Just because you have the power to block folks . . .

It’s MY blog – does the “power” to block people surprise you??

At a time when many folks are criticising (quite correctly in my view) the creationists for censorship/expulsion of PZ Myers from the Expelled movie in which they claim censorship (with no justification whatsoever in my view) from the scientific world you are living up to their claims.

Psi, censorship can only be performed by government. My NOT allowing somebody to talk about their scientific illiteracy on MY blog is not censorship. Jeff can go and write his own blog if he wants, but writing on my blog is a privilege, and after repeating myself time and time again, it was clear that Jeff was not interested in an honest discussion.

Shame on you.

Let him back in.

Why? So I can explain evolution to him from scratch, or so he can use my blog as a mouthpiece to proclaim his ignorance of it? If he wants to learn about evolution, he can go and read like he promised to. Since I already proved that creation is impossible what else is there to say?

Take the mickey out of him if you like (it’s important to have any subject accepted as a target for humour in a healthy society in my view),

Yes, well, you would say that. But since you’re a subjectivist, your view is irrelevant.

disagree with him if you like, tell him you have finished and won’t reply any more if you like

Already have done. However, my blog isn’t a speaking ground for creationists. It’s here for HONEST debate, something you’re not interested in either.

ask others to reply to him if they wish but don’t simply censor him.

You don’t know what you’re talking about, Psi.

You banned me before for raising the topic of Objectivism and cults. You seem to be making a habit of this now.

No, I banned you because of your constant emotional subjective irrational nonsense that was a waste of my time, space, and lowered the quality of debate on my blog, because your knowledge of the subjects you attempt to debate is very low. Why should I give you free reign to chatter on til your heart’s content on my blog when you don’t know what you’re talking about? Blank out.

It takes an awful lot to get banned from my blog.

This is the very last comment of yours I’ll allow Psi to don’t bother making another one.

Just because you have the power to block folks . . .

By all means keep things polite and clean – but that is not what you have done.

At a time when many folks are criticising (quite correctly in my view) the creationists for censorship/expulsion of PZ Myers from the Expelled movie in which they claim censorship (with no justification whatsoever in my view) from the scientific world you are living up to their claims.

Shame on you.

Let him back in.

Take the mickey out of him if you like (it’s important to have any subject accepted as a target for humour in a healthy society in my view), disagree with him if you like, tell him you have finished and won’t reply any more if you like, ask others to reply to him if they wish but don’t simply censor him.

You banned me before for raising the topic of Objectivism and cults. You seem to be making a habit of this now.

Your answer to the “poor design” I pointed out is called ad hoc reasoning; it is rationalising something after the fact to fit your preconceived idea. By this thinking, nothing could ever disprove design: you could always call it part of some grand mysterious master plan. That is exactly what theologians do with the Problem of Evil.

I’m pleased that you have ordered The Selfish Gene. The Blind Watchmaker is also an excellent book.

As for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, this doesn’t disprove evolution, because the notion of “order” and “structure” is a human bias. The truth is, matter can change shape, and lifeforms can adapt to an environment; This is accomplished through natural selection; life is still a collection of matter and energy in a particular form. Since nature isn’t a closed system, using the 2nd law is a fallacious argument. And the use of the terms ‘entropy’ and ‘order’ beg the question.

This is very deep comment. When I’m thinking about my personal motivation, I can tell you that I’m in no way motivated by religion… I just do not comfortable with the evolution starting with “Origin of Species” and up to the most recent DNA discoveries. That’s it, but will do further research.

Jeff, since I have addressed your misunderstandings of probability, and briefly explained mutation and natural selection, and dispelled the illusion of design, could you tell me what remains that makes you doubt evolution?

All the best.

I’ve a better question: why would an all-knowing perfect designer create a human being which only used 4% of its potential?? Now that is terrible design!

This is easy. You design for today but you plan for tomorrow. In fact it is very smart design. This is the way intelligently design roads, bridges, cities, etc…

Tell you what, since you promised to read The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene

,
I have already ordered “The Selfish Gene” from Amazon

Also, the second law of thermodynamics in NO WAY precludes evolution

Yes, it is not precluded, but rather implies that it is very unlikely.

Most importantly of all, you share this: no real interest in evolution at all, only a religiously-motivated desire to WISH it wasn’t so

.
This is very deep comment. When I’m thinking about my personal motivation, I can tell you that I’m in no way motivated by religion… I just do not comfortable with the evolution starting with “Origin of Species” and up to the most recent DNA discoveries. That’s it, but will do further research.

