Oh this is going to be
good ... let's take a look at this shall we?
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Jayjay4547 wrote:Onyx8 wrote:"...further the cause of atheism in biology." What does that mean?
It could imply that Dawkins uses biology to push the notion that there is no god
Yawn. Here we go again with another playing of the same broken record you've been peddling
ad nauseam.
And there
you go again pretending to [sic] familiarity with what I have been trying to say
Er, your utterances here are a matter of public record, Jayjay, or did this elementary concept pass you by, in your eagerness to post the usual apologetic fabrications?
You've been peddling the specious bullshit that scientists are "pushing an atheist ideology" in biology in
numerous past posts. All anyone needs to do is search for how many times you've used that very phrase, "atheist ideology", via the search function. So don't try and claim that my noticing this, purportedly constitutes some sort of fabrication on my part.
Jayjay4547 wrote:while at the same time exploiting a pretended ignorance of it.
Now this
is a total fabrication on your part, Jayjay, as my response above to your opening gambit clearly demonstrates. You've been pushing the specious nonsense that scientists are "pushing an atheist ideology" in
numerous posts, all of which are a matter of public record, a record of which I am most certainly
not "ignorant", having dismantled several of those posts piece by piece in the past.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Actual familiarity would need to reflect the range of claims I have made, on Richard Dawkins’s old chat site and this one, spreading from human evolution to the human condition.
What part of the words "public record" don't you understand, Jayjay? Your numerous posts, devoted to your "atheist ideology" fabrication, a good number of which I've dismantled myself, are a part of that public record. It's
precisely because you've devoted a significant part of your posting effort to pushing this fabrication, that anyone familiar with your output can see the same agenda coming from light years away.
Jayjay4547 wrote:The Australopiths were created
Actually, they arose via evolution, from an appropriate ancestor.
Sahelanthropus tchadensis is a pretty strong candidate, either for that ancestor, or as a sister taxon thereof.
Jayjay4547 wrote:when a bipedal ape abandoned defensive biting in favour of using sticks and stones.
Er, do we have any
evidence for Australopithecines using stone tools or other weapons? Only I don't recall any such material being found with the fossils, whereas in the case of other hominids,
the evidence for tool use, in the form of the tools in question being found alongside the fossils, is pretty much indisuptable.
Only you seem to have this fixation with assorted ape fighting fantasies, another part of that public record, a fixation that has resulted in much hilarity here in the past.
Jayjay4547 wrote:The conditions that needed to exist for an animal to adopt such a strategy were narrow, corresponding to a small patch on the fitness landscape.
Except that we have no evidence for Australopithecines adopting tool use of the sort seen in later hominids. It's entirely possible that primitive use of throwaway items constituted a part of their activity, of the sort that is seen in chimpanzees, but if this was the case, no evidence was left behind. The first evidence for
considered and planned tool use, coupled with
manufacture of tools, post-dates the Australopithecines by nearly 1½ million years. Consequently, the tool use status of Asutralopithecines remains principally conjectural, and is inferred from the fact that chimpanzee behaviour in this regard, is likely to have been inherited in part at least from the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans.
Jayjay4547 wrote:From this small patch a route of adaptive changes led that have had great impact on the world, including the internet, space telescopes and an already-occurring 6th extinction.
Except that once again, if the Australopithecines
were what might be termed 'casual tool users', as opposed to
tool manufacturers, they left no direct physical evidence of this.
Jayjay4547 wrote:This path followed by our ancestors is a mapping of creative structures in the fitness landscape.
Well I note with interest how
evidentially supported tool use post-dates the Australopithecines by nearly 1½ million years. Oddly enough, ther's a nice correlation between evidentially supported tool use, and accelerated ASPM mutation, in a scientific paper I've covered elsewhere. Indeed, I now have something like 9 papers covering microcephalin and ASPM, genes that have been demonstrated to exert a major influence over human brain size. But that's properly a topic for its own thread.
