving once again if your pretty you don’t have to be intelligent.”
As a side note I found that most of the pretty girls in college were looking for Mrs. degrees not education. They also tended to be pretty vacuous.
The really hot girls were the English lit. girls both smart and adventurous.
“Conservative husbands feel no need to prove their manhood sexting strangers.”
Then why do they continue to be caught do the dirty with other men?
#9 “And what’s worse, testosterone begins flowing in veins, oozing from their pores, and they then strap on the very object of their revusion…deforming liberal men so they walk bowlegged.”
So your whining because they have ball bigger than you? or are you jealous of the men?
#12 “#11 Prove it scientifically, create an experiment where evolution occurs while we observe.”
I have referred the book Blueprints by Edey and Johanson to you before. It’s apparent you have not read it.
#23 “Mutation isn’t evolution.”
Actually that and natural selection IS the mechanism of evolution. See Edey and Johansen.
“You cannot prove by experiement the hypothesis evolutionary process accounts for the diversity of life.”
See Stephen J Goulds, A Wonderful Life. Hey, I told you about this one before as well.
#29 “Even if I grant your one example indicates evolution occurred, the complete lack of proof it occurs in all other forms of life, disproves evolution as a universal cause of the diversity of life.”
Again I refer you to Gould.
And you just admitted evolution to be true.
#38 “Evolution is an evidentiary and observational fact.”
No, it is not. It is speculation only.
The existence of gravity can be proved….entropy can be proved…devolution can be proved”
Say fucking What!
Simple logic If A=B and B=C than A=C. See your previous comment and either of the books.
41 Not really, nothing much to do until dinner is done. Alfie makes a wonderful idiot to punch cause he keeps coming back for more.
#48 “And the king of Israel answered and said, Tell him, Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. (1Ki 20:11 KJV)”
And when the chips are down alfie starts to spout biblical santorum Google it.
By the way Rick Santorum is a republican. Is that the definition of irony?
Many of those girls were speaking as if they had not been taught evolution in school. Is this real? This is 2011. I’m from Canada, and assumed America was… How can this be?
Holy Cow – I just googled and it’s true. Americans believe in evolution less than any other western countries except Turkey. Article from National Geographic. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html
#59 🙂 Backing off.
at #3 Phydeau
“Sigh… people who “believe in” evolution just don’t understand what a scientific theory is. “Believing in” evolution doesn’t make any more sense than “believing in” creationism.”
———————————————
Absolute trust in science is also a form of belief, sure some can be witness and observed, but that is simply a well verified belief, and does not means that it may be unfactual in some regards.
I belive in the scientific method, i do not belive what we are told by science is absolutely correct. knowledge relies on previous knowledge, and if it was ever corrupted for gain then all that follows is still corrupted in some way.
Why are we getting all the alfie bait lately on the blog? It’s getting very tiresome.
I believe in evolution, but I don’t wear a bathing suit on television.
I was going to say, “at least she can speak. What more can a man want”. But, then I realised that maybe that’s not such a good thing, Life would be easier wouldn’t it.
Bikini wax. The secret ingredient to successful philosophical debate.
You know, it’s nice, you know, to see such a, you know, poised young lady who, you know, like, gets it.
Now ask her about E8 theory.
Claiming that creationism has the legitimacy of evolutionary theory and is simply a personal choice is bankrupt.
Just shows you the success creationists are having in pushing their Big Lie.
““Sigh… people who “believe in” evolution just don’t understand what a scientific theory is. “Believing in” evolution doesn’t make any more sense than “believing in” creationism.”
It is really just the sloppiness of language. I “believe” that the Unibomber is guilty. That doesn’t have the same meaning in context as “believing” in some religious notion, like creationism.
Believing in scientific method doesn’t mean that you accept some straw man version of scientism, only that you believe the the universe is knowable via systematic inquiry. Creationism strikes at this fundamental precept of science, which is why at essence, it is a terrible thing.
“When Evolutionists propose a “organizing principle” that accounts for life as we know it, the burden of proof is upon them to show it exists.”
Non-sequitur. Evolutionary theory is about how species change. Your challenge is as valid is claim that the principles of metallurgy on earth only became valid when we understood how metals were formed in supernovae.
“No scientific experiment to date has energy organizing molecules, regardless how open you make the system.”
Try to do better than an argument from ignorance. That really is tedious. The alternative to human ignorance doesn’t make magical explanations legitimate, but simply shows intellectual laziness.
“Therefore your “proofs” are not “observational facts,” they are inferences only…not proof.”
More sloppiness. There are something like 200 million specimens in the fossil record. ALL, repeat, All are consistent with the principles of modern evolutionary theory. None support creationism, not one.
Evolutionary theory is supported by a consilience of evidence from genetics, paleontology, morphology among many other disciplines. It is supported by natural experiments as well as lab experiments numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Creationism is supported by….nothing.
That is absurd as energy contributes nothing to organization, you can shine the sun on a pile of bricks and wood forever, and it will become dust, not a house.
Please. Are you claiming that crystalline structures are not organized? Or are you claiming that energy is not involved in crystallization?
