Cells' Molecular Motor Diversity Confounds Evolution

[Keith&Co.]

Where'd rhutchin get to? Is he a drive-by shooting style of creationist?

I think he waits for gravity to claim some of his worst errors or most difficult questions.

 

[Underseer]

Where'd rhutchin get to? Is he a drive-by shooting style of creationist?

I think he waits for gravity to claim some of his worst errors or most difficult questions.

We greatly outnumber him, let's try to keep that in mind. Any number of us can go missing for days or weeks and no one would notice out of the sea of people arguing against him. Given the frequency with which he posts on these forums, there could very well be an honest explanation for his absence.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think he waits for gravity to claim some of his worst errors or most difficult questions.

We greatly outnumber him, let's try to keep that in mind. Any number of us can go missing for days or weeks and no one would notice out of the sea of people arguing against him. Given the frequency with which he posts on these forums, there could very well be an honest explanation for his absence.

...Sure. And if he's been lurking in the threads without posting, he may just be forming his counterarguments.

 

[Kharakov]

I think he waits for gravity to claim some of his worst errors or most difficult questions.

We greatly outnumber him, let's try to keep that in mind. Any number of us can go missing for days or weeks and no one would notice out of the sea of people arguing against him. Given the frequency with which he posts on these forums, there could very well be an honest explanation for his absence.

http://talkfreethought.org/member.php?611-rhutchin

 

[James Brown]

Yes, rhutchin comes and goes, sometimes for weeks at a time.

 

[Malintent]

I have it under good advisement that after he is shown how some aspect of his worldview is based on flawed premises, he retreats to an abby where he whips himself repeatedly for days on end, until the evil new ideas are purged... then he happily returns refreshed and ready to repeat all the same falicies all over again... reborn!

 

[RandomCoolzip]

I have it under good advisement that after he is shown how some aspect of his worldview is based on flawed premises, he retreats to an abby where he whips himself repeatedly for days on end, until the evil new ideas are purged... then he happily returns refreshed and ready to repeat all the same falicies all over again... reborn!

The important thing is to have a layered defense that is impervious to both reason and facts.

 

[Kharakov]

The important thing is to have a layered defense that is impervious to both reason and facts.

I disagree- It's not like God needs naturalism, it's just something that is useful for certain applications. In other words, naturalism doesn't have to be impervious to reason and facts in order for it to serve its purpose.

 

[Malintent]

The important thing is to have a layered defense that is impervious to both reason and facts.

I disagree- It's not like God needs naturalism, it's just something that is useful for certain applications. In other words, naturalism doesn't have to be impervious to reason and facts in order for it to serve its purpose.

Your statement makes absolutely no sense on its own. As a response to what you quoted, it makes even less sense. That's like negative sense. I think you owe us all several cents.

 

[Underseer]

We greatly outnumber him, let's try to keep that in mind. Any number of us can go missing for days or weeks and no one would notice out of the sea of people arguing against him. Given the frequency with which he posts on these forums, there could very well be an honest explanation for his absence.

...Sure. And if he's been lurking in the threads without posting, he may just be forming his counterarguments.

All I'm saying is that we should probably limit ourselves to criticizing things we know he's done (such as the content of his posts). Getting into this kind of speculation seems unnecessary given the large number of wrong ideas he manages to pack into each post. Also, I'm worried about chasing away one of the few creationists we have left to argue with.

 

[Narapoia]

...Sure. And if he's been lurking in the threads without posting, he may just be forming his counterarguments.

All I'm saying is that we should probably limit ourselves to criticizing things we know he's done (such as the content of his posts). Getting into this kind of speculation seems unnecessary given the large number of wrong ideas he manages to pack into each post. Also, I'm worried about chasing away one of the few creationists we have left to argue with.

This is a good point. There used to be a few in days gone past, but it's not much of a religion vs science board if there's no one to take up the mantle for religion.

 

[Kharakov]

I disagree- It's not like God needs naturalism, it's just something that is useful for certain applications. In other words, naturalism doesn't have to be impervious to reason and facts in order for it to serve its purpose.

Your statement makes absolutely no sense on its own. As a response to what you quoted, it makes even less sense. That's like negative sense. I think you owe us all several cents.

I'm glad not to incense a senseless response sent from those whose sense of scents is off center.