Jayjay4547 wrote:There are many such structures, I recently cited EO Wilson’s thoughts on the scarce emergence of eusociality in insects. The theory of evolution just explains how populations are able to blindly feel out these creative structures.
There is no teleology, Jayjay. It's an illusion. The cake is a lie.
Jayjay4547 wrote:The creatively structured fitness landscape is one way to render or visualize The Creator.
Er, well since we have vast mountains of evidence that all of this doesn't need a magic man, your above assertion is null and void.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Atheist ideology
Is a fabrication of your imagination, Jayjay, as I've pointed out repeatedly. NOT introducing superfluous assumptions into a model isn't an "ideology". Learn this elementary lesson.
Jayjay4547 wrote:has influenced the way biologists understand and present evolution
Bullshit, Jayjay. What has influenced biologists has been
the empirical data. NONE of which supports the idea that a magic man is involved.
Jayjay4547 wrote:generally away from being able to see the Creator.
Once again, bullshit. Your "creator" has ZERO evidential support from the gigantic mountains of data. Therefore inserting this entitiy into biology is the
real ideology at work here. Something that has been a feature of supernaturalism long before William Paley got to work with his incredulity-based apologetics.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Oh wait,
when did any mythology fetishist provide any real evidence for his pet magic man? NEVER, that's when. We don't need to point to biology to tell us that made up magic men are precisely that, we only have to point to the abject failure of supernaturalists to deliver something other than the usual apologetic shit sandwiches.
When one of them comes up with
real evidence, then it's time to start talking.
You are doing a lot of talking anyway.
Only in the interest of dissecting bad ideas and exposing them as such. A task made all the more pressing by the insistence of supernaturalists, that their pet mythologies purportedly magically trump empirically verified science.
Jayjay4547 wrote:By anathematizing the notion of God like this
Another fabrication on your part, Jayjay, and yet another tiresome erection of the "you hate god" canard. I don't bother with a magic man, in the same way that biologists don't, because
all the evidence points to said entity being superfluous to requirements and irrelevant. Or as Laplace once said, "I have no need for this hypothesis". Dispensing with superfluous and irrelevant entities isn't based on "hate", Jayjay, it's based upon the fact that doing so
works.
Jayjay4547 wrote:you trap yourself in the terms of a dialectic that has brought much smoke and little light.
Oh, pot, kettle, black much, Jayjay? Oh wait, how much progress was made in biology, during the era when Magic Man was held up as the explanation to everything? Very little. Once that superfluous notion was dispensed with, and scientists started concentrating on
testable natural processes, progress in biology underwent a
colossal transformation. This should be telling you something important.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: As a corollary, your peddling the "further the cause of atheism in biology" bullshit is precisely that, because what biologists do, in case you never read the memo, is point to the data, and demonstrate how said data either supports or refutes a given hypothesis. Biologists don't even bother with the irrelevance of made up magic men, because wait for it,
no evidence for the existence of made up magic men has ever been presented.
It was
DavidMcC who brought up the biologist Dawkins failing to further the cause of atheism
Oh wait, because
during the publication of his papers in the field, this wasn't on Dawkins' agenda. As for the idea that testable natural processes are far better providers of
real explanations than mytholgical assertions, he's been very successful in disseminating this idea amongst people who paid attention in science classes.
Jayjay4547 wrote:showing that he hasn’t sold out his intellect to this ideology.
Except that this "ideology" is a fiction you've invented, Jayjay. Once again,NOT introducing superflous and merely
asserted entities into a model isn't an "ideology". It's actually the very
antithesis of an "ideology". It's very simple, Jayjay, and works as follows. The data says "we need X to explain it, and only X", therefore we only introduce X, not a superfluous and asserted Y. The
real ideology comes from inserting the superfluous and asserted Y, and further asserting that the model won't work without it, despite the data saying otherwise.
