Re: Limits of Science
Milan
"Chzwmn" <chz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041013145358...@mb-m24.aol.com...
>
> I once made science my bedrock, took Darwin to be the mainstay. But I
realised
> that science is rather descriptive and has no explanatory power whatso
ever. Is
> great for showing HOW thing emerge from other things, how they live and
die,
> decay and so on. It can show how the sky appears blue, and describe
underlying
> processes that make water find its own level. But it provides us with not
a
> single reason for anything.
Maybe there are no "reasons" for anything. Why should there be reasons for
anything?
> Why does water find its own level? Gravity! - comes the answer. But that
is
> only replacing a word for a phenomenon. You can carry on and describe the
> nature of gravity until you are blue in the face but it does not answer
why.
> The only why answers come from what people do. Even in this, science
attempts
> to appeal to our sense of a need for understanding, by attempting to
explain
> the reasons why people do do the things they do, but fails. Why is because
the
> neurones are firing in a particular way is, again, just another
description,
> description description..
Description is explanation. What else is an explanation?
> Evolutionary theory is for me one of the most brilliant observation ever
set
> down by man. It describes in exquisite detail with utter elegance the
means by
> which species have emerged from the primal soup, But it has no explanatory
> value.
You must be using a different meaning of "explanation" from the accepted
usage. If you understand the mechanism underlying a certain natural process
is because you have an explanation for the process.
>Evolution relies entirely on random changes in the composition of new
> born creatures.
This is utterly wrong. Evolution involves mutations and natural selection.
>The changes are under no pressure whatsoever. Evolution does
> not cause a single change: things change randomly and evolution is the
> unguided consequence.
Natural selection selects for certain mutations.
> To give meaning to out lives in this godless world we have only ourselves
and
> our responsibility to others to consider. Science has not the answers....
Science explains the world. Meaning is up to us. You seem to be confusing
and conflating two different things.
regards
Milan
Milan
"Richard" <nos...@nospam.none> wrote in message
news:ckki06$pqu$1...@kermit.esat.net...
> "Milan" <mtk...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > Maybe there are no "reasons" for anything. Why should there be reasons
for
> > anything?
>
> seriously, why would there be no meaning?
The universe is a physical system. Why should it have a meaning, a purpose
or an intention? The idea is baffling.
> > Description is explanation. What else is an explanation?
>
> No it is not. the man punched the other man with his fist. Like my
> explanation? Do you understand?
> Yes, you do, that the man punched the other man, but you are no closer to
> knowing why.
That is one possible description, obviously not the one which answers your
question.
> > You must be using a different meaning of "explanation" from the accepted
> > usage. If you understand the mechanism underlying a certain natural
> process
> > is because you have an explanation for the process.
>
> And a possible explanation for the 'process' is all you have. You don't
know
> if its the right answer, and you certainly don't know the meaning of it.
Meaning? What do you mean by meaning? If you ask me why the light does not
come on when you flick the switch and I answer: "Because the lightbulb went
bust", my reply answers your question, ie, it is an appropriate explanation
for your question. Would you then ask "what is the meaning of the lightbulb
going bust"?
> > This is utterly wrong. Evolution involves mutations and natural
selection.
>
> Why? Who or what naturally selects? These are just speculations. I'm not
say
> there is even anything wrong with this, but I do feel we should view
things
> for what they are.
Huh? Do you know how evolution works? What do you mean by "things for what
they are"?
> > >The changes are under no pressure whatsoever. Evolution does
> > > not cause a single change: things change randomly and evolution is
the
> > > unguided consequence.
> >
> > Natural selection selects for certain mutations.
>
> And what is that, why does it select? Something can not select without
> intelligence, which brings us back to the search for meaning.
I think that you should read a bit about evolution before making such
assertions.
> > Science explains the world. Meaning is up to us. You seem to be
confusing
> > and conflating two different things.
>
> Science does not explain the world. It observes certain parts of it and
> theorises about other parts of it. That is not a good or a bad thing, it
is
> just what science does. What I do take exception too is the degree to
which
> these theories are thought as fact in public schools and other places.
Which theories do you take exception to? The theory of gravity, Newton's
mechanics, Einsteins' relativity, quantum mechanics, the electromagnetic
theory, plate tectonics? I think we should be told. Why do I suspect you
just have problems with the theory of evolution? Hmmm.
regards
Milan
> Richard
>
>
Acme Diagnostics
chz...@aol.com (Chzwmn) wrote:
>>>
>>>To give meaning to out lives in this godless world we have only ourselves
>>and
>>>our responsibility to others to consider. Science has not the answers....
>>
>
>Humans have multiple destinies based on belief.
>
>>First the stars, then our maker
>>and our meaning.
>
>We are our maker and the maker of our destinies. Our meaning is what we make of
>it.
>
>>That's where science seeks to go. To get >there,
>>we keep our eyes open and try to figure out what we can.
>
>Science describes the path but we define it.
>
>So
>>far it looks like we are moving towards that goal on balance.
>
>Which of many goals do you mean?
I had intended my post to offer one perspective among many. Only
after hitting "Send" did I realize that I should have stated that
explicitly.
It's just something to try on and see if it fits. If so, then to
wear on appropriate occasions. :-)
Larry
p.s. I can spot replies to me easier if "Acme" is included
somewhere, like in the REPLY INTRODUCTION oops excuse me hitting
the caps key by mistake. L.
>>
>>In the meantime, we expand and improve our base. The spinoffs can
>>be used to improve our circumstances. Why not? Most species may
>>fail, but all must try. Most individuals may fail to contribute,
>>but they should try in some small way. There is meaning in that.
>>
>>It's natural to be in a hurry, to want everything now. Some want
>>to get there in five minutes.