I’m still waiting to find out from Alphie where his god comes from. Can he prove it?
This is an interesting set of arguments. But essentially “Taxed Enough Already Dude”, you’re ignorant.
Now I say that, in the way it’s meant to be understood. You are unaware of the facts and don’t want to open yourself up to the possibility you might be wrong. Frankly your statements get more and more ridiculous. “Mutation isn’t evolution” That’s precisely what evolution IS.
You want to see how evolution works IN THE LAB. Sure, why not take a simple bacteria and affect it with a virus or such. Then the surviving elements will survive and create new mutations that make it immune and prosper. Boom! Evolution, right in front of your eyes. A “creature” adapted itself in order to survive, it evolved.
But the argument is spurious anyway. Evolution is science and creationism is religious. So why not teach them both?
In the UK we are taught both the science of evolution and the creation myths of the major religions. Then I guess you are expected to have the ability to MAKE YOUR OWN MIND UP.
But the thing I notice most about this debate. Evolutionists are happy to have creationism taught in it’s proper context, as religious study. But creationists want their belief system taught EXCLUSIVELY.
Now why would that be? Do they suspect or even know that it’s arguments won’t stack up?
When such strawman arguments as “how was the eye created” fall on their backside, when you simply look at the evolution of the crustacean groups (which contain examples of each step in the process to create and eye)….
When you can prove that we descended from simple creatures, like yeast, because our DNA can bind and reproduce with them.
All the “it’s just a theory” arguments fall by the wayside.
But you will ALWAYS have those people, so dedicated to the exclusive promotion of THEIR religious ideology, that they are willing to start fights, wars or just make themselves look plainly stupid.
You don’t have to “believe” in science. Because for it to be science, it must prove itself. Similarly you can’t prove religion.. because it’s a FAITH. If you could prove it, why would you need FAITH to agree with it……
And please don’t suggest that a simple collection of verse, agreed upon during the 4th century AD are “proof” of the existence of God. I think we can all see through the very self aggrandising and opportunistic motivation of Emperor Constantine the 1st.
#53 Taxed Enough Already Dude
“I understand the issue well enough”
No, apparently you don’t
“Entropy is a measurement of molecular disorder that occurs in a closed system that does not receive or exchange energy from outside itself. ”
No. Entropy is not a measurement of disorder. Entropy measures the dispersal of energy at a specific temperature. I found a very good example for you.
“An example of how entropy isn’t disorder is that if you take a piece of glass, which is an amorphous material (one whose atoms are disordered), and place it in a fridge to cool it down, you will not change the atom locations. The glass remains just as disordered, but its entropy decreases as its temperature drops. In fact, in a very good fridge, the closer you brought it to absolute zero (-273.15 C or -459.67 F) to closer its entropy would become to zero. This would all happen without changing its structural disorder. ”
Once again to claim that evolution violates Entropy is to show your ignorance of both topics.
“Entropy occurs everywhere”
No it doesn’t it occurs only in a closed system.
Henry Morris, Ph.D. ? Really? his Ph. D. was in hydraulic engineering. That hardly qualifies him as a source on Biological or Chemical evolution.
For his ignorance on Entropy he should have his Ph. D. stripped from him. His view is complete nonsense.
#54
“Inference is “non deductive reasoning”
Completely false. When you start with a definition that only suits your argument rather than the facts how can you expect anyone to take anything you say with credibility? Read the first line jackass. This must explain why you are so confused.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Deduction
The fact that you have a computer to access the internet is proof that Inference is very useful in science. Dumbass!
“Chick publications has an excellent little comic on this”
Yeah because I get all my knowledge from a comic strip. Moran!
“The inference seemed right, till more data was learned.”
Not exactly but yes science does update when new data is gathered. That is a good thing unlike your bible that never changes. Oh wait it does depending on which translation and which form of Christian you are. I never knew that man was better than god at knowing which of “gods words” were most important. I guess those guys at the Council of Nicaea were smarter than god himself.
“Therefore your “proofs” are not “observational facts,” they are inferences only…not proof.”
Here you show your lack of understanding about the concept of observational facts. Educate yourself please. It is a simple concept and seems to be causing you a great amount of confusion.
#60
“Inferring evolution in genus or family from speciation is a leap worthy of Evel Knievel”
You have absolutely no idea what evolution is do you. How can you argue against something you never even researched. I studied the bible and other mythology for 8 years. What the Christian right tells you about what evolution says is a lie. Don’t believe me? Compare what one of your creation sites says vs. what a science site says about the definition of evolution. I bet the creation sites are leaving info out or changing it completely.
“When Evolutionists propose a “organizing principle” that accounts for life as we know it, the burden of proof is upon them to show it exists.”
The “organizing principle” part is so out of context and not even related to the rest of your statement except for the fact that you put them together.
“No scientific experiment to date has energy organizing molecues, regardless how open you make the system.”
Not true at all. The Miller–Urey experiment does exactly that. In one week they turned H2O CH4 NH3 and H2 into 20 different amino acids. Then Joan Oro showed that RNA and DNA nucleobases could be achieved using similar technic.