Jayjay4547 wrote:The evidence of structure in the fitness landscape is suggestive not definite.
I do not know of any biologist who argues that fitness landscapes lack structure. The difference, of course, is that biologists argue, based upon the
evidence , that said structure arises
solely from the internal participants within the fitness landscape, as opposed to being mirco-managed from outside by a fantastic magic entity. Indeed,
all the evidence points to this being the case. The Red Queen hypothesis is one encapsulation of this. The only problem biologists face, with respect to this, is that the volumes of data involved are enormous, and present practical difficulties to anyone lacking access to a supercomputer.
Jayjay4547 wrote:An atheist might reasonably say, these creative structures are just the way reality is.
First of all, the people who ponder such matters in depth are
scientists. Get it right, Jayjay.
Second, those same scientists don't just satisfy themselves with treating the observed data as a brute fact, they seek
explanations for that data, explanations involving testable natural processes, so that they can then
conduct experiments to find out if a given hypothesis is supported by the data. How many times do you need spoon-feeding with this elementary information, Jayjay?
Jayjay4547 wrote:In fact one would use the laws of physics and existing characteristics of living things (e.g. of alternative prey for the hyena, leopard and sabretooth predators on the australipiths) to delineate the patch where it was adaptive to swop hitting for biting.
Except that we've been down this road, Jayjay, and much hilarity ensued with respect to your fantasies about ape fighting. I seem to recall participating therein.
Jayjay4547 wrote:I hope we might agree that the ontological proof of God doesn’t actually establish anything, and nor would an ontological disproof of God. "Proofs" only work with that part of the world we can experiment with and intellectually own, not with what owns us.
Correction,
proof only functions in
formal axiomatic systems, where the entities therein and their behaviour are completely defined. When one is unable to provide such complete specification, one resorts to
evidential support, which is how empirical science is conducted.
Why do supernaturalists
always have trouble with this elementary distinction?
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Jayjay4547 wrote:and that in this instance, his efforts misfired.
Well since you're ascribing to Dawkins something that is almost certainly a figment of your imagination, the above assertion is also null and void.
Dawkins’s point apparently misfired on DavidMcC.
I'm sure David McC will happily confirm his understanding of Dawkins' approach to consist of the following:#
[1] Erections are asserted by supernaturalists, that the biosphere and its contents purportedly support the existence of their pet magic entities;
[2] Upon detailed examination of the data, no such support for magic entities is observed;
[3] Therefore, assertions about those entities can be discarded, until the data says otherwise.
The only people this doesn't work with, are people who think that the products of the televisions inside their heads constitute "data", which sadly, includes a lot of supernaturalists. I don't anticipate Davic McC expressing any substantive disagreements with the above.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Seems to me Dawkins does do that and he isn't alone; he is in a tradition going back to Darwin, of using biology as a canvas for developing and presenting an atheist vision of the world.
Bullshit. Once again, Jayjay, drop the fabrication you're erecting here.
Not inserting superfluous and merely asserted entities into a model isn't an "ideology", indeed, it's the very
antithesis of an ideology. Learn this once and for all. The
real ideology arises when said superfluous and merely asserted entities are
added, not omitted. If the data says we don't need an entity, the
proper course of action is
not to include it, especially when doing so
works, and adding the entity brings no observable benefit to the modelling process. Heard of William of Ockham, have you?
Indeed, the whole business of inserting superfluous magic entities into biology, is nothing more than an admission that those doing so are either too stupid or too indolent, to bother learning about how testable natural processes account for the observed data. It's nothing more than "I can't imagine how testable natural processes can achieve this, therefore I think a magic man is needed", followed by specious attempts to conjure the requisite wishful thinking into being with vacuous apologetic spells. it's the sort of approach that readers of
Harry Potter novels know only works in fiction, but enjoy the results of it so doing in that realm.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote:Oh no, it's the "atheist doctrine" bullshit
yet again. Yawn, yawn, fucking yawn. Play another record, JayJay, this one's not only broken, it was reduced to its constituent quarks ages ago.
