Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8972 total)
175 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, dwise1, JonF, kjsimons, Meddle, ringo, WookieeB (8 members, 167 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,451 Year: 7,199/23,288 Month: 1,105/1,214 Week: 117/303 Day: 37/40 Hour: 4/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16188
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 121 of 257 (876190)
05-14-2020 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Admin
05-13-2020 1:56 PM


Re: We need a new topic and NvC-3 is a good one
My comments on this are that:

NvC-3 is at best badly mistaken and essentially sets up a strawman

The proposed topic for NvC-4 has already been adequately addressed in this thread.

NvC-5 is jumping the gun.

A rewrite of NvC-3 to show genuine differences might be appropriate, but the proposal as it stands is not a good start.

If Richard genuinely believes that information is independent of matter (which requires denying his assertion that “ Information needs matter as its carrier, and information can only be stored and transmitted by information-carrier.” Message 2) AND can produce a case that his ideas apply to evolution then we might have a usable topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Admin, posted 05-13-2020 1:56 PM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 05-14-2020 5:09 PM PaulK has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4163
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 122 of 257 (876216)
05-14-2020 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Richard L. Wang
05-13-2020 10:35 AM


Re: Methodological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, philosophical naturalism …
I won't talk about methodological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, philosophical naturalism …

Then you cannot talk about science. And you most especially must not grossly misrepresent science as you have been doing and as you explicitly and stubborn insist on doing.

 
You try to present yourself as "not your average creationist", as being some kind of unique kind of creationist. Rather, from everything you've been writing you appear to be a very common kind of creationist who uses deceptive arguments to push a religious agenda: a Discovery Institute (DI) type "intelligent design" (ID) creationist.

IDists decry science as being "atheistic" because (they falsely claim) it uses philosophical naturalism which includes the premise that God does not exist. The goal of DI IDism (as presented in the DI's Wedge Strategy with its religious agenda's carefully laid-out 5-year, 10-year, and 20-year plans) is to fundamentally reform science so that it would make use of supernaturalistic explanations, basically bringing God into science. That is called theistic science:

quote:
Theistic science, also referred to as theistic realism, is the pseudoscientific proposal that the central scientific method of requiring testability, known as methodological naturalism, should be replaced by a philosophy of science that allows occasional supernatural explanations which are inherently untestable. Proponents propose supernatural explanations for topics raised by their theology, in particular evolution.

Supporters of theistic realism or theistic science include intelligent design creationism proponents J. P. Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer and Phillip E. Johnson.

Instead of the relationship between religion and science being a dialogue, theistic science seeks to alter the basic methods of science. As Alvin Plantinga puts it, this is a "science stopper", and these concepts lack any mainstream credence.


That is what I told you from the beginning in Message 9 and nothing has changed:

DWise1 writes:

ID opposes philosophical naturalism (albeit without that modifier), but it conflates different kinds of naturalism together leading it to attack them all. That is wrong and wrong-headed. And that wrong-headedness has led to the Wedge Strategy that would require the inclusion of the supernatural into science which, if actually done, would basically kill science. We had a topic addressing that over a decade ago, So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY); you might find it of interest.

Questions about the supernatural have no place in science, because they are of absolutely no use in science. Because we cannot work with the supernatural nor take it into account. The supernatural is outside human means of detection, observation, examination, etc. If you formulate a hypothesis which includes supernatural factors, how would you ever be able to test for those factors and what their effects are? You cannot. How would you ever be able to construct an experiment that uses supernatural conditions? You cannot. The supernatural is beyond the ability of science to work with it.

Therefore, science uses methodological naturalism. In a scientific question (basically, the "how does this work?" questions), the only factors and the only explanations that you can use must be naturalistic ones. Not because you want to deny the existence of God, but rather because naturalistic explanations and factors are the only ones you can work with in science. It is a practical consideration, not a philosophical one.

Notably, in that So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY) topic (it's a link, so just click on it to go there), I asked for advocates and proponents of "theistic science" to explain just how a supernatural-based science was supposed to work in practical terms (ie, just exactly how you are supposed to do that and still get productive results). In the nearly 400 messages of that topic, nobody was able to answer that simple basic question. Taq had the last word in the final message, Message 396, in which he presented an analogy of a new sports fan wanting how that sport is run to be changed to include quantum physics:

Taq writes:

And so it goes. Those pushing supernaturalism have no idea how science is done, but they are just sure that supernaturalism would work. They go one step further and blame the absence of supernaturalism on biases held by scientists, all the while forgetting that many are in fact theists. In the analogy above, we can confirm that both quantum theory and football are real things. However, there is nothing in quantum theory that is really useful for the activity of football. The same for science. There is nothing in supernaturalism that is useful in science.