>
>Burn that fuel baby!!!
>
>Well, the reality is that our
>>universe unluckily isn't set up that way. Some days you eat the
>>bear, and some days the bear eats you.
>>
>>Larry
>>
Milan
> There is a clear differnce between explanation and description.
> What some take to be explantion is only a description.
> The naive atheist scientist declares that god did not make heaven and
earth
> becasue we now know about the big bang. Great - that explains why we are
> here!!
Wrong. The scientist (and any rational person) does not consider gods, or
other imaginary supernatural entities as part of rational explanations
because there is no evidence for such entities. The scientist (and any
rational person) seeks naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena.
> Some take science as a religion - it provides them with answers. They
imagine
> that evolution can explain human behaviour. But how can an unguided
process of
> random change be made to do service to provide meaning and reasons for how
we
> are?
We are biological beings and are the product of biological evolution. We are
what we are due to our biology and our biology is the consequence of
evolution.
> >>Evolution relies entirely on random changes in the composition of new
> >> born creatures.
> >
> >This is utterly wrong. Evolution involves mutations and natural
selection.
>
> I think you are overstating yourself here. The changes of which i speak
are
> those that result in the recombination of DNA. The organism relies on the
new
> combination to survive. If those changes do not compromise the survival of
the
> individual they might be preserved. Most of these changes are however,
survival
> neutral.
I think you dont understand evolution . Changes in the genome may come
about by different mechanisms. Genetic recombination is but one of them. The
changes in the genome that are better adapted to the environment tend to be
preserved and become prevalent in the population.
>
> >
> >>The changes are under no pressure whatsoever. Evolution does
> >> not cause a single change: things change randomly and evolution is the
> >> unguided consequence.
> >
> >Natural selection selects for certain
> >mutations.
>
> This statement is odd and reveals a problem with the way you concieve the
> notion. Selection implies a selector - there is no such thing. "Natural
> selection" was proposed as an antidote to god.
Natural selection is a well established mechanism. It was not proposed as
antidote to anything.
> Evolution is change. Evolution does not cause change. It does not select.
Some
> things die and are not "selected" others are preserved. But evolution is
or
> guided to any end. If it can be said to be driven it is driven by a
negative
> force - death.
Evolution selects for the genomic changes which better adapt to the
environment.
> >
> >> To give meaning to out lives in this godless world we have only
ourselves
> >and
> >> our responsibility to others to consider. Science has not the
answers....
> >
> >Science explains the world. Meaning is up to us. You seem to be confusing
> >and conflating two different things.
>
> Science explains nothing. Only we can have reasons for living.
You are making a salad of everything. Science explains how the world work.
Understanding how the world works will -of course- not give you reasons for
living, in the same way that understanding how a car work will not give you
reasons to become a formula 1 pilot.
regards
Milan
Richard
I often feel somewhat frustrated by the classic 'good vs. evil' argumuments
that seem to ensue between science and religion, religion and philosophy,
philosophy and science etc.
Science is just a method of observation. Nothing more, nothing less. There's
no reason to dedicate your life to defending it or devotee yourself to
denying it.
A scientific theory is the generally accepted best guess of a person who
makes up this theory after analysing a collection of empirical evidence
and/or other theories. It may be right, it may be wrong. Theories change all
the time to accommodate new evidence.
But as stated in the original post, they only guess upon a method of
occurrence, and not any reason or meaning. While it may be valuable to know
this for purposes such as medical treatment etc, it certainly leaves us
without any explanations that involve meaning.
It is time that we start looking at the intersection of all knowledge to
answer life's questions. See what religion, philosophy and science conclude.
Truth is likely to be consistent with all of them.
Richard
"Chzwmn" <chz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041013145358...@mb-m24.aol.com...
>
> I once made science my bedrock, took Darwin to be the mainstay. But I
realised
> that science is rather descriptive and has no explanatory power whatso
ever. Is
> great for showing HOW thing emerge from other things, how they live and
die,
> decay and so on. It can show how the sky appears blue, and describe
underlying
> processes that make water find its own level. But it provides us with not
a
> single reason for anything.
> Why does water find its own level? Gravity! - comes the answer. But that
is
> only replacing a word for a phenomenon. You can carry on and describe the
> nature of gravity until you are blue in the face but it does not answer
why.
> The only why answers come from what people do. Even in this, science
attempts
> to appeal to our sense of a need for understanding, by attempting to
explain
> the reasons why people do do the things they do, but fails. Why is because
the
> neurones are firing in a particular way is, again, just another
description,
> description description..
> Evolutionary theory is for me one of the most brilliant observation ever
set
> down by man. It describes in exquisite detail with utter elegance the
means by
> which species have emerged from the primal soup, But it has no explanatory
> value. Evolution relies entirely on random changes in the composition of
new
> born creatures. The changes are under no pressure whatsoever. Evolution
does
> not cause a single change: things change randomly and evolution is the
> unguided consequence.
Acme Diagnostics
chz...@aol.com (Chzwmn) wrote:
>
>To give meaning to out lives in this godless world we have only ourselves and
>our responsibility to others to consider. Science has not the answers....
But our species has a destiny. First the stars, then our maker
and our meaning. That's where science seeks to go. To get there,
we keep our eyes open and try to figure out what we can. So
far it looks like we are moving towards that goal on balance.
In the meantime, we expand and improve our base. The spinoffs can
be used to improve our circumstances. Why not? Most species may
fail, but all must try. Most individuals may fail to contribute,
but they should try in some small way. There is meaning in that.
It's natural to be in a hurry, to want everything now. Some want
to get there in five minutes. Well, the reality is that our
Chzwmn
>
>chz...@aol.com (Chzwmn) wrote in message
>news:<20041013145358...@mb-m24.aol.com>...
