Quote:As opposed to Richard Dorkins who once said that "junk" DNA was proof of evolution than later said that the utility of the same sequences was also proof of evolution.

Are you mentally feeble Wooter

Junk DNA is evidence of evolution as is it's utility .This is why idiots who don't understand a theory should not talk about it.

I'll let you in on a little secret, Chad...

I don't actually have a team.

But don't let me spoil your little rant.

(June 15, 2017 at 9:51 pm)Cyberman Wrote: I'll let you in on a little secret, Chad...

I don't actually have a team.

But don't let me spoil your little rant.

Wait!

Is this the "Chad" that the incel pussies are always whining about?

The one left hanging?

Yup to true valk in fact some of the meanest douche bags on the web can be found on religious forums . And the only thing that makes wooters comment worst is his insult was lame as it was ignorant .

---

(June 15, 2017 at 9:56 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote:

(June 15, 2017 at 9:51 pm)Cyberman Wrote: I'll let you in on a little secret, Chad...

I don't actually have a team.

But don't let me spoil your little rant.

Wait!

Is this the "Chad" that the incel pussies are always whining about?

Yup wooter the glass house he can dish out the douchery. But whines the moment you use mean words .

(June 15, 2017 at 8:49 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: The thing about principles is that they don't change. That makes you, and the other silent conspirators, a rather unprincipled and tribal lot.

[emphasis added -- Thump]

Horseshit. I don't ask you to answer for the vile shit Drich or other theists here dribble out of their foggy brains. Why should I be responsible for correcting anyone, theist or atheist, regarding what I might consider offensive?

I think it's better for all to speak their minds freely and I form my opinion of them based on that. How you speak says much about you, whether you know it or not, and it doesn't make me complicit in anyone else's idiocy to let them hang themselves publicly.

(June 15, 2017 at 4:55 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: That's just turnabout for calling WLC a narcissistic sociopath. You may be right that both could be true in different respects, it's just that I've heard too many gratuitous "just-so" stories based on evolutionary theory.

Actually, I have this problem with evolution, as well.

Very much of it represents a narrative.  For example, where did eyes come from?  The narrative is that photosensitivity leads to this or that (totally hypothetical) advantage in early micro-organism, and then this and that development was suited to this or that environment.


It's all plausible, and I very much believe in evolution.  However, when the ability to establish a plausible narrative is taken in lieu of actual evidence showing how and why eyes evolved, or experimental results in a lab, then we have to be VERY careful to keep that differentiation clear, right from the beginning.  That's not always done sufficiently, in my opinion.

Another example is the evolution of mind.  The evolutionary narrative is that as creatures grew more complex, there was an evolutionary advantage to their being able to experience their environment-- so mind, of course, is a result of natural evolutionary processes.  What they don't explain, even a little bit, is what about the Universe allows for the existence of mind, or how it is that this or that system becomes capable of sustaining it.  When a p-zombie is functionally equivalent to a subjective agent, then you need more than a nice story to explain the existence of subjective agency.

As for Craig-- I've seen him establish the philosophical basis of the God idea, and THEN when not challenged at that stage, go on to explain why the Biblical Christian God is the most likely candidate.  That's quite the bait and switch.  But up to that point, I think he makes the right kind of arguments, and quite well.

Actually, I have this problem with evolution, as well.

Quote:Very much of it represents a narrative.  For example, where did eyes come from?  The narrative is that photosensitivity leads to this or that (totally hypothetical) advantage in early micro-organism, and then this and that development was suited to this or that environment.

Because that's were the evidence points

Quote:It's all plausible, and I very much believe in evolution.  However, when the ability to establish a plausible narrative is taken in lieu of actual evidence showing how and why eyes evolved, or experimental results in a lab, then we have to be VERY careful to keep that differentiation clear, right from the beginning.  That's not always done sufficiently, in my opinion.

We have multiple lines of evidence reaching this very conclusion so this is nothing like Craig's empty armchair fapping

---

Quote:Another example is the evolution of mind.  The evolutionary narrative is that as creatures grew more complex, there was an evolutionary advantage to their being able to experience their environment-- so mind, of course, is a result of natural evolutionary processes.  What they don't explain, even a little bit, is what about the Universe allows for the existence of mind, or how it is that this or that system becomes capable of sustaining it.  When a p-zombie is functionally equivalent to a subjective agent, then you need more than a nice story to explain the existence of subjective agency.

No you really don't

---

Quote:As for Craig-- I've seen him establish the philosophical basis of the God idea, and THEN when not challenged at that stage, go on to explain why the Biblical Christian God is the most likely candidate.  That's quite the bait and switch.  But up to that point, I think he makes the right kind of arguments, and quite well

Craig has produced nothing of the kind .

(June 15, 2017 at 11:58 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Actually, I have this problem with evolution, as well.

Very much of it represents a narrative.  For example, where did eyes come from?  The narrative is that photosensitivity leads to this or that (totally hypothetical) advantage in early micro-organism, and then this and that development was suited to this or that environment.

Probably the worst example of what problems you have with evo dev, lol.   

Quote:It's all plausible, and I very much believe in evolution.  However, when the ability to establish a plausible narrative is taken in lieu of actual evidence showing how and why eyes evolved, or experimental results in a lab, then we have to be VERY careful to keep that differentiation clear, right from the beginning.  That's not always done sufficiently, in my opinion.

There's no such shortage when it comes to eyes and their development.  

Quote:Another example is the evolution of mind.  The evolutionary narrative is that as creatures grew more complex, there was an evolutionary advantage to their being able to experience their environment-- so mind, of course, is a result of natural evolutionary processes.  What they don't explain, even a little bit, is what about the Universe allows for the existence of mind, or how it is that this or that system becomes capable of sustaining it.  When a p-zombie is functionally equivalent to a subjective agent, then you need more than a nice story to explain the existence of subjective agency.

Yet again no shortage of good answers to that question ....you just don't like them, I guess?

Quote:As for Craig-- I've seen him establish the philosophical basis of the God idea, and THEN when not challenged at that stage, go on to explain why the Biblical Christian God is the most likely candidate.  That's quite the bait and switch.  But up to that point, I think he makes the right kind of arguments, and quite well.

Absolutely, he's good at what he does.  Some people give him flak for using fallacious arguments..but often enough those arguments are very compelling to human beings...and it's his job to be compelling, so, lol.

To those whom it may concern, my user name is Neo-Scholastic. I no longer reveal my real name after some AF members threatened me with violence both in and outside the forums. I would appreciate it if other AF members would respect my privacy and refrain from refering to my real name in future posts.