{Since Richard L. Wang will, in typical creationist fashion, just ignore this message and will never follow that link, this is for the edification of Lurkers. That Wikipedia page on "theistic science" links to another Wikipedia page, Timeline of intelligent design, which lays out in time-line fashion a rather good and fairly comprehensive history of the anti-evolution movement, especially the ID faction. }

 
Richard L. Wang, despite the obvious fact that science uses methodological naturalism (restricting itself to naturalistic methods and explanation for the simple reason that that is all it can deal with and without making any statements about the supernatural, including whether it exists), you insist on falsely characterizing it as using philosophical naturalism (even to the point of falsely presenting that as the only form of naturalism) in order to falsely claim that science is denying the existence of God.

Despite the obvious fact that science is non-theistic (completely neutral about the gods, since the gods are irrelevant to what science does), you have repeatedly falsely presented science as being atheistic (ie, denying the existence of God). Furthermore, you have characterized all explanations in in science as necessarily being either "Atheistic" or "Theistic", again completely ignoring that very simple and obvious fact that proper scientific explanations can only be non-theistic.

Richard L. Wang:


  • It is obvious to all objective observers that you are mischaracterizing science as being atheistic, as basing itself on atheistic premises, and as using atheistic methods.

  • It is obvious that your intent is to present and promote an "alternative": theistic science.

  • It is obvious that your intent is to promote your religious agenda. Furthermore, it is obvious that you have no scruples against using any falsehood or deception that you can towards that end.

  • It is obvious that talking about methodological naturalism and the non-theistic nature of science will immediately destroy your carefully constructed lie of science being atheistic.

  • It is obvious that your entire deception promoting your religious agenda depends directly on your carefully constructed lie of science being atheistic.

  • It is obvious that your religious agenda is very important to you, so you must and will do anything you can to preserve your deliberate lie of science being atheistic.

  • Therefore, it is obvious that your stubborn refusal to talk about methodological naturalism and the non-theistic nature of science is for the sole purpose of protecting your deliberately deceptive religious agenda by maintaining your deliberate lie of science being atheistic.

  • Creationists who push to impose their religious agendas on others, especially through the use of lies and deception, can quite properly be classified as evil.

  • If the shoe fits, ... .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-13-2020 10:35 AM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18103
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 123 of 257 (876218)
05-14-2020 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by WookieeB
05-13-2020 7:18 PM


WookieB writes:

No, we call it a "code" because the arrangement of molecules corresponds to a symbol system that is independent from and conveys information independent from any physical properties of the molecules themselves.


How is the "message" written on the molecule? What is the ink?

"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by WookieeB, posted 05-13-2020 7:18 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 124 of 257 (876223)
05-14-2020 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by PaulK
05-14-2020 5:54 AM


DO We need a new topic (eg NvC-3) ... ?
One of the troubles I have with "information" is that all science is information, and people seem to jump over all preliminary definitions and descriptions to focus on evolution.

If Richard genuinely believes that information is independent of matter (which requires denying his assertion that “ Information needs matter as its carrier, and information can only be stored and transmitted by information-carrier.” Message 2) ...

To me information is irrelevant until there is communication, and communication is only important when you want it to be and understand it. Kind of like Schrodinger's Cat.

GDR writes:

Message 117 -- Just a question. Did the information that E=mc2 exist as information before Einstein discovered it?

Is this really any different from:

(equation/proof)

Each defines gravity, slightly differently, but gravity exists without them.

The information is only needed by esoteric science.

\ramble

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by PaulK, posted 05-14-2020 5:54 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by PaulK, posted 05-15-2020 2:14 AM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 126 by dwise1, posted 05-15-2020 3:19 AM RAZD has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16188
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 125 of 257 (876233)
05-15-2020 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by RAZD
05-14-2020 5:09 PM


Re: DO We need a new topic (eg NvC-3) ... ?
The answer to the question is yes. A topic where Richard lays out his views and arguments rather than trying to pin positions on other people would be a good way forward.

quote:
One of the troubles I have with "information" is that all science is information, and people seem to jump over all preliminary definitions and descriptions to focus on evolution

If evolution is the topic then talking about information in the context of evolution is relevant. There’s a lot we don’t need to worry about. Including a lot of points that have come up here. Indeed the distinction between gravitation as a phenomenon and Newton’s description of it is exactly the sort of thing we don’t need to think about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 05-14-2020 5:09 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4163
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 126 of 257 (876236)
05-15-2020 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by RAZD
05-14-2020 5:09 PM


Re: DO We need a new topic (eg NvC-3) ... ?
One of the troubles I have with "information" is that all science is information, and people seem to jump over all preliminary definitions and descriptions to focus on evolution.