Anyway, the point being, naturalism doesn't have to be impervious to reason and facts for it to serve its purpose (although at a certain stage in mental development, many minds that cling to naturalism are impervious to reason and facts- it's called saying "nanananana").

 

[Narapoia]

Your statement makes absolutely no sense on its own. As a response to what you quoted, it makes even less sense. That's like negative sense. I think you owe us all several cents.

I'm glad not to incense a senseless response sent from those whose sense of scents is off center.

Anyway, the point being, naturalism doesn't have to be impervious to reason and facts for it to serve its purpose (although at a certain stage in mental development, many minds that cling to naturalism are impervious to reason and facts- it's called saying "nanananana").

Any facts that disprove naturalism or support the supernatural would best be presented. Better yet if you have them, I'll help you write the paper and when we win the Nobel prize split it fifty fifty. I hear they give you like a million bucks or something.

 

[Kharakov]

I'm glad not to incense a senseless response sent from those whose sense of scents is off center.

Anyway, the point being, naturalism doesn't have to be impervious to reason and facts for it to serve its purpose (although at a certain stage in mental development, many minds that cling to naturalism are impervious to reason and facts- it's called saying "nanananana").

Any facts that disprove naturalism or support the supernatural would best be presented. Better yet if you have them, I'll help you write the paper and when we win the Nobel prize split it fifty fifty. I hear they give you like a million bucks or something.

Yeah, you do know that anything that indicates that current natural laws are not all encompassing will result in a more complicated "natural" explanation. Doesn't matter what is done- someone will come up with a plausible "natural" explanation, shifting the goalposts a bit.

And in the end, someone will say "Well, all that the supernatural act means is that whatever influences our natural laws is in another natural universe, so it was technically a natural act" and so on and so forth. You know- the whole infinite goal post shifting of naturalism, which is almost impervious to reason and/or facts.

 

[Narapoia]

Any facts that disprove naturalism or support the supernatural would best be presented. Better yet if you have them, I'll help you write the paper and when we win the Nobel prize split it fifty fifty. I hear they give you like a million bucks or something.

Yeah, you do know that anything that indicates that current natural laws are not all encompassing will result in a more complicated "natural" explanation. Doesn't matter what is done- someone will come up with a plausible "natural" explanation, shifting the goalposts a bit.

And in the end, someone will say "Well, all that the supernatural act means is that whatever influences our natural laws is in another natural universe, so it was technically a natural act" and so on and so forth. You know- the whole infinite goal post shifting of naturalism, which is almost impervious to reason and/or facts.

Ah, and I got all excited. Your refutation of naturalism does not seem to rely on facts so much as a rejection of the philosophical basis of it as a world view. What you call "shifting the goalposts" sounds suspiciously like science to me. It seems a bit unreasonable to expect naturalists to just throw up their hands and say "All right, that's it, stop science. The only explanation for these observations is magic - therefore god(s)". At what point do you think scientists should stop "shifting the goalposts"? The fact that observations are consistent with a universe governed by natural laws is what led the school of thought in the first place. Religious scientists set out to discover god in nature, his rude refusal to show up kinda left the field a bit open.

Now no good scientist would like to think that their world view cannot be disproved - so evidence is the key. If you have it, share it - with the caveat that we don't understand everything yet. So if there are two competing viewpoints on your facts such as "We don't know yet, but exciting research is being done" vs "un-natural godmagic" you'll have to forgive us for siding with option number 1 - based on the successful track-record of "shifting the goalposts".

There are a vast number of reasons to go with option number 1, for me the most pragmatic is the one that works. No other philosophical system has delivered as much knowledge to homo sapiens sapiens as naturalism. In fact it's kinda the only game in town if you actually want to understand what is happening in the universe around us. Yes the universe could be the result of god jotting down complex meta-functions in his journal but again this position would require evidence, it also needs to be falsifiable - otherwise "The universe is the result of the grand fignark's prodfimk" is just as valid.

 

[Kharakov]

Religious scientists set out to discover god in nature, his rude refusal to show up kinda left the field a bit open.

That seems a bit silly. From a religious standpoint, nature is a creation, like software. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to discover Linus Torvalds, Michael Dell, or Bill Gates in my computer.

