tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434207374852632666.post1320980086039110090..comments2020-11-25T01:16:55.922-08:00Comments on The Golden Gnomon 黄金识子 Huang-jin Shi-zi: Natural selection is random/chance, period.gnomonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03362808932731126552noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434207374852632666.post-17094622448606332832016-05-15T19:03:40.871-07:002016-05-15T19:03:40.871-07:00Simply not true. People has long found things that...Simply not true. People has long found things that resist explanation by the prevailing framework. The most astonishing one is called genetic equidistance. If science is about cheery picking, any fool can do it. Unfortunately for the fools and fortunately for humanity, one can make a pathetic living by cheery pick for only so long but not forever (~50 years in the case of genetic equidistance).gnomonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03362808932731126552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434207374852632666.post-52596696257030344842016-05-15T00:45:02.879-07:002016-05-15T00:45:02.879-07:00As far as we know, there is no God. No one has yet...As far as we know, there is no God. No one has yet found anything that requires a God, so Occam's Razor implies that the simplest argument (there is no God) should be accepted. Why expend the extra effort to promote God, if it isn't necessary??? It seems like a waste of energy.Mike Vandemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06318503820963850581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434207374852632666.post-78591610397913082542009-04-07T20:11:00.000-07:002009-04-07T20:11:00.000-07:00A very good read, professor. Thanks.A very good read, professor. Thanks.Stripehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11177167535623025339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434207374852632666.post-58731288301701766132009-04-07T15:50:00.000-07:002009-04-07T15:50:00.000-07:00if there is a God, it would explain all the laws o...if there is a God, it would explain all the laws of nature. No one knows if there is one or not. So, you cannot cite laws of nature as things that are both non random and non-intentional. Why is such simple idea so hard for Darwin followers to digest? <BR/><BR/>If I dont cite laws of nature as intentional, because I have no proof of God the law creator, then neither can you cite them as non-intentional because you dont have proof of no God. <BR/><BR/>You talk about laws of nature and man being different as if you know anything at all about laws of nature. Truth is you can only guess, which could be very wrong.<BR/><BR/>I can give you countless real world examples of things that are either random or intentional, but you can give none that we know for sure is both nonrandom and nonintentional. <BR/><BR/>Beside, worse for you, such concept is not intuitively sensible or self evident. In contrast, it can only be self-evidently wrong. Remember, intuition is the real foundation for your rational thoughts. If your theory depends on gross violation of intuition, then the theory is in trouble. If the intuition can be no good, what good is its deduction products, which include your theory?gnomonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03362808932731126552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8434207374852632666.post-86428612161528305852009-04-07T14:52:00.000-07:002009-04-07T14:52:00.000-07:00"A thing is either chance or intentional. No third..."A thing is either chance or intentional. No third alternative. Laws are non-random and intentional products of law creators."<BR/><BR/>You make this statement as if it is fact, when it is actually nothing more than an opinion. If we say that something didn't happen by "chance", it does not necessarily mean that it is "intentional". Intent is a human concept. It implies that an intelligence has made a conscious action to produce a specific result. If we accept this argument, then we must assume that anything which has any degree of order is the result of conscious effort. Perhaps you are comfortable with taking this leap in logic, but it is not sound reasoning which stands up to critical analysis. You need to offer sound evidence to support this statement.<BR/><BR/>Your use of the word "Laws" is also misleading. I will concede that the laws of man are created by intelligence, but when talking about laws of nature we are dealing with an entirely different concept. You are attempting to use word games to prove a scientific point. You cannot make a direct analogy between man-made "laws" and natural "laws".Brian Barrishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05207672586846868229noreply@blogger.com