I officially allow you to publish our discussion in your next article (after fixing my typos) 
(just kidding) … Sorry for making you angry

regards,
-Jeff

What about the human brain? Why evolution would create something that will be utilized only by 4% with another 95% wasted? Evolutionary process cannot look ahead assuming that another 96% will be needed later.

I’ve a better question: why would an all-knowing perfect designer create a human being which only used 4% of its potential?? Now that is terrible design!

However, the idea that we only use a small percentage of our brain is a myth. We use ALL our brain. This little gem of a lie has been doing the rounds for decades, especially amongst the mystics who think we can tap into some kind of paranormal or supernatural ability. It is commonly promoted by those who have little scientific knowledge. See here: http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html

If you claim that it is the fact, then please demonstrate me mathematically how it was evolved. Employ statistical analysis, show how come the true random changes can bring such a remarkable result. Typically random changes bring nothing but chaos. The second law of thermodynamics definitely points to this direction.

Tell you what, since you promised to read The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene, why don’t you come back when you’ve finished them both and tell me what you think?

Also, the second law of thermodynamics in NO WAY precludes evolution. This is yet another lie told by irrational creationists who misunderstand science, misunderstood evolution, and don’t seem to care that a lie told on behalf of “god” is still a lie.

To repeat: design is impossible, so all this hand-waving is irrelevant. It is the written form of you clutching at straws. There is no designer.

Jeff, this is probably your first time debating with an somebody even half-versed in evolution, but this is one of several dozen debates for me, and I see the same arguments time and time, the same flawed reasoning, the same circular logic, and if I had a pound for every time somebody mentioned the 2nd law of thermodynamics… Do you know what you all have in common? No knowledge of evolution, yet the “snap your hand off” zeal to counter every claim it makes on ZERO grounds; the ignorance that every single argument ever postulated in favour of design has been destroyed, and every argument levied against evolution has failed; a religious belief in a designer; and the inability to recognise your self-contradictions. Most importantly of all, you share this: no real interest in evolution at all, only a religiously-motivated desire to WISH it wasn’t so.

I don’t think there is much else to be said.

Evolutionary theory does not have self-contradictory

What about the human brain? Why evolution would create something that will be utilized only by 4% with another 95% wasted? Evolutionary process cannot look ahead assuming that another 96% will be needed later.

If you claim that it is the fact, then please demonstrate me mathematically how it was evolved. Employ statistical analysis, show how come the true random changes can bring such a remarkable result. Typically random changes bring nothing but chaos. The second law of thermodynamics definitely points to this direction.

regards
-Jeff

regards,
-Jeff

What I mean is that “psiloiordinary” as a living organ was originated directly from amino-acids without any guidance from DNA instructions.

Directly?? You missed out about 4 billions years of intermediate evolution here, Jeff.

But.. Wait. I see one example. Writer psiloiordinary with his offensive remark certainly originated directly from amino-acids.

What I mean is that “psiloiordinary” as a living organ was originated directly from amino-acids without any guidance from DNA instructions.

As I keep saying, evolution is a fact and the evidence is just as strong as that for gravity and a round earth. I really don’t think you appreciate how certain a fact evolution is.

As for the arguments against design, I am highlighting the self-contradictions in your position. It is not necessary for me to highlight the arguments against design in order to prove evolution. However, it is more efficient for me to do so.

It is more efficient, because you clearly have limited knowledge of evolution and don’t show any signs of studying it. Since I don’t want to explain every single part of it in detail to you, it is simply more rational for me to point out that design is impossible, and leave the details for you to research in your own time.

If you accept that design is an illusion, and ANY argument from complexity or improbability is self-contradictory, then you don’t really need me to explain anything else. No more than the person who gives up belief in Santa Claus still needs to postulate him to explain how the presents get under the christmas tree in the morning – there is an explanation, but we can be certain it ain’t Santa! Similarly, we know that the universe wasn’t designed. So the question becomes: how did life arise on its own and achieve such staggering complexity without purpose or design? We need a theory that explains all of this, can be tested in real life and in the lab, stands up to every single piece of evidence, is not contradicted by ANY evidence, and which, if true, allows us to make powerful definite predictions about its effects. We have such a theory: evolution. This is for you to study yourself.

Basically you are approaching this dispute on the offensive note, trying to destroy the opponents theory and then introduce your as the only remaining choice. Then of course, all arguments about the improbable course are out of the windows… just waist of time. I don’t think it is really clean approach.

Ideally you would have to demonstrate the bio-chemical process and the mathematical probability of life a) to be emerged from a non-living things and b) mathematical probability of evolution.
I’m sure it can be done. I’m also confident that the amazingly low probability that will come out of this exercise, would definitely raze a lot of eyebrows and raze a lot of doubt.

Regards,
-jeff