What part of "NOT introducing superfluous and irrelevant entities isn't a 'doctrine', despite the bleating to this effect by mythology fetishists" do you not understand?
We have the empirical evidence telling us a magic man isn't needed, not only in biology, but in every other scientific discipline that exists. Suck on it.
That’s a disturbingly crude remark Calli.
What you're observing is called "exasperation", Jayjay. Exasperation at seeing a grown adult refusing to wake up and smell the testable natural roses, and instead cling to infantile ideas about fantastic magic entities from mythology. I don't
care if you think it's crude, it's apposite, and that to me is what matters here, namely, whether a given insertion into discourse is
required for the purpose. Which the large body of evidence contained in your posts tells me
is required.
Jayjay4547 wrote:One way that atheist ideology
Jayjay, "atheist ideology" is a CREATIONIST FICTION. Drop it.
Jayjay4547 wrote:has presented and understood evolution, is by denying opportunity to use the word “created”.
Oh wait, this might have something to do with the fact that the word "created"
is frequently used by supernaturalists, when peddling their ideology, to try and push the idea that fantastic magic processes are needed. The data says they aren't. Therefore we have no need of this notion. I refer you to Laplace once more. Not bothering with a superfluous notion isn't "denial", Jayjay, because ""denial" implies
refusal to accept a demonstrable fact, whilst supernaturalist assertions have NEVER enjoyed that status.
Jayjay4547 wrote:For example, suppose one plays with the idea that a swop from defensive biting to defensive hitting removed compromises that the hominin skull had to reflect, and that eventually led to more intelligent hominins, then one can might say “African land predators created the australopiths”.
Correction, they
shaped the Australopiths. Which were already present when the shaping began. Even if, for a moment, we treat your hypothesis as something other than another fabrication, those Australopiths
had to exist prior to the shaping, for the shaping to exert an effect. The
correct view of such a hypothesis is that the other participants in the ecosystem
shaped the genetic destiny of the requisite species. But, that species
had to exist in advance for said shaping to take place. Those predators didn't
give rise to the Australopiths, because
they descended from a separate lineage. So even a non-magical interpretation of "created", in the sense of "having given rise to" (by the usual processes), doesn't apply.
But then, I'm used to sloppy thinking on the part of supernaturalists. It's why they're supernaturalists in the first place.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Or you could say that “Africa” created them.
Yawn. See above.
Jayjay4547 wrote:But if on the other hand you take the more established view that homins took up using sticks and weapons because they were intelligent enough then it’s impossible I think, to use the word “created”- even when referring to a hyena as agent, let alone “God”
Once again, see above.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Jayjay4547 wrote:Darwin used it when he said
"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars."
Oh, and apparently, the inherent contradiction in a magic entity being purportedly "benevolent", and at the same time, purportedly fabricating organisms whose life cycle involved eating other organisms alive from the inside out, isn't manifest to you? Please explain what definition of "benevolence" bestows consistency upon this? Likewise, what definition of "benevolence" makes guinea worm, river blindness, and dozens of other excruciating afflictions of humans, a product of said "benevolence"?
You are getting ahead of my response to Darwin’s point.
Er, no, I'm just pre-empting the predictable apologetics.
Jayjay4547 wrote:I can’t see evidence that the biological creator is “benevolent” at least not in the sense of protecting all humans from any harm.
Which rather makes a mockery of relevant supernaturalist assertions about this, doesn't it? Not to mention the treatment of said assertion as fact by many supernaturalists?
Jayjay4547 wrote:The Creator is creative , the products of creation are wonderful and beautiful, we are generously equipped by the creator, all that stuff Paley and his cohort had to say at the start of the 19th century.