>
>The advantages of the scientice method includes:
>
>The insistance of regular and reproduceable empirical feedback to
>validate theories.
>
I agree.
>The process of self-correction and self-criticism which allows for a
>belief system that is flexible.
I would not use the term belief system. I have more respect for the scientific
method that to use phrases which imply faith.
I think knowledge bass which be preferable. Sadly not all scientists live up to
this one, being inflexible with new ideas.
>
>It does not pretend to have all the answers, only approximations of
>the truth.
Again truth is a strong word. Some pretend that science has - or will have all
the answers.
>
>Some religions have already incorporated some of these aspects into
>their ideological beliefs, but it seems like a lot of them have been
>slow on the updates lately...
Indeed Catholics incorporated Aristotle and Ptolemy for a over a thousand
years. It took a revolution in thinking by those such as Copurnicus and Galileo
to overturn the errors. Not very flexible.
>
>Ryan
Richard
> > It's unreasonable to assume that things happen without a reason :-) But
> > seriously, why would there be no meaning?
>
> The universe is a physical system. Why should it have a meaning, a purpose
> or an intention? The idea is baffling.
Firstly how do you know it is a purely physical system? As a primitive
example, if we are have physical yet we do have consciousness that governs
our actions, and the universe is infinitely more complex than us and
controls various laws of nature, how can you ASSUME that it does not have
some form on consciousness or intelligence behind it?
You are quite right if you answer that empirical science can't observe it,
but in the view of a lot of empirical scientists, consciousness in humans
also can not be observed because it is not measurable. Psychological schools
fought a lot of battle to be even allowed to refer to it.
If your method is limited, so is your explanation.
> > No it is not. the man punched the other man with his fist. Like my
> > explanation? Do you understand?
> > Yes, you do, that the man punched the other man, but you are no closer
to
> > knowing why.
>
> That is one possible description, obviously not the one which answers your
> question.
No, that is what can be observed. The meaning behind it we have no idea. We
can guess though, but we may be wrong.
> > And a possible explanation for the 'process' is all you have. You don't
> know
> > if its the right answer, and you certainly don't know the meaning of it.
>
> Meaning? What do you mean by meaning? If you ask me why the light does not
> come on when you flick the switch and I answer: "Because the lightbulb
went
> bust", my reply answers your question, ie, it is an appropriate
explanation
> for your question. Would you then ask "what is the meaning of the
lightbulb
> going bust"?
If I didn't understand its purpose in the first place, yes.
> > Why? Who or what naturally selects? These are just speculations. I'm not
> say
> > there is even anything wrong with this, but I do feel we should view
> things
> > for what they are.
>
> Huh? Do you know how evolution works? What do you mean by "things for what
> they are"?
I'm not even arguing evolution. I am saying that it is a theory. We must
view it as such. People often counter that it is called the theory of
evolution, but it has an almost religious following by so many at this
stage, which I don't think is wise if it is just a guess.
> > And what is that, why does it select? Something can not select without
> > intelligence, which brings us back to the search for meaning.
>
> I think that you should read a bit about evolution before making such
> assertions.
Please explain why you agree with it, if you think I should share your
viewpoint.
> > Science does not explain the world. It observes certain parts of it and
> > theorises about other parts of it. That is not a good or a bad thing, it
> is
> > just what science does. What I do take exception too is the degree to
> which
> > these theories are thought as fact in public schools and other places.
>
> Which theories do you take exception to? The theory of gravity, Newton's
> mechanics, Einsteins' relativity, quantum mechanics, the electromagnetic
> theory, plate tectonics? I think we should be told. Why do I suspect you
> just have problems with the theory of evolution? Hmmm.
Because they are just observations. We can and do regularly make new
discoveries that make what a whole generation believed in mean nothing. The
textbooks are then re-written. I personally believe in the intersection of
all forms of knowledge to lead to a greater conclusion as to what reality
is.
The empirical method alone is terribly limited.
Richard
Acme Diagnostics
yid...@hotmail.com (Ryan Tanaka) wrote:
>chz...@aol.com (Chzwmn) wrote in message news:<20041013145358.04845.00004125@mb-
m24.aol.com>...
>
>The advantages of the scientice method includes:
>
>The insistance of regular and reproduceable empirical feedback to
>validate theories.
>
>belief system that is flexible.
>
>the truth.
>
>their ideological beliefs, but it seems like a lot of them have been
>slow on the updates lately...
Agree. Most, if not all, Christian supernatural dogma with which
I am familiar could be easily updated to at least be
scientifically and logically possible without changing the
practice or goals of that religion one proverbial iota.
It would take a while to make up new hymn lyrics, though. Well,
maybe they could call them folk hymns, then add some new ones.
The only problem is that some QM terms are hard to rhyme with.
But how about,
"Now our savior more realistically,"
"Can save you probabilistically."
>Ryan
I love maxims, including quotes like the Russel quotes I suspect
we both like. My very favorites are Twain's. I like making them
up too:
"One iteration of a fact is worth N iterations of a belief."
What do you think?
Here's one for psychologists:
"In real life, all the marbles are not the same."
Hehe.
Larry
``
Alan Wostenberg
Ryan Tanaka wrote:
> chz...@aol.com (Chzwmn) wrote in message news:<20041013145358...@mb-m24.aol.com>...
>
> The advantages of the scientice method includes:
>
> The insistance of regular and reproduceable empirical feedback to
> validate theories.
Thats how the empirical sciences work, but science is broader than
empiricism.
For example, consider the SETI project.
They are attempting to detect aliens.
They search the heavens for intelligent signals and do not rely on
repeatability. How could they? Who knows if the aliens will repeat
themselves? Who knows if they are out there? Yet none of this lack of
empiricism stops researchers from pressing on in the scienctific
research. So regularity and reproducability isn't essential to science.
