RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Philip Cunningham Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2007,18:59   

Philip Cunningham is new to me. He appears in a thread on Panda's Thumb where he began thusly:

Quote
Comment #171535

Posted by Philip Cunningham on April 23, 2007 2:20 PM (e) | kill

Hmmm, Predictions of scientific materialism compared to predictions of theism…Well let’s see how they compare.

1. Materialism did not predict the big bang, Yet Theism always said the universe was created.
2. Materialism did not predict a sub-atomic (quantum) world that blatantly defies our concepts of time and space, Yet Theism always said the universe is the craftsmanship of God who is not limited by time or space.
3. Materialism did not predict the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein’s theory of relativity, Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity.
4. Materialism did not predict the stunning precision for the underlying universal constants, for the universe, found in the Anthropic Principle, Yet Theism always said God laid the foundation of the universe, so the stunning clockwork precision found for the various universal constants is not at all unexpected for Theism.
5. Materialism did not predict the fact that the DNA code is, according to Bill Gates, far, far more advanced than any computer code ever written by man, Yet Theism would of naturally expected this level of complexity in the DNA code.
6. Materialism presumed a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA, which is not the case at all. Yet Theism would have naturally presumed such a high if not, what very well may be, complete negative mutation rate to an organism’s DNA.
7. Materialism presumed a very simple first life form. Yet the simplest life ever found on Earth is, according to Geneticist Michael Denton PhD., far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. Theism would of naturally expected this.
8. Materialism predicted that it took a very long time for life to develop on earth, Yet we find evidence for photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth (Sarah Simpson, Scientific American, 2003). Theism would have expected this sudden appearance of life on earth.
9. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record, The Cambrian Explosion, by itself, destroys this myth. Theism would of expected such sudden appearance of the many different fossils in the Cambrian explosion.

Yep, your right! We shouldn’t dare question the predictive power of something that has been so accurate.


It's not very on-topic for that particular thread, so we invite him to have an extensive discussion here about these ideas. Take it away, Philip.

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2007,19:19   

Only a couple problems with this:

1. Scientists operating from the assumptions of methodological naturalism discovered and empirically grounded the cosmology of the big bang and the inflationary universe.

Theism, not so much.

2. Scientists operating from the assumptions of methodological naturalism discovered and empirically grounded the sub-atomic (quantum) world.

Theism, not so much.

3. Scientists operating from the assumptions of methodological naturalism discovered and empirically grounded relativity.

Theism, not so much.

4. Scientists operating from the assumptions of methodological naturalism discovered and empirically grounded numerous universal constants, and opened speculation regarding the anthropic principle.  

Theism, not so much.

5. Scientists operating from the assumptions of naturalism discovered and empirically grounded the role of DNA within biological systems.

Theism, not so much.

(Remaining points deleted owing to hazardous levels of murky and/or dimwitted flapdoodle.)

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2007,20:56   

Quote (stevestory @ April 25 2007,18:59)
Posted by Philip Cunningham on April 23, 2007 2:20 PM (e) | kill

Hmmm, Predictions of scientific materialism compared to predictions of theism…Well let’s see how they compare.

Because, ya know, ID isn't about religion.  No sirree Bob.  It's just them lying atheist darwinists and those plagiarizing farting judges who say it is.

(snicker)  (giggle)


And Dumbski wonders why nobody takes his crap seriously anymore . . . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2007,21:00   

Quote (stevestory @ April 25 2007,18:59)
Yet Theism would have naturally presumed such a high if not, what very well may be, complete negative mutation rate to an organism’s DNA.

Huh?

What the #### is a "negative mutation rate" . . . . . ?????

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
ofro



Posts: 19
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2007,21:33   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 25 2007,21:00)
 
Quote (stevestory @ April 25 2007,18:59)
Yet Theism would have naturally presumed such a high if not, what very well may be, complete negative mutation rate to an organism’s DNA.

Huh?

What the #### is a "negative mutation rate" . . . . . ?????

Don't you know that mutations are bad?  They decrease the information content of the DNA.

Therfore, negative mutations are good because they increase the information content of the DNA.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2007,09:14   

Re "What the #### is a "negative mutation rate" . . . . . ?????"

Obviously, that's from mutations that negate earlier positive mutations. Of course, if a negative mutation negates a previous negative mutation, then the net result might be positive. Or it might be negative; I'm not really positive about that.

:p

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2007,22:48   

again an antagonism between science and theism is constructed which shouldn't be possible since they don't even speak the same language

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2007,23:20   

Quote (skeptic @ April 26 2007,22:48)
again an antagonism between science and theism is constructed which shouldn't be possible since they don't even speak the same language

...except when theists constantly attempt to translate the language of science.

or, hadn't you noticed how often theists actually do that?

or hadn't you used that puny brain of your'n to figure out that's exactly what ID is:

theists' attempt to translate science into theism, and use it as a political football.

of course not.  You've totally forgotten the wedge document, haven't you.

*sigh*

remarkable how little progress you have made over the last year.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2007,23:22   

Quote (skeptic @ April 26 2007,22:48)
again an antagonism between science and theism is constructed which shouldn't be possible since they don't even speak the same language

Perhaps you should explain that to all the creationist/IDers out there . . . . . . . .

Explain it twice.  And use very small words.



They seem not to "get it".

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2007,23:35   

who am I critisizing here?  obviously Mr. Cunningham!  care to shut your trap now, Ichy?

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2007,23:44   

nope, since you've made the same mistake as cunningham yourself on any number of occasions.

why should i think otherwise?

you're still undeserving of your handle.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
  10 replies since April 25 2007,18:59 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]