Except that, once again,
there is no data supporting the existence of this entity.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Jayjay4547 wrote:He was taking an opposite tack to that of Richard Paley so we are all heirs to one or other side of a 19th century forking in the understanding of the world.
Actually, it's
William Paley. That you can't even present an elementary fact such as this correctly, speaks volumes about the effects of religious apologetics upon discoursive ability.
Yes, stupidslip. But you read too much into it.
No, I notice how it points to the usual lack of even elementary levels of rigour, that are frequently observed in supernaturalist pontifications.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Jayjay4547 wrote:The god-believing branch may have withered and the atheist branch has become triumphalist but that is just a fashion.
Er, no. It's game over for imaginary magic men. It doesn't matter how much mythology fetishists bleat and whinge over this, they'll have to suck on it sooner or later. Because, wait for it,
every supernaturalist pseudo-explanation for vast classes of observable entities and phenomena, has been tossed into the bin, and replaced with a proper explanation in terms of testable natural processes. This has happened
precisely because those natural explanations, unlike wibbling about magic men,
were testable, and
passed the requisite tests. Something that has
never happened to "Magic Man did it".
Game. Fucking. Over.
That’s triumphalist like I said.
No it isn't, it's simply a
reognition of the observable facts.
Genuine triumphalism arises when an idea is successfully imposed
regardless of its merits or evidential support. But then, ideas enjoying evidential support stand on their own merits, which is precisely the point I'm making here. We don't
need an "ideology" to present these ideas, they stand robust because
the data says so. It's
unsupported ideas that need an ideology to push them, Jayjay, as we see all the time in the world of creationism.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Jayjay4547 wrote:There’s an implicit challenge in Darwin’s position: if God did do that then Darwin will deny God.
Evidence for this entity? Got some?
It’s implicit in Darwin’s position.
No it isn't. Indeed,
that's the whole point, Jayjay, Darwin was pointing out how THE DATA FLATLY CONTRADICTED SUPERNATURALIST ASSERTIONS. In this case, assertions about a fantastic magic entity supposedly possessing "infinite benevolence". Which for some reason was not extended to all manner of organisms, quite a few humans included, and that includes the humans purportedly drowned
en masse in the fantasy "global flood" legend. Instead of using the fantastic powers that this entity is routinely asserted to possess, to
modify the behaviour of the humans in question in that legend, and
educate them into behaving differently, the legend depicts a primitive psychopath resorting to the most simplistic and brutal option - kill all who do not conform. The idea that an entity unleashing this level of horror across an entire planet is "benevolent", is laughably absurd. In fact, Jayjay, you yourself have admitted above that
you don't consider this assertion tenable. Yet despite finding this assertion thus untenable, you continue to treat as tenable assertions that the requisite magic entity exists. At this point, you should be in a position to understand why I find this stance of yours frankly bizarre.
Jayjay4547 wrote:If the Creator exists but isn’t benevolent then “he” isn’t actually God, Darwin can deny him that status.
Except that if this assertion is true,
recognition of the truth of that assertion, on the basis of relevant evidence, does not constitute "denial" of the status in question, because the absence of that status is now, on the basis of the aforementioned evidence, an established fact. Once again, Jayjay, do learn the elementary principle that
recognition of observable fact isn't "denial".
Jayjay4547 wrote:Or, because God “must” be benevolent and the creator evidently isn’t benevolent then that shows that there isn’t a creator-God at all.