Alan Wostenberg
Milan wrote:
> "Chzwmn" <chz...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20041014180206...@mb-m25.aol.com...
>
>>There is a clear differnce between explanation and description.
>>What some take to be explantion is only a description.
>>The naive atheist scientist declares that god did not make heaven and
>
> earth
>
>>becasue we now know about the big bang. Great - that explains why we are
>>here!!
>
>
> Wrong. The scientist (and any rational person) does not consider gods, or
> other imaginary supernatural entities as part of rational explanations
> because there is no evidence for such entities. The scientist (and any
> rational person) seeks naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena.
Creation scientists do consider God in their explanations. Some
scientists say they aren't True Scientists[tm]. Who adjudicates the dispute?
Chzwmn
SETI isn't really science but exploration. They might be using technology but
the method is not scientific.
Chzwmn
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!feed2.newsreader.com!news
reader.com!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!feed.news.tiscali.de!fu-berlin.de!
uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
>From: "Milan" mtk...@yahoo.com
>Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.debate
>Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 00:36:36 +0100
>Lines: 97
>Message-ID: <2t8golF...@uni-berlin.de>
>References: <2t5u2nF...@uni-berlin.de>
><20041014180206...@mb-m25.aol.com>
>X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de
>NLKWybWObSgHHMN2zmNtlAvN9Pp6D5Yl4JELkfLKIT+j/8wKYF
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
I know!!! But evolutioary theorist tend to ignore the majority of the mutations
which must be survival neutral. The majority are more likely to challenge
survivabilty or are not significant. Evolutionary science attepts to retrodict
those environmental factors which "cause" the "positive" changes. This is a
logical impossiblity and can only be totally speculative.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>The changes are under no pressure whatsoever. Evolution does
>> >> not cause a single change: things change randomly and evolution is the
>> >> unguided consequence.
>> >
>> >Natural selection selects for certain
>> >mutations.
>>
>> This statement is odd and reveals a problem with the way you concieve the
>> notion. Selection implies a selector - there is no such thing. "Natural
>> selection" was proposed as an antidote to god.
>
>Natural selection is a well established mechanism. It was not proposed as
>antidote to anything.
Natural selection is badly worded. Darwin proposed it has the antidote to a
"SELECTOR" because of the way people conceived nature at that time: changed by
the hand of god.
>
>> Evolution is change. Evolution does not cause change. It does not select.
>Some
>> things die and are not "selected" others are preserved. But evolution is
>or
>> guided to any end. If it can be said to be driven it is driven by a
>negative
>> force - death.
>
>Evolution selects for the genomic changes which better adapt to the
>environment.
NO - Evolution is the result of change. Evolution is not a force of nature.
Evolution is what happens when life-forms change. To say evolution selects or
evolution does anything is to assume or imply that it is a agent. This cannot
be.
This is a common mis-conception and one which is shared by many biological
scientists.
>
>> >
>> >> To give meaning to out lives in this godless world we have only
>ourselves
>> >and
>> >> our responsibility to others to consider. Science has not the
>answers....
>> >
>> >Science explains the world. Meaning is up to us. You seem to be confusing
>> >and conflating two different things.
>>
>> Science explains nothing. Only we can have reasons for living.
>
>You are making a salad of everything. Science explains how the world work.
No it describes how the world works - this is not an explanation.
Explanations are about reasons why.
Descriptions are about how things come to be or how they appear, or how one
thing leads to another.
Try me.. give me one scientific explanation and we'll work it through. I'm
willing bet that it make the say sense if you replace why with how.
Why is the sky blue?? There is no reason why the sky is blue it just looks that
way.
How is it that the sky appears blue. Now describe what you know about how the
eye receives light or how the atmosphere absorbs certain wavelegths. Then yuo
have described the physical universe and answered HOW.
Bob's Boyfriend
chz...@aol.com (Chzwmn) wrote:
SETI is a foolish endeavour.
The chances of a civilization producing radio signals is true. It's us
and it's called projection.
Ryan Tanaka
I've met some religious people that I can honestly give my respects
to, so I honestly don't think it's a matter of their beliefs in God
that makes or breaks a person. But if they're intelligent enough they
will realize that the doctorine that the church provides for them are
written by humans, and since humans are falliable it doesn't make
sense to strictly follow what's written in the book. Progressive
churches and religious people with a progressive outlook seem to make
a point to follow societal trends, but it seems that religious
institutions in general have been slow to adapt to the changing times.
In a nutshell, I'd say that people who are religious should do their
omnipotent deity a favor and scrap their absolute, unwaivering support
for the church. To put that much faith in a man-made invention would
be a kind of insult to God, if you ask me. Wasn't there some passage
about worshipping false idols?
Ryan
Alan Wostenberg
It is a passive experiment -- designed to look for, but not send, signals.
Milan
"Alan Wostenberg" <awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:416F5177...@psalmweaver.com...
science. There is no theory of creation. Ergo there are no creation
scientists.
regards
Milan
Milan
"Richard" <nos...@nospam.none> wrote in message
> "Milan" <mtk...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > > It's unreasonable to assume that things happen without a reason :-)
But
> > > seriously, why would there be no meaning?
> >
> > The universe is a physical system. Why should it have a meaning, a
purpose
> > or an intention? The idea is baffling.
>
> Firstly how do you know it is a purely physical system? As a primitive
> example, if we are have physical yet we do have consciousness that governs
> our actions, and the universe is infinitely more complex than us and
> controls various laws of nature, how can you ASSUME that it does not have
> some form on consciousness or intelligence behind it?
