This rejection is regardless of (i) whether God exists, and (ii) whether he gives fertilised ovum souls – both of which are assumptions not facts.
Even if the fertilised ovum has a soul, it is still incapable of reason. We do not expect even a newborn baby to reason. Reason develops as the human develops – through interaction with their environment (including other people). Reason comes from “unreason”. QED.
Further, there was no ‘black and white’ moment where “unreason” became “reason” – it is a continuous process, and a continuous gradient – with no bright lines dividing the two. So there are no bright lines to be transgressed.
Speaking of further reflection:
On further reflection, what I think is going on here is that:
People say things on this forum.
Because Lee is predisposed towards thinking about things in terms “unreasoning causes”, he assumes that they are basing their statements on these “unreasoning causes”.
Based on this assumption, Lee claims that people are claiming to detect unreasoning causes – when they made no such explicit claim.
I’m sorry Lee, but like pretty much everything else you have proffered in this thread, your assumptions are not evidence.
Here is the PNAS paper, “Active Barnase Variants with Completely Random Hydrophobic Cores”, and here is an article in Nature with the title “Misplaced complacency about energy resources”.
Another lie. Publication of a paper does not constitute featuring it. Featuring in the context of scientific publication would be a cover or an accompanying news article.
But if Axe is right about not being able to find function, how can barnase variants have completely random hydrophobic cores?
Another lie. That’s clearly labeled “Correspondence.” No way it’s an article.
Have you ever looked into ANYTHING you’ve written here with the slightest bit of care and/or honesty?
Wishful thinking! I quote papers, I find articles, I give my own arguments, etc.
Lack of understanding would not imply malicious intent, and posturing and preening would be more conclusions of malicious intent, how do you know I’m posturing and preening? And I’m not avoiding evidence, I try and respond to points with counterpoints, but even if I did avoid evidence, that would not mean I have some malicious intent.
Certainly what followed was based on their initial statement, but please provide quotes where they gave evidence in support of the statement. As far as I saw, they just assumed it was true.
Claims, claims, claims. Please demonstrate how what I said is false. Now that we are concerned about looking at evidence.
I mentioned Ed Peltzer and his reasoning about OOL in hydrothermal vents, did I not? And gave some sample of what he said. Did you investigate it? Or is it you who fear evidence against your view? And you yourself said I should read on, to get insight into this initial statement, so in your view this statement was defended. Though it’s not a premise, certainly, you don’t defend premises, you assume them. But I gave my reason for not reading on, you don’t read flat earth articles, once you read the introduction to know what it’s about. Why not? Because you have good evidence that the initial statement is false.
Saying “It does” here is as statement without evidence! You are doing what you accuse me of doing. And again, I provided evidence, see above.
I meant in a hydrothermal vent, though, not in tightly controlled lab procedures. And I also showed where in PCR the DNA disassembles, as well. It happens, even there.
You insisted, reasonably, on evidence, I gave evidence, I did not fabricate anything.
You said you had metrics, is there some problem in you providing them?
I expect that’s not going to be information that is readily available, members of a lab more than 20 years ago. Do you all publish such information for such time periods in labs where you work?
I take his word for it. Apparently I have to give evidence for everything, and you have to give evidence for nothing.
Like here! No evidence.
Supervisors in a lab are necessarily coauthors of all papers published in the lab? I don’t think so, why do you say that? And I’m glad to consult various papers of interest.
Alright, thanks, I’ll include that with my list of evidences, one that you asked for, even.
Wait, now Ferst was not required to be a coauthor? I thought you just said he was.
Because Discovery Institute, where he worked during a hiatus, doesn’t have lab facilities?
I don’t ignore it, I just don’t see why one thing implies the other. If you do, tell me why.
Hearsay isn’t evidence. Stop lying, Lee. You have yet to cite a single datum here AFAIK.
So “He had people working for him,” was a deliberate lie. Got it. By the way, many labs track their past members.
Absolutely–it’s present and published in the form of author lists of my papers. Are you really that clueless?
Postdocs rarely have people working for them, but when they do, they get to be authors too. The paper you love so much has a single author, so guess what–you’re lying again!
But Axe’s 2004 paper is further investigation about folding, apparently the core is not critical for this, so that’s fine. And evolution does not do designs, protein development, however, does do de novo designs.
Well, I said “improbable”, so I allow that a natural explanation is possible, I just don’t think it’s likely. As in asking for supernatural help, which I called for, and got immediate help with, that’s not usual for natural problems.
Glad for you! Though I expect you haven’t had any experiences that seemed like an entity trying to swallow your soul.
A lie. There are ways to measure folding. They are all available in the department you lied about Axe being a leader in, too.
There is zero investigation of folding in the 2004 paper. Investigations produce data.
Please stop lying.
Barnase and beta-lactamase are different proteins. However, Axe has repeatedly claimed that his extrapolation applied to all proteins. The barnase data refute that, and while you can’t possibly understand that, I do and I’m sure Axe does.
Gibberish. You have no clue. We literally employ evolution to design proteins.
Have you ever intelligently designed a mutant protein and analyzed it? Axe hasn’t. I have.