There are a vast number of reasons to go with option number 1, for me the most pragmatic is the one that works. No other philosophical system has delivered as much knowledge to homo sapiens sapiens as naturalism.

Yeah, equating naturalism with the scientific method is something certain naturalists love to do, but it's hardly correct.

In fact it's kinda the only game in town if you actually want to understand what is happening in the universe around us.

You really going to take the illogical position that naturalism equates to the scientific method? Seems like an aphilosophical attitude rather than a philosophical position.

Yes the universe could be the result of god jotting down complex meta-functions in his journal but again this position would require evidence, it also needs to be falsifiable.

Who argued that specific point? And why, pray tell, does something need to be falsifiable to be true? <-- what did he just do there?

Do not read if you are offended by crude humor:

Show

Your greeter in heaven will be Patrick Stewart doing a facepalm. And by face palm, I mean something similar to dick in the mouth, as a palm tree is a euphemism for a hard dick in the palm of your hand. Coconuts? Pa stew face is a palm art trick.

 

[Underseer]

Yeah, equating naturalism with the scientific method is something certain naturalists love to do, but it's hardly correct.

Are you talking about methodological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a requirement of science; metaphysical naturalism is not.

 

[Narapoia]

That seems a bit silly. From a religious standpoint, nature is a creation, like software. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to discover Linus Torvalds, Michael Dell, or Bill Gates in my computer.

Ok, tell it to the these guys:

Others such as Francis Collins, Kenneth R. Miller, and George Coyne argue for compatibility since they do not agree that science is incompatible with religion and vice versa. They argue that science provides many opportunities to look for and find God in nature and to reflect on their beliefs

Wiki

These are modern religious scientists but the desire to see god reflected in his creation is hardly a new one for theists.

Yeah, equating naturalism with the scientific method is something certain naturalists love to do, but it's hardly correct.

As Underseer points out - it depends on your flavour of Naturalism and so can be perfectly correct. Keep in mind methodological naturalism takes no position on the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, unlike Metaphysical naturalism. It only strongly infers the non-existence of the supernatural given its stubborn refusal to make itself known in any meaningful way.

You really going to take the illogical position that naturalism equates to the scientific method? Seems like an aphilosophical attitude rather than a philosophical position.

Methodological naturalism does equate with the scientific method and is a philosophy of knowledge. From wiki -

It is a "ground rule" that "requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify

Who argued that specific point? And why, pray tell, does something need to be falsifiable to be true? <-- what did he just do there?

It was a reference to an earlier discussion between us regarding your implication that the universe could be the result of a mathematical meta function that describes both the history, present and future of all its components. I can't remember which forum it was in. Apologies if it was a bit obscure, I know you have been very active on these boards.

Seems to me that there's very little way to tell if something is true unless it can potentially be disproved. Otherwise we devolve to assertion.

I can see how your post might apply more to metaphysical naturalism - if one has accepted as dogma that the universe is entirely natural then it seems unlikely that they will change their mind. But the same charge can be laid at the feet of a majority of world views.

So I have two questions:

1) Do you contend that the scientific method should be un-hitched from methodological naturalism? That we should seek explanations for events that cannot be observed, tested, replicated or verified?

2) What sort of evidence do you have, or think would be sufficient, to make naturalism a defunct philosophy of knowledge and philosophical world-view? Specifically, I guess, in terms of the cells molecular motor - see mods this is not a derail

 

[James Brown]

I could provide evidence for God, but not everyone will accept it. So I'm not going to bother.

 

[Malintent]

Your statement makes absolutely no sense on its own. As a response to what you quoted, it makes even less sense. That's like negative sense. I think you owe us all several cents.

I'm glad not to incense a senseless response sent from those whose sense of scents is off center.

Anyway, the point being, naturalism doesn't have to be impervious to reason and facts for it to serve its purpose (although at a certain stage in mental development, many minds that cling to naturalism are impervious to reason and facts- it's called saying "nanananana").

I think what you are saying is that "naturalists" are not willing to accept "magic" as an "explanation" to anything. "you mix O with H.. and then MAGIC.. and then you get water" is not helpful or explanitory in any way.

You owe me 1 million dollars. I can prove this. ready? 1, 2, 3, MAGIC! See. that is proof.