If you wish you can assume that we are just the dream of the green ants, or
a head in a vat, or the creation of a team of malignant demons or that the
whole universe is simply the dream of a god or whatever. The most
parsimonious hypothesis and that which fits the evidence is that the
universe is a physical system. So we stick to it until refuted by contrary
evidence.
> You are quite right if you answer that empirical science can't observe it,
> but in the view of a lot of empirical scientists, consciousness in humans
> also can not be observed because it is not measurable. Psychological
schools
> fought a lot of battle to be even allowed to refer to it.
>
> If your method is limited, so is your explanation.
The empirical method is the only method by which you can observe and study
natural phenomena. It may be limited but there is no other one.
> > > No it is not. the man punched the other man with his fist. Like my
> > > explanation? Do you understand?
> > > Yes, you do, that the man punched the other man, but you are no closer
> to
> > > knowing why.
> >
> > That is one possible description, obviously not the one which answers
your
> > question.
> No, that is what can be observed. The meaning behind it we have no idea.
We
> can guess though, but we may be wrong.
Try asking the guy why he punched the other guy.
> > > And a possible explanation for the 'process' is all you have. You
don't
> > know
> > > if its the right answer, and you certainly don't know the meaning of
it.
> >
> > Meaning? What do you mean by meaning? If you ask me why the light does
not
> > come on when you flick the switch and I answer: "Because the lightbulb
> went
> > bust", my reply answers your question, ie, it is an appropriate
> explanation
> > for your question. Would you then ask "what is the meaning of the
> lightbulb
> > going bust"?
>
> If I didn't understand its purpose in the first place, yes.
But you do understand the purpose of a lightbulb. Dont you? So, what is the
meaning of a lightbulb going bust?
>
> > > Why? Who or what naturally selects? These are just speculations. I'm
not
> > say
> > > there is even anything wrong with this, but I do feel we should view
> > things
> > > for what they are.
> >
> > Huh? Do you know how evolution works? What do you mean by "things for
what
> > they are"?
>
> I'm not even arguing evolution. I am saying that it is a theory. We must
> view it as such. People often counter that it is called the theory of
> evolution, but it has an almost religious following by so many at this
> stage, which I don't think is wise if it is just a guess.
Your confusion stems from your lack of understanding of what a scientific
theory is.. You seem to think that a theory is "just a guess". This may be
the common, colloquial usage of the term, but in science a theory is a
coherent explanation for a large number of facts and observations about the
natural world. A theory is internally consistent and compatible with the
evidence, it is firmly based on solid evidence, tested against a wide range
of phenomena, and effective in problem-solving.
> > > And what is that, why does it select? Something can not select without
> > > intelligence, which brings us back to the search for meaning.
> >
> > I think that you should read a bit about evolution before making such
> > assertions.
>
> Please explain why you agree with it, if you think I should share your
> viewpoint.
It would be pointless to argue about the theory of evolution when you
manifestly dont know anything about it. I would advise you to gather some
information about it and only then talk about it.
> > > Science does not explain the world. It observes certain parts of it
and
> > > theorises about other parts of it. That is not a good or a bad thing,
it
> > is
> > > just what science does. What I do take exception too is the degree to
> > which
> > > these theories are thought as fact in public schools and other places.
> >
> > Which theories do you take exception to? The theory of gravity, Newton's
> > mechanics, Einsteins' relativity, quantum mechanics, the electromagnetic
> > theory, plate tectonics? I think we should be told. Why do I suspect
you
> > just have problems with the theory of evolution? Hmmm.
>
> Because they are just observations. We can and do regularly make new
> discoveries that make what a whole generation believed in mean nothing.
The
> textbooks are then re-written. I personally believe in the intersection of
> all forms of knowledge to lead to a greater conclusion as to what reality
> is.
>
> The empirical method alone is terribly limited.
Do you know any other?
regards
Milan
Milan
I insist that clearly you dont understand evolution. I would advise you to
read about it (there is no shortage of sources -you could have a look at
www.talkorigins.org).
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>The changes are under no pressure whatsoever. Evolution does
> >> >> not cause a single change: things change randomly and evolution is
the
> >> >> unguided consequence.
> >> >
> >> >Natural selection selects for certain
> >> >mutations.
> >>
> >> This statement is odd and reveals a problem with the way you concieve
the
> >> notion. Selection implies a selector - there is no such thing. "Natural
> >> selection" was proposed as an antidote to god.
> >
> >Natural selection is a well established mechanism. It was not proposed as
> >antidote to anything.
>
> Natural selection is badly worded. Darwin proposed it has the antidote to
a
> "SELECTOR" because of the way people conceived nature at that time:
changed by
> the hand of god.
Please read about evolution before making these daring unsupported
assertions.
> >
> >> Evolution is change. Evolution does not cause change. It does not
select.
> >Some
> >> things die and are not "selected" others are preserved. But evolution
is
> >or
> >> guided to any end. If it can be said to be driven it is driven by a
> >negative
> >> force - death.
> >
> >Evolution selects for the genomic changes which better adapt to the
> >environment.
>
> NO - Evolution is the result of change. Evolution is not a force of
nature.
> Evolution is what happens when life-forms change. To say evolution selects
or
> evolution does anything is to assume or imply that it is a agent. This
cannot
> be.
> This is a common mis-conception and one which is shared by many biological
> scientists.
See above.
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >> To give meaning to out lives in this godless world we have only
> >ourselves
> >> >and
> >> >> our responsibility to others to consider. Science has not the
> >answers....
> >> >
> >> >Science explains the world. Meaning is up to us. You seem to be
confusing
> >> >and conflating two different things.
> >>
> >> Science explains nothing. Only we can have reasons for living.
> >
> >You are making a salad of everything. Science explains how the world
work.