Except that here we're in the world of apologetics, not observable evidence, so the above doesn't actually matter. Unless of course one can provide a
substantive basis for the assertion that a god-type entity must somehow
necessarily be benevolent. Which, oddly enough, isn't an idea that past supernaturalists entertained with their particular choices of god. The Greeks, for example, frequently depicted their gods as capricious entities, acting without any regard for us mere humans, frequently to the point of engaging in all sorts of weird conjuring tricks, in order to carry out their own, frequently base, wishes. See, for example, the numerous accounts of Zeus engaging in various acts of transmogrification, in order to slip past his long-suffering wife and engage in extra-marital sex with a range of desirable women. Said long-suffering wife, in addition, frequently being portrayed as taking out her entirely conprehensible frustration, not on her errant husband, but upon the unfortunate mortals who were powerless to stop Zeus and his conjuring tricks. The idea of a "benevolent" god is a specifically Middle Eastern invention, though one that is replete with contradictions, especially when one performs even an elementary examination of the savagery described in the Old Testament.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Jayjay4547 wrote:Or, if Darwin’s conception of what God should be like
is something that cannot exist then God cannot exist
Actually, he wasn't referring to any conception
he dreamed up, he was referring to what might be termed the "standard supernaturalist model" within the relevant mythology-based doctrine. Which, as he informs us, the
evidence tells us is a crock. Unless of course you can square the apologetic circle, and tell us all how conjuring up
Onchocera volvulus into the world, constitutes an act of "benevolence" on the part of this entity.
I see there is an Onchocerca volvulus, causes river blindness. Sure, hardly anything anyone says has been “dreamed up” out of nothing, including dreams. Darwin was quite capable of thinking Gosh, maybe the Creator isn’t so all fired benevolent towards humanity. Maybe the Creator is more OT.
Oh, but wait, the idea of a "benevolent" god
runs concurrently with all that nastiness in the OT. A little contradiction you can muse upon.
Jayjay4547 wrote:That possibility should be even more prominent today, seeing how humanity is polluting and destroying nature, and might well face cruel consequences.
Except that
we will be the engineer of those consequences, not any magic entity. Ironically, quite a few enthusiasts for your magic entity are hell-bent on
worsening the situation.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Calilasseia wrote: Jayjay4547 wrote:is something that cannot exist then God cannot exist. Either way it boils down to an assertion about the standing of the human intellect, which in earlier ages was thought to be unhealthy.
Oh this is going to be
good ...
Jayjay4547 wrote:It is unhealthy if triumphalism is unhealthy.
Excuse me, but if the FACTS tell us that mythology is a crock of shit, then it doesn't matter how much mythology fetishists whinge and bleat about this, or invent bullshit fantasies about "atheist conspiracies", "atheist ideology" and all the rest of it, in a desperate attempt to put off the day when they have to suck on it, because the FACTS are screaming at them to suck on it, the'll have to suck on it. Just as people who think gravity doesn't exist have to suck on it, especially if they're stupid enough to try jumping off tall buildings in the insane belief that they'll simply float in mid air.
Once again, Jayjay, paying attention to the FACTS isn't "ideology". Suck on it.
What is this “suck on it” you stick in wherever you can?
Oh, you need elementary lessons in vernacular as well?
Quite simply, Jayjay, if the FACTS place inviolable constraints upon your actions, trying to violate those constraints is absurd. No amount of wishful thinking is going to change the lemon flavoured lollipop you have, into the strawberry flavoured one you want it to be.
Jayjay4547 wrote:It’s hugely offensive, please stop it.. Mythology – e.g. Noah’s Ark- is far from a load of shit, it organizes our mind about our relationship with that part of the world we can’t experiment with- and that includes our creator.
Please explain to us how this farcical legend does anything other than make educated people point and laugh?
Plus, I thought the whole thrust of your apologetics, was that disaster is about to befall us
precisely because we're purportedly "experimenting" with our surroundings in less than delightful ways. But I didn't need your apologetics to tell me this, I simply needed the data.
Jayjay4547 wrote:We might be able to hurt our creator, even destroy it on this planet- and in doing so, hand ourselves over to slavery for all time.
If our actions end up rendering this planet uninhabitable, I'd have thought slavery was irrelevant. Bit difficult to be a slave to anything when you're dead.
by 
In America all a Christian university is is a private school with a focus on other aspects aside from education. Some Christian schools are accredited. Others are not.