Posts by hooberus

33

Darwin in Context

by hamilcarr in

why non-atheists needn't be afraid about the upcoming darwin anniversaries.. the fear is that the anniversary will be hijacked by the new atheism as the perfect battleground for another round of jousting over the absurdity of belief (a position that darwin pointedly never took up).

many of the prominent voices in the new atheism are lined up to reassert that it is simply impossible to believe in god and accept darwin's theory of evolution; richard dawkins and the us philosopher daniel dennett are among those due to appear in darwin200 events.

it's a position that infuriates many scientists, not to mention philosophers and theologians.. "a defence of evolution doesn't have to get entangled in atheism," says mark pallen, professor of microbial genomics at birmingham and author of the rough guide to evolution.

hooberus

Lol genetic entropy. If anything the entropy should decrease because of energy input from the sun and geothermal activity from which life gets its energy. The biosphere is not a closed system.
Entropy and thermodynamics sure are fancy sounding words though!

Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Human Genome "
Entropy inexorably increases in a closed system (at least this is what has always been observed), the biosphere is not a closed system, it receives energy from external inputs, the largest of which is the Sun.

Next time you guys might want to do a little research before commenting on a book. http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_1/j21_1_43-47.pdf Merely invoking the "sun"; "geothermal activity" etc.won't do much for this set of problems. (Even the top evolutionary geneticists haven't tried to use that for this.)

33

Darwin in Context

by hamilcarr in

why non-atheists needn't be afraid about the upcoming darwin anniversaries.. the fear is that the anniversary will be hijacked by the new atheism as the perfect battleground for another round of jousting over the absurdity of belief (a position that darwin pointedly never took up).

many of the prominent voices in the new atheism are lined up to reassert that it is simply impossible to believe in god and accept darwin's theory of evolution; richard dawkins and the us philosopher daniel dennett are among those due to appear in darwin200 events.

it's a position that infuriates many scientists, not to mention philosophers and theologians.. "a defence of evolution doesn't have to get entangled in atheism," says mark pallen, professor of microbial genomics at birmingham and author of the rough guide to evolution.

hooberus

Lets start with the simpler example: "an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life" Is there anything in this statement that requires the designer to also need a designer?

If not why not?

33

Darwin in Context

by hamilcarr in

why non-atheists needn't be afraid about the upcoming darwin anniversaries.. the fear is that the anniversary will be hijacked by the new atheism as the perfect battleground for another round of jousting over the absurdity of belief (a position that darwin pointedly never took up).

many of the prominent voices in the new atheism are lined up to reassert that it is simply impossible to believe in god and accept darwin's theory of evolution; richard dawkins and the us philosopher daniel dennett are among those due to appear in darwin200 events.

it's a position that infuriates many scientists, not to mention philosophers and theologians.. "a defence of evolution doesn't have to get entangled in atheism," says mark pallen, professor of microbial genomics at birmingham and author of the rough guide to evolution.

hooberus

Evolution and natural selection explains the complexity, no need for a creator.

For an in debth response to this claim see the books: "The Biotic Message" and "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Human Genome"

33

Darwin in Context

by hamilcarr in

why non-atheists needn't be afraid about the upcoming darwin anniversaries.. the fear is that the anniversary will be hijacked by the new atheism as the perfect battleground for another round of jousting over the absurdity of belief (a position that darwin pointedly never took up).

many of the prominent voices in the new atheism are lined up to reassert that it is simply impossible to believe in god and accept darwin's theory of evolution; richard dawkins and the us philosopher daniel dennett are among those due to appear in darwin200 events.

it's a position that infuriates many scientists, not to mention philosophers and theologians.. "a defence of evolution doesn't have to get entangled in atheism," says mark pallen, professor of microbial genomics at birmingham and author of the rough guide to evolution.

hooberus

I'll try to add some clarification on some common misunderstandings.

The creationist/ ID design argument is not that: "any type of complexity or intelligence in existence needed a designer". Which would of course logically require any complex or intelligent creator to themself have needed a creator.

But instead the argument is (for example): "The origin of complexity [complex systems composed of specified componet parts] from non-complexity requires, or is best explained as the result of intelligent design." Or "an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life" etc. There is no logical requirement in these arguments for the designer to themself also have an origin, (or even be composed of componet parts), hense no need according to the same argument for the designer to also have had a designer.

(The argument is then also supported by design theorists with specific scientific and observational evidence.)

33

Darwin in Context

by hamilcarr in

why non-atheists needn't be afraid about the upcoming darwin anniversaries.. the fear is that the anniversary will be hijacked by the new atheism as the perfect battleground for another round of jousting over the absurdity of belief (a position that darwin pointedly never took up).

many of the prominent voices in the new atheism are lined up to reassert that it is simply impossible to believe in god and accept darwin's theory of evolution; richard dawkins and the us philosopher daniel dennett are among those due to appear in darwin200 events.

it's a position that infuriates many scientists, not to mention philosophers and theologians.. "a defence of evolution doesn't have to get entangled in atheism," says mark pallen, professor of microbial genomics at birmingham and author of the rough guide to evolution.

hooberus

Evolution and natural selection explains the complexity, no need for a creator. We did not suddenly appear the way we are today, this is not evolution, it took billions of years combined with natural selection to achieve such complexity.