The big problem is that appeals to information and to information theory is a basic tool in ID to generate BS claims and arguments and to baffle their audiences. Under the mask of esoteric mathematics, they can freely redefine it to mean whatever they want and to misapply it wherever they wish -- if we can't follow what they're doing, then how can we call them on it?

Remember that every discipline has its own terminology often using the same words as many other disciplines (as well as common usages) but redefined to fit the specific needs of that particular discipline. There are even instances where different related disciplines can have definitions for the same term that are very close, yet still different. For example, in both electrical engineering and electronics practiced by technicians, current is the flow of charge and is measured the same way in both disciplines (eg, Coulombs, amperes), but for technicians it's electron flow which goes from negative to positive and for EEs it's an abstract charge carrier, "holes", that flow from positive to negative.

One of the oldest creationist deceptive practices has been called "semantic shifting" wherein they take a scientific term and replace its proper definition with a street definition. That way, they can misquote a scientific source without having to change a single word, just by applying the wrong definitions.

So whenever a creationist starts using the word, "information", your BS detector should start flashing red before it pegs its needle. Same as whenever a creationist says anything about "evolution".

To me information is irrelevant until there is communication, and communication is only important when you want it to be and understand it.

In basic computer science, data are the raw numbers that don't mean anything until they've been processed and interpret whereupon they become information. Data just exists, whereas information is useful. Same as using statistical analysis to convert statistics (raw data points) into information.

That would point to information not existing on its own, but rather it only exists when people need it. You don't need gods to explain the existence of information, but rather people.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 05-14-2020 5:09 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Richard L. Wang
Member
Posts: 50
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 127 of 257 (876390)
05-18-2020 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Stile
05-11-2020 4:45 PM


Re-Stile(90): Premise
Sorry for replying late.
“Matter obeys the natural laws” links if “Life consists only of matter” then “only natural laws operate in biological processes.”

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Stile, posted 05-11-2020 4:45 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Tangle, posted 05-18-2020 5:06 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 141 by Stile, posted 05-19-2020 2:49 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
Richard L. Wang
Member
Posts: 50
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 128 of 257 (876392)
05-18-2020 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by RAZD
05-12-2020 4:16 PM


Re-RAZD(98): Science articles please
Sorry for replying late.

RAZD(98) writes:

Could you provide a list of journal published peer reviewed scientific physics articles you have published?

Forget my physics papers. It is irrelevant to biology we are discussing here.

I just published my eBook and paperback “Darwinian-Naturalism is Pseudoscience” on Amazon KDP in late March and late April 2020, respectively. The reason I did not mention this in my Message(11) of “Topic: The opponent of Creationism is Naturalism not Evolution” is because I worried that the participants may raise fewer questions if they read my book. I hope more questions will come up so that all participants will be more interested in the discussion/debate.

I submitted only one biological paper, “The Genetic Code was Designed”. As the paper’s conclusion leads to creationism, this paper was rejected by the editors of ten journals, as I expected. I mentioned this in Section 4 of Chapter 8 of my book as an example of how Neo-Darwinists suppress different voices. This paper becomes the Appendix of my book. Anyone can judge whether this paper is a scientific paper or a religious paper. So, I stop writing papers.

Before I started to self-learn biology at the late 2015, I had reached all the conclusions. Starting from the immateriality of information, it is directly deduced that information does not obey the natural laws and matter cannot produce information. For biology, this means:
- Life consists of matter and information;
- Genetic information cannot be naturally produced in the pure-material world of the primitive Earth, so life cannot naturally originate on Earth;
- All bioinformatic processes don’t obey the natural laws.
In addition, I know that random processes cannot lead to biological evolution.
My purpose of learning biology is to explain my ideas from a biological point of view. In my book, I criticized Neo-Darwinian-Naturalism and developed my Creationism theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 05-12-2020 4:16 PM RAZD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by PaulK, posted 05-18-2020 11:52 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 186 by Taq, posted 05-21-2020 4:58 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7620
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 129 of 257 (876393)
05-18-2020 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Richard L. Wang
05-18-2020 4:47 PM


Re: Re-Stile(90): Premise
Yawn.