>
> No it describes how the world works - this is not an explanation.
If you know how things work, then you understand how things work. If this is
not an explanation I dont know what is.
> Explanations are about reasons why.
> Descriptions are about how things come to be or how they appear, or how
one
> thing leads to another.
This is a typical confusion. All why questions lead to how answers. If I ask
you why the light does not come on when I flick the switch you can answer
"because the fuse went bust". If I ask you why there is no light when the
fuse goes bust you can answer "because you need a closed circuit to make the
lightbulb work". If I ask you why you need a closed circuit you can reply
that "there is no flow of electrons if the circuit is not closed". Further
questions would lead to what is electric current, what are electrons, etc
etc. So you always get an answer about *how* things work. The description of
how things work operates as an explanation to why things happen the way they
happen.
> Try me.. give me one scientific explanation and we'll work it through. I'm
> willing bet that it make the say sense if you replace why with how.
> Why is the sky blue?? There is no reason why the sky is blue it just looks
that
> way.
See above the story of the lightbulb etc.
> How is it that the sky appears blue. Now describe what you know about how
the
> eye receives light or how the atmosphere absorbs certain wavelegths. Then
yuo
> have described the physical universe and answered HOW.
Exactly. Asking eg why the air contains nitrogen and oxygen or why water is
made of hydrogen and oxygen or why electrons have the charge they have and
not a different charge are meaningless questions. Things are the way they
are. And science tells you the way they are. And this knowledge gives you
understanding about how things work.
regards
Milan
Alan Wostenberg
They call themselves scientists. By what authority do you cast them out?
Chzwmn
>>
>> SETI isn't really science but exploration. They might be using technology
>but
>> the method is not scientific.
>
>It is a passive experiment -- designed to look for, but not send, signals.
There is nothing passive about looking. It is active exploration, just like
Colombus
danti
> composition of new
> born creatures. The changes are under no pressure whatsoever.
> not cause a single change: things change randomly and evolution is
> the
> unguided consequence.
> ourselves and
> our responsibility to others to consider. Science has not the
> answers....
science, philosophy or just plain common sense can go a long
way..........what meaning asks a daisy (if a daisy could think) can my
life have?.......btw evolution does not rely on chance.........things
change because they must meet the challenges that are before
it.....weather, other species etc.......but the real question
is...where do these changes originate..a particular moth has the eyes
of a predator which keep it safe or relatively so............how did
this moth manage to design such a thing on its wings? chance? (the
easy solution).....do not lump this question with creationism......we
are thinking machines, and what man does best..............
Milan
By the authority that simple definitions give. Nobody has ever produced a
theory of creation. There is no research done by these "scientists", there
are no data and no publications. All there is is open or very thinly veiled
Christian apologetics. I dont think this is a contentious issue, really.
regards
Milan
Mani Deli
>
>"Alan Wostenberg" <awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
>news:41708E6B...@psalmweaver.com...
>>
>> > The issue is quite simple. There is no dispute. There is no creation
>> > science. There is no theory of creation. Ergo there are no creation
>> > scientists.
>> They call themselves scientists. By what authority do you cast them out?
>
>By the authority that simple definitions give. Nobody has ever produced a
>theory of creation. There is no research done by these "scientists", there
>are no data and no publications. All there is is open or very thinly veiled
>Christian apologetics. I dont think this is a contentious issue, really.
>
They can and do call themselves whatever they wish.
Their theory is based on Bible babble. For them that's the end of the
discussion. Their science is Sunday school science and as long as
that's about the educational limit of the average fundamentalist
nincompoop, creation "science" will remain a science in their minds.
At the rate things are going loads of other stupidity will be labeled
science in the mind of the average American boob. Our president select
is a good example.
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
"The true axis of evil in America is the brilliance of our marketing
combined with the stupidity of our people."
- Bill Maher
Chzwmn
>science, philosophy or just plain common sense can go a long
>way..........what meaning asks a daisy (if a daisy could think) can my
>life have?.......btw evolution does not rely on chance.........things
>change because they must meet the challenges that are before
>it.....weather, other species etc
This is just SO wrong. THey call that Lamarkism at best, creationism at worse.
By what mechanism do animals and plants recognise the challenges and change
their genes ?????
.......but the real question
>is...where do these changes originate..a particular moth has the eyes
>of a predator which keep it safe or relatively so............how did
>this moth manage to design such a thing on its wings? chance? (the
>easy solution).....do not lump this question with creationism......we
>are thinking machines, and what man does best..............
But you were born with a set of genes and you will die with exactly the same
set. You r seed or eggs if you are female will NOT change fo your whole life.
There is nothing about your life experience that can reflect positively on the
genetic makeup of your progeny..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Richard
> > Firstly how do you know it is a purely physical system? As a primitive
> > example, if we are have physical yet we do have consciousness that
governs
> > our actions, and the universe is infinitely more complex than us and
> > controls various laws of nature, how can you ASSUME that it does not
have
> > some form on consciousness or intelligence behind it?
>
> If you wish you can assume that we are just the dream of the green ants,
or
> a head in a vat, or the creation of a team of malignant demons or that the
> whole universe is simply the dream of a god or whatever. The most
> parsimonious hypothesis and that which fits the evidence is that the
> universe is a physical system. So we stick to it until refuted by contrary
> evidence.
What you are discussing above is the nature of a creator. My point is that
it logically follows that if the complex human body has a force or
consciousness to govern its actions, and the universe is infinitely more
complex, then it must have an infinitely more complex force or consciousness
to govern it. I consider this to be the most parsimonious and simple answer
to the existance of the world, for example. Where does the world come from?
Guesses are all that anyone has to offer.
> The empirical method is the only method by which you can observe and study
> natural phenomena. It may be limited but there is no other one.