Given its emphasis on apologetics, I’m sure Biola has top-of-the-range apologetics lab – featuring video studios where Axe can produce Youtube videos, debate halls where he can practice debate tactics, etc, etc. What more could he need?
What I’ve been doing is challenging people to show that they have examined my reasoning, in making their conclusion. This they have not done, so I don’t see how I am misrepresenting people, or what they say.
Well, if you speak from a lack of expertise, you likely have some unreasoning motive! Because you won’t be able to present any reasons for what you say. But they do present them. And pointing to motivated reasoning, is certainly pointing to an unreasoning cause! And certainly there are ranges, and intensities, in relying on unreasoning causes, but relying on them in any range, is to still have them, and to point to them, that is what you and others are indeed doing. Dichotomy or not (which conclusion I still ask you to defend).
So if my claim is logically fallacious, it’s not simply because most people believe it, it’s because most people are mistaken somehow. So now we can talk, I point to people believing it as evidence, not as proof.
I think you just confirmed my point, though, people don’t accept “my left fist punched him”, just as they don’t accept “my brain cells made me do it”. They insist that sane people are agents, they don’t ascribe their behavior to some aspect of their body. And certainly without brains, we die, but that doesn’t show that our brains are the ultimate source of our decisions.
So generally recognized, as evidence I present to you psychiatrists, I present to you the courts, I present to you yourselves! You do what you say you are not doing.
Indeed, I don’t claim 100% proof, neither should you, or anyone, in most matters of importance.
But I didn’t say “universally”, I said “generally”.
But I just addressed the points you just gave. So the discussion continues, rebuttal occurs when one party or the other gives up, or concedes the point at issue.
Both of these are just bald assertions, though, I’m sorry to say. You are doing here what you accuse me of.
I’ve stated why I say this, though, and you have not refuted me. So I am not just making assertions, I point out what people do, pointing to causes of my statements, and not to my reasoning, this is what you have to disprove.
Certainly, I don’t claim that stating my view is an argument, I also give reasons for my view, this you are ignoring.
But you did point to other fallacies, how does pointing to them corroborate or give evidence for your claim that I am making a false dichotomy?
Oh dear. I was not the one who claimed I was presenting a dichotomy, you claimed that, and now you imply you have no clear idea of two options I was presenting?!
Thank you, now at least I know what two options you meant. But again, now you say you have no clear idea of what I meant by these terms? How then can you know I have a false dichotomy?
But all right, let’s look at the dictionary (Merriam-Webster, in this case):
reason: the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways
unreason: the absence of reason or sanity
I agree with the definition of reason, and it seems Merriam-Webster simply considers unreason and antonym of reason. That’s fine, so I have a true dichotomy.
All right, that’s fine, and I don’t speak of imperfect reason, I speak of reason, as in valid, or correct reasoning, and unreasoning, as in unreasoning causes, causes of thoughts or conclusions which are not reasonable at all. No one says that delirium is partly reasonable, when a person sees snakes, I mean delusions.
paranoia: mental illness characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations
delusion: a false idea or belief
I agree that people with dementia can have reasoning thoughts, though, just as I said the people who are insane can still know how to get to the kitchen properly. Clearly what I meant then, is thoughts that people would attribute to dementia, or paranoia, or delirium, as causes.
But I was pointing to unreasoning causes, which when in operation, are false, which, when in operation, are unreasoning. Not partly reasoning, at all.
Well, I don’t reason when I’m asleep, either, arguably! If so, whence does reason come from, then, when I wake up? And similarly with people who are unconscious, and regain consciousness. And how do you know say, what unborn babies are capable of? John the Baptist leapt in his mother’s womb, we are told, at the sound of Mary’s voice. So I see no reason to draw a line somewhere, about things no one knows.
Certainly they don’t claim unreasoning causes in their statements, but how is being “stupid” a reasoning cause, in any way? Or “wanting to be important”? Or being fearful of examining evidence? And so on.
I’m certainly not one a biology journal would listen to. And Tour has taken a different approach, he has published a paper challenging OOL doctrine, and he has videos explaining the problems in OOL research, and he even answers YouTube presence Professor Dave, in a 14-part series! And gave him a chance to debate him. And gave a ultimatum-type set of challenges to OOL researchers, I started a thread about this. Tour doesn’t seem to think he needs to write to every journal about every OOL paper he disagrees with, that seems reasonable.
But why don’t you show how hydrothermal vents are a good place for OOL to develop? Why don’t you answer Ed Peltzer’s points? I’m not a biologist, but people here state that they are.
But Principal Investigator need not imply that they participate in every project of all the people that work for them. I never had a boss that did that in my work as a programmer. Thankfully.
Not all research requires a lab, though.
I went looking for this picture, when I first saw this claim, and couldn’t find it, could you point me to it?
Well, featured has a wide range, when a speaker is featured on somebody’s show, it means they appeared there.
Well, I addressed that, saying Axe’s 2004 paper was further work on folding, with further results, it’s fine if cores only have to be hydrophobic, basically, but research can go on from there. As you all keep insisting that Axe should do.