Observational Facts
Black holes exist.
The Earth is not the center of the universe.
George Washington was America’s first President
The Earth has 1 moon.
England still exists even after America was formed.
The earth receives both matter and energy from space therefore is not a closed system.
The earth is aprox 4.54 billion years old.
Taxed Enough Already Dude or Alfie is an ignorant fool.
taxdude,
Proof of evolution? Mitochondria. Explain how they are a part of us and yet do not share our DNA. The only logical explanaton is the symbiosis between single-cell organisms in the dawn of life. In fact it was a vital symbiosis because without them we could not exist.
Another argument is our teeth. the fossil record of humankind demonstrate a reduction in tooth and jaw size. We continue this migration, as evidenced by the fact we are the only primate that requires their teeth be straightened. Our teeth will cntinue to shrink as we need them less. We continue to evolve as a species.
#79 Taxed Enough Already Dude
“Your “knee jerk” contradiction of everything I say, even where you actually agree (entropy is a measurement…entropy would become zero)”
No.
You said “Entropy is a measurement of molecular disorder ”
It’s not!
I said “Entropy measures the dispersal of energy at a specific temperature”
Those two positions are not the same. Not even close. The definition that you gave is the layman’s uneducated definition of Entropy. It is incorrect.
In the example I provided. There is no change in the glasses disorder only its Entropy
#83
“Black holes cannot be observed.”
But their effects can be.
Therefore we can use deductive inference to prove they do exist. That they exist is an observable fact. Just like Gravity. And also like Gravity there are several theroies explaining their existence.
If evolution is fact, why are our brother monkeys not complaining about being locked up in zoos?
Wouldnt monkeys have evolved by now and built cities, roads, learn to sext on twitter?
@ B. Dog #10
Compare the Minnesota’s answer to the one form Vermont. That’s a good answer! She’s pretty alright.
Miss USA has a good answer too.
Bottom line:
It’s a tough question. It’s just theory. Let the kids decide what’s the truth, and the hell with it. 🙂
And after several posts, Tax has still failed to establish that crystalline structures don’t require energy to form nor are not forms of organization, which he claims are impossible due to his disastrously poor understanding of the 2nd law.
If crystalline structures aren’t examples of self-organization on earth falsifying Tax’s silly claims, what is?
Tax claimed “Now if you can infer the existence of a black hole from its effects on other celestial bodies, how is it you cannot infer the existence of an Intelligent Creator.”
The mechanisms which create black holes are well described, their properties can be predicted and described mathematically and tested.
Why don’t you tell us the mechanisms and properties of the Intelligent Designer. What tests do you propose. Why don’t you describe the properties of this Designer? You can’t, because all you offer is a lazy argument from ignorance, supported at its core by an argument from authority, a tired string of logical fallacies posing as science.
Tax said: “How are crystalline structures relevant and material, are you proposing we ontologically life is crystalline?”
They are examples of self-organization without intelligence and with the action of energy which you claim does not work. Crystalline structures falsifies your claims about self-organization being impossible.
There’s nothing ontological to discuss. The issue at hand is whether self-organization can occur without intelligence, obviously it happens all the time. Within closed systems there can be areas of greater order and greater disorder even as the system itself becomes more disordered overall.
Tax said, “If the principle of evolution explained the diversity of life all around is, it would be ubiquitous—so pervasive, tossing any meat in a corner would grow a new genus…”
Meat is dead. Evolution explains nothing in changes in non-living matter. It has nothing to do with things, only living species involved in reproduction. It also offers little concerning individuals during their lifetimes (i.e., living meat changing before it dies). It explains the changes within populations through generations that change. You and a monkey share a common answer. You are not a descendent of a common chimp.
Tax said: “Crystalline structures aren’t alive, they aren’t relevant.”
Please, you used the original example of the sun not building a house. And I quote you: “That is absurd as energy contributes nothing to organization, you can shine the sun on a pile of bricks and wood forever, and it will become dust, not a house.”
I show that self-organization of non-living structures occurs to show your claim is false. You then move the goal posts and contradict your own original assertions by then claiming that self-organization of non-lving matter is not relevant.
The principle holds: self-organization occurs regularly in matter (living and non-living) without intelligent design. This evidence falsifies your claim that the 2nd law makes self-organization impossible.
Tax said: “You must prove evolution in life, in a scientifically observed experiment…NOT Okham’s razor killing conjecture, aka biased inference”
You need to learn the subject. No one claims that evolution of species doesn’t occur. That species change is plainly obvious.
The debate and theory is what are the mechanisms that cause change. Evolutionary theory supported by a mountain of evidence shows those mechanisms to be random mutations, gene flow, natural selection and genetic drift among others.
The further debate is whether those mechanisms can cause higher level taxonomic differentiation. Given the enormous speciation we see in very short periods of time and the consilience of evidence in genetics (see nested hierarchies) and in the fossil record, the answer is clearly it does.
Creationists sit back and based on little more than a strong religious belief claim “goddidit”.
#87 Actually it shows just how foolish you are, and it explains a great many things about you.