There is no other way of measuring what we can percieve in terms or modern
maths etc, no. However, as has been stated previously, we have little
knowledge what this information actually means.
There is nothing wrong with empirical science, but its like trying to do all
your homework with a ruler alone. You need to use more.
> > No, that is what can be observed. The meaning behind it we have no idea.
> We can guess though, but we may be wrong.
> Try asking the guy why he punched the other guy.
That sounds almost like a religious answer if we're talking about the nature
of the world here :-)
> > If I didn't understand its purpose in the first place, yes.
>
> But you do understand the purpose of a lightbulb. Dont you? So, what is
the
> meaning of a lightbulb going bust?
But we don't understand the meaning of the world, or do we? And it hasn't
gone bust.
> Your confusion stems from your lack of understanding of what a scientific
> theory is.. You seem to think that a theory is "just a guess". This may
be
> the common, colloquial usage of the term, but in science a theory is a
> coherent explanation for a large number of facts and observations about
the
> natural world. A theory is internally consistent and compatible with the
> evidence, it is firmly based on solid evidence, tested against a wide
range
> of phenomena, and effective in problem-solving.
However it is also not to be confused with truth. At best it is an educated
guess, and the variable on which this guess is made are often generalisation
made from measurements of different environmental aspects.
> It would be pointless to argue about the theory of evolution when you
> manifestly dont know anything about it. I would advise you to gather some
> information about it and only then talk about it.
It is a theory, a guess and it should not be thought as fact. That is my
point.
> > The empirical method alone is terribly limited.
> Do you know any other?
As I have said before, I believe in the intersection of science, philosophy
and religion to understand this amazing world in which we find ourselves. We
need to use all resources available to us.
Richard
Milan
"Richard" <nos...@nospam.none> wrote in message
> "Milan" <mtk...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > > Firstly how do you know it is a purely physical system? As a primitive
> > > example, if we are have physical yet we do have consciousness that
> governs
> > > our actions, and the universe is infinitely more complex than us and
> > > controls various laws of nature, how can you ASSUME that it does not
> have
> > > some form on consciousness or intelligence behind it?
> >
> > If you wish you can assume that we are just the dream of the green ants,
> or
> > a head in a vat, or the creation of a team of malignant demons or that
the
> > whole universe is simply the dream of a god or whatever. The most
> > parsimonious hypothesis and that which fits the evidence is that the
> > universe is a physical system. So we stick to it until refuted by
contrary
> > evidence.
>
> What you are discussing above is the nature of a creator.
Where did I discuss the nature of a creator? You must be confusing me with
another poster.
>My point is that
> it logically follows that if the complex human body has a force or
> consciousness to govern its actions, and the universe is infinitely more
> complex, then it must have an infinitely more complex force or
consciousness
> to govern it.
No, it doesnt. It doesnt even follow that the universe is governed by any
force or consciousness. Your logic is flawed.
> I consider this to be the most parsimonious and simple answer
> to the existance of the world, for example. Where does the world come
from?
> Guesses are all that anyone has to offer.
So positing a mysterious force or consciousness is a parsimonious answer?
Parsimony means economy of hypotheses, not excess of hypothesis. It's the
good old Ockam's razor.
> > The empirical method is the only method by which you can observe and
study
> > natural phenomena. It may be limited but there is no other one.
>
> There is no other way of measuring what we can percieve in terms or modern
> maths etc, no. However, as has been stated previously, we have little
> knowledge what this information actually means.
What information are you talking about? You are not making sense.
> There is nothing wrong with empirical science, but its like trying to do
all
> your homework with a ruler alone. You need to use more.
Such as a feverish imagination?
> > > No, that is what can be observed. The meaning behind it we have no
idea.
> > We can guess though, but we may be wrong.
>
> > Try asking the guy why he punched the other guy.
>
> That sounds almost like a religious answer if we're talking about the
nature
> of the world here :-)
No, it doesnt. If you want to know why somebody did something you ask them.
It's simple.
> > > If I didn't understand its purpose in the first place, yes.
> >
> > But you do understand the purpose of a lightbulb. Dont you? So, what is
> the
> > meaning of a lightbulb going bust?
>
> But we don't understand the meaning of the world, or do we? And it hasn't
> gone bust.
The problem is that you are assuming taht the world has a meaning. That is
your problem, not mine. Why do you assume it does? You just like to think it
does.
> > Your confusion stems from your lack of understanding of what a
scientific
> > theory is.. You seem to think that a theory is "just a guess". This may
> be
> > the common, colloquial usage of the term, but in science a theory is a
> > coherent explanation for a large number of facts and observations about
> the
> > natural world. A theory is internally consistent and compatible with the
> > evidence, it is firmly based on solid evidence, tested against a wide
> range
> > of phenomena, and effective in problem-solving.
>
> However it is also not to be confused with truth. At best it is an
educated
> guess, and the variable on which this guess is made are often
generalisation
> made from measurements of different environmental aspects.
You refuse to understand. A theory is not a guess, educated or uneducated.
And what other criteria do you propose to approximate "truth"?
> > It would be pointless to argue about the theory of evolution when you
> > manifestly dont know anything about it. I would advise you to gather
some
> > information about it and only then talk about it.
>
> It is a theory, a guess and it should not be thought as fact. That is my
> point.
Evolution is both a theory and a fact.
> > > The empirical method alone is terribly limited.
>
> > Do you know any other?
>
> As I have said before, I believe in the intersection of science,
philosophy
> and religion to understand this amazing world in which we find ourselves.
We
> need to use all resources available to us.
There is no intersection between science and religion. Religion is
mythology, how can it help you understand the world? You must as well take
LSD.
regards
Milan
Richard
> > What you are discussing above is the nature of a creator.