Who is claiming that the idea that we suddenly appeared "the way we are today" is evolution?

33

Darwin in Context

by hamilcarr in

why non-atheists needn't be afraid about the upcoming darwin anniversaries.. the fear is that the anniversary will be hijacked by the new atheism as the perfect battleground for another round of jousting over the absurdity of belief (a position that darwin pointedly never took up).

many of the prominent voices in the new atheism are lined up to reassert that it is simply impossible to believe in god and accept darwin's theory of evolution; richard dawkins and the us philosopher daniel dennett are among those due to appear in darwin200 events.

it's a position that infuriates many scientists, not to mention philosophers and theologians.. "a defence of evolution doesn't have to get entangled in atheism," says mark pallen, professor of microbial genomics at birmingham and author of the rough guide to evolution.

hooberus

The problem is who created the creator? If life is so complex to not have a creator then how more complex the creator must be.

Perhaps you mean: The problem is who created the creator? If life is so complex to need a creator as the creationists reason, then how more complex the creator must be, and hense how much more they themself would need a creator according to the same reasoning.

Is this your claim?

33

Darwin in Context

by hamilcarr in

why non-atheists needn't be afraid about the upcoming darwin anniversaries.. the fear is that the anniversary will be hijacked by the new atheism as the perfect battleground for another round of jousting over the absurdity of belief (a position that darwin pointedly never took up).

many of the prominent voices in the new atheism are lined up to reassert that it is simply impossible to believe in god and accept darwin's theory of evolution; richard dawkins and the us philosopher daniel dennett are among those due to appear in darwin200 events.

it's a position that infuriates many scientists, not to mention philosophers and theologians.. "a defence of evolution doesn't have to get entangled in atheism," says mark pallen, professor of microbial genomics at birmingham and author of the rough guide to evolution.

hooberus

From an experiment that produced a few dipeptides and even fewer tripeptides you claim that the origin of life from non-life has been explained?
Unless you give an alternative definition of life and non-life, I do.

Very well then, you have shown the problem to be solved. Simply define a few dipeptides as life, and then document the formation of a few of them. Then pronounce the issue of the "origin of life from non-life" in the context of creation-evolution issue to thus be "explained". Thank you for wasting my time.

15

The Portable Atheist - Christopher Hitchens

by portcontrol7 in

i'm slowly making my way through this strangely titled (portable isn't the first adjective that comes to mind when looking at this book) tome of atheistic thought throughout the past 2 millennia.

most of the samplings come from the past few centuries, but it begins with some writings by lucretius and omar khayyam.

this book is a delight and a must have for an atheist who wishes to see the progression of atheism over the centuries, as well as some of the most damning polemics against the illogic of faith.

hooberus

btt

33

Darwin in Context

by hamilcarr in

why non-atheists needn't be afraid about the upcoming darwin anniversaries.. the fear is that the anniversary will be hijacked by the new atheism as the perfect battleground for another round of jousting over the absurdity of belief (a position that darwin pointedly never took up).

many of the prominent voices in the new atheism are lined up to reassert that it is simply impossible to believe in god and accept darwin's theory of evolution; richard dawkins and the us philosopher daniel dennett are among those due to appear in darwin200 events.

it's a position that infuriates many scientists, not to mention philosophers and theologians.. "a defence of evolution doesn't have to get entangled in atheism," says mark pallen, professor of microbial genomics at birmingham and author of the rough guide to evolution.

hooberus

It has been falsified. There are many non-supranatural explanations for the origin of life, such as the metabolism-first and the genetics-first theories. I like, for instance, Wächtershauser's iron-sulfur world theory with its brief recipe for life:

From an experiment that produced a few dipeptides and even fewer tripeptides you claim that the origin of life from non-life has been explained?

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3028/

33

Darwin in Context

by hamilcarr in

why non-atheists needn't be afraid about the upcoming darwin anniversaries.. the fear is that the anniversary will be hijacked by the new atheism as the perfect battleground for another round of jousting over the absurdity of belief (a position that darwin pointedly never took up).

many of the prominent voices in the new atheism are lined up to reassert that it is simply impossible to believe in god and accept darwin's theory of evolution; richard dawkins and the us philosopher daniel dennett are among those due to appear in darwin200 events.

it's a position that infuriates many scientists, not to mention philosophers and theologians.. "a defence of evolution doesn't have to get entangled in atheism," says mark pallen, professor of microbial genomics at birmingham and author of the rough guide to evolution.

hooberus

The book argues that the new creation theory is testable science
The testable supranatural. Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

The book (1993) "Shows that some statements about the supernatural [creation by a creator outside of nature] can be testable science." Such as "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life [from non-life]."-This would be falsified by a demonstration that nautral processes are sufficient to account for life from non-life. B.T.W. this demonstrates that the claim of prominent anti-creationist Kenneth Miller that intelligent design has produced "no testable hypothesis" is false. Here he is making such a false claim in an interview. The Colbert Report: (4:40 to 4:55) in the clip http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/173859/june-16-2008/kenneth-miller