So far science has only observed natural processes operating in biology or any other study of our universe. So the working hypothesis is that natural processes are all there are. It's there to be disproven. Your move, surprise us.

Do try to stop introducing your straw man time and time again.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-18-2020 4:47 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by jar, posted 05-18-2020 5:41 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32508
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 130 of 257 (876395)
05-18-2020 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Tangle
05-18-2020 5:06 PM


Re: Re-Stile(90): Premise
It really is that simple.

Until someone provides the evidence of some super-natural process or super-natural event or super-natural entity ALL of the evidence shows natural processes, natural events and natural entities.

Richard has so far offered nothing but Word Salad.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Tangle, posted 05-18-2020 5:06 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12685
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 131 of 257 (876397)
05-18-2020 6:10 PM


Information
Here's a link to Richard's book at Amazon: Darwinian-Naturalism is Pseudoscience. It's free on Kindle. Click on the book cover and you can read a good part of it online.

There's a lengthy "About the Author" section. Dr. Wang was born in Shanghai, China, in 1941. He was at Dalhousie University in Canada in the physics department for many years but doesn't feel he published any papers of consequence. He accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior in 1993. Because he's a theoretical physicist he knows new information through random mutation is impossible.

He is given to bold unsupported statements.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by PaulK, posted 05-18-2020 11:58 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5373
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 132 of 257 (876398)
05-18-2020 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by AZPaul3
05-14-2020 3:04 AM


AZPaul3 writes:

Depends on how one defines information.

Were matter and energy interchangeable at this large constant rate before Einstein wrote it down? Yes. The sun worked.

But, until it entered the symbolic world of awareness no one knew the relationship existed.

Does this mean the "information" existed in the universe independant of human symbolic awareness? No. Information *is* symbolic awareness of an underlying relationship.

Since no one can show any awareness outside the human mind (give or take a dolphin or so) information is the sole purview of the human. Before a human devised the formula the information did not exist. What existed prior was only the mass/energy relationship, but not any awareness of the thing, ie. no information.

I apologize. I just noticed your reply to my post now.

I have to admit I can't agree with your point in general. We would all agree that there are laws that govern the universe. They are always there waiting for the human mind to discover them. Any particular law could have been discovered at any particular point in time. Why would it only become information when it was discovered. IMHO it was information waiting to be discovered.

Let's take a hypothetical. A physicist makes a ground breaking discovery of a previously unknown truth about the universe. So now by your definition it now becomes information. However, before this physicist is able to record or tell anyone about this discovery he dies. Nobody knows about this newly discovered but now lost truth. Does it cease to be information?


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by AZPaul3, posted 05-14-2020 3:04 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by AZPaul3, posted 05-18-2020 10:14 PM GDR has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4979
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 133 of 257 (876400)
05-18-2020 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by GDR
05-18-2020 6:55 PM


IMHO it was information waiting to be discovered.

We will probably disagree. Knowledge is information. Lost knowledge is destroyed information - information no more.

All information needs to be embodied in some form of physical system. Read up on Maxwell’s demon. It establishes the intricate connection between information and energy and leads to the Landauer limit on the minimum energy required to erase a bit of information. All information must have a physical embodiment and must obey all physical laws. No exceptions.

A long time ago in a land far, far away, there was a field that had been plowed and planted with onion. We’re talking pre-Sumerian more than 5000 years ago. How many onions were harvested from that field? Someone used to know. They had to give a share to the temple as tax. That knowledge was once known. The information was recorded, if not on a clay tablet, then at least in a farmer’s and a priest’s minds. There was a physical manifestation (clay tablet or minds) of the symbolic relationship (number of onions). That is information. That symbolic relationship and its physical manifestation no longer exist. Do you claim the information still exists?

Don’t fall into the quantum trap of “information cannot be destroyed” because that definition of information has to do with the quantum properties, like spin and charge, associated with fundamental particles. That kind of information, per QFT, must always be conserved. QFT couldn’t care less about onions.

The information about the onions has been lost. Destroyed by time. It exists no more just as if it had never existed in this universe.

However, a symbolic relationship may exist without the physical embodiment of information. Your star-crossed physicist was the first to understand a symbolic relationship creating information in the physical – his mind. But, before that symbolic relationship could find another physical manifestation it vanished. The information no longer existed.

The relationship your physicist discovered still exists but, my contention, open to your disagreement, is that unless there is a physical manifestation of that symbolic relationship able to be communicated there is no information. And once all physical manifestations of a symbolic relationship no longer exist the information can no longer exist - the information has been destroyed.

I cannot say there is any "information" on the onions or on your physicist’s discovery. Maxwell's demon had to erase both.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by GDR, posted 05-18-2020 6:55 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by GDR, posted 05-18-2020 11:11 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5373
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 134 of 257 (876402)
05-18-2020 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by AZPaul3
05-18-2020 10:14 PM


AZPaul3 writes:

Don’t fall into the quantum trap of “information cannot be destroyed” because that definition of information has to do with the quantum properties, like spin and charge, associated with fundamental particles. That kind of information, per QFT, must always be conserved. QFT couldn’t care less about onions.

First off let me say that this is well above my pay grade so it sent me scurrying to wiki.

No-hiding Theorem

This first thing it says is this:

quote:
The no-hiding theorem[1] proves that if information is lost from a system via decoherence, then it moves to the subspace of the environment and it cannot remain in the correlation between the system and the environment. This is a fundamental consequence of the linearity and unitarity of quantum mechanics. Thus, information is never lost. This has implications in black hole information paradox and in fact any process that tends to lose information completely. The no-hiding theorem is robust to imperfection in the physical process that seemingly destroys the original information.

This was proved by Samuel L. Braunstein and Arun K. Pati in 2007. In 2011, the no-hiding theorem was experimentally tested[2] using nuclear magnetic resonance devices where a single qubit undergoes complete randomization, i.e., a pure state transforms to a random mixed state. Subsequently, the lost information has been recovered from the ancilla qubits using suitable local unitary transformation only in the environment Hilbert space in accordance with the no-hiding theorem. This experiment for the first time demonstrated the conservation of quantum information.


AZPaul3 writes:

The information about the onions has been lost. Destroyed by time. It exists no more just as if it had never existed in this universe.

The trouble is that this is an apples and oranges, (or maybe onions and carrots), type of argument.

The information that was collected in regards to onions wasn't information until the onions were harvested. The information had a point in time in which it first became available. I would argue that it is information that is no longer accessible but for sake of argument I'll concede the point.

However, information like the law of gravity existed long before there were minds able to conceive it. It was always accessible as information just waiting to be discovered. Physics is essentially about accessing information that was always there. Our deceased metaphorical physicist simply discovered or discerned the information that was always there to be discovered. When he died it was still there waiting for someone else to discover it.

The question is, is information still information when it is not being perceived or recorded. I would say yes and it looks like you would say no.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by AZPaul3, posted 05-18-2020 10:14 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by AZPaul3, posted 05-19-2020 1:17 AM GDR has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16188
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 135 of 257 (876403)
05-18-2020 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Richard L. Wang
05-18-2020 5:00 PM


Re: Re-RAZD(98): Science articles please
quote:
I just published my eBook and paperback “Darwinian-Naturalism is Pseudoscience” on Amazon KDP in late March and late April 2020, respectively. The reason I did not mention this in my Message(11) of “Topic: The opponent of Creationism is Naturalism not Evolution” is because I worried that the participants may raise fewer questions if they read my book. I hope more questions will come up so that all participants will be more interested in the discussion/debate.

So you wrote a book to beat on a strawman. That is hardly encouraging news.

quote:
I submitted only one biological paper, “The Genetic Code was Designed”. As the paper’s conclusion leads to creationism, this paper was rejected by the editors of ten journals, as I expected. I mentioned this in Section 4 of Chapter 8 of my book as an example of how Neo-Darwinists suppress different voices.

Since I can see that your arguments here are badly wrong it’s hardly surprising that your manuscript failed to pass peer review.

There is no need to try and blame others for your own failings.

quote:
Before I started to self-learn biology at the late 2015, I had reached all the conclusions

That is not surprising. It is disappointing. But then you seem to know even less about philosophy, despite choosing to focus more on philosophy than science,

So I guess it’s the usual story. An outsider to the field assumes that they know better than the experts and gets angry when their work gets deservedly dismissed. In their anger they invent fantasies where it’s all the experts fault and not theirs. There really isn’t much more to it.

Edited by PaulK, : Fixed two little typos (one an auto “correction”)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-18-2020 5:00 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020