>
> Where did I discuss the nature of a creator? You must be confusing me with
> another poster.
You were talking about giant ants and heads in vats or something :-)
> >My point is that
> > it logically follows that if the complex human body has a force or
> > consciousness to govern its actions, and the universe is infinitely more
> > complex, then it must have an infinitely more complex force or
> consciousness
> > to govern it.
> No, it doesnt. It doesnt even follow that the universe is governed by any
> force or consciousness. Your logic is flawed.
So by your logic, it is reasonable to assume that other people do not have
consciousness, just because you can't prove it?
> > I consider this to be the most parsimonious and simple answer
> > to the existance of the world, for example. Where does the world come
> from?
> > Guesses are all that anyone has to offer.
>
> So positing a mysterious force or consciousness is a parsimonious answer?
> Parsimony means economy of hypotheses, not excess of hypothesis. It's the
> good old Ockam's razor.
I know well what it means and I think that it is a very simple observation
that if we are physical and have consciousness to function, then so can the
universe.
> > There is no other way of measuring what we can percieve in terms or
modern
> > maths etc, no. However, as has been stated previously, we have little
> > knowledge what this information actually means.
>
> What information are you talking about? You are not making sense.
We can measure things as much as we like, but what does that actually tell
us? Apart from the measurements?
> > There is nothing wrong with empirical science, but its like trying to do
> > all your homework with a ruler alone. You need to use more.
>
> Such as a feverish imagination?
If you want measurements, science is great. If you want truth and meaning,
it has no answers.
> > That sounds almost like a religious answer if we're talking about the
> > nature of the world here :-)
>
> No, it doesnt. If you want to know why somebody did something you ask
them.
> It's simple.
That was actually an analogy. There aren't two guys to ask. It's
unscientific to ask what the meaning of the world is. It is scienctific to
measure it.
> > But we don't understand the meaning of the world, or do we? And it
hasn't
> > gone bust.
>
> The problem is that you are assuming taht the world has a meaning. That is
> your problem, not mine. Why do you assume it does? You just like to think
it
> does.
It came from somewhere didn't it?
> > However it is also not to be confused with truth. At best it is an
> educated
> > guess, and the variable on which this guess is made are often
> generalisation
> > made from measurements of different environmental aspects.
>
> You refuse to understand. A theory is not a guess, educated or uneducated.
Em, yes it is. A theory can never be proven, only disproven. You should know
this is one of the findamentals you learn when you study science.
> And what other criteria do you propose to approximate "truth"?
Everything! If everything we experience is the product of this universe,
then we owe it to ourselves to learn more about everything in every way to
further our knowledge and understanding.
My point is quite simple that science is not where the answers lie. It is
just one small vein of a much bigger picture.
> > It is a theory, a guess and it should not be thought as fact. That is my
> > point.
>
> Evolution is both a theory and a fact.
That is a very unscientific statment, and you should know that. It is a
theory which is an educated guess which may or may not be proven wrong at
any time.
> > As I have said before, I believe in the intersection of science,
> philosophy
> > and religion to understand this amazing world in which we find
ourselves.
> We
> > need to use all resources available to us.
>
> There is no intersection between science and religion. Religion is
> mythology, how can it help you understand the world? You must as well take
> LSD.
What do you mean by religion in general being mythology? Prove to me that
religion is mythology if you wish to make that statement. And be more
specific as to what you are referring to by that statement.
You are generalising and making assupmtions - a very unscientific and
dangerous view to take.
Richard
Acme Diagnostics
>And what other criteria do you propose to approximate "truth"?
I mostly just wanted to say that I enjoy reading your posts and
highlighted you in my reader. Quite a bit of material by now and
it seems I agree with all that I know from long experience and
otherwise think I know, and I'm learning stuff.
>>> It would be pointless to argue about the theory of evolution when you
>>> manifestly dont know anything about it. I would advise you to gather
>some
>>> information about it and only then talk about it.
>>
>> It is a theory, a guess and it should not be thought as fact. That is my
>> point.
>
>Evolution is both a theory and a fact.
However I think you just hiccupped.
Your previous material seems to suggests that a fact is an
empirical observation, or a scientific fact is an empirical
observation confirmed by qualified designated observers. Anyway,
I'd expect an "agree" here.
That doesn't include logic, or if it does, I offer that most
disciplined observers require the logic to be trivially short and
compelling.
In logic, a fact is very close to the logical test for truth,
small t, or the same thing because I see logicians use the two
terms interchangeably, recently in a Tarski description which
upon my highlighting wasn't jumped on by the 20 other persnickety
logicians posting. So it appears that, logically, "fact" is right
up there with "proven" and "theorem."
But you could argue that science is not logic and I'd agree.
Nevertheless, where logic is involved, I think science holds fact
to this high logical standard or very close to it.
I understand that the logic of evolutionary theory falls far
short of that standard. Short logic and observation, I believe,
confirms natural selection, etc. But it doesn't preclude
intervention somewhere along the line, for instance by an
advanced technology, and how could it?
Of course in strict science the default case is that there is no
advanced technology, etc. But a default case does not constitute
a "fact" and I know of no scientist claiming the non-existence of
ET, or even the non-existence of a visitation, to be a fact.
Additionally, here we are in a philosophy group and does the
default case necessarily apply? I think the probability case, let
the cards fall where they may, applies here. Whatever the
probability of ET, it is not zero.
For those two reasons, I think the general consensus about
intervention, then, is "most likely not," for whatever that's
worth. Anyway, I don't think it's worth being a "fact."
I joke about the Raelean guru telling his blonde spokesbimbo
to go wash the spaceship. I'm no UFO nut, but rather a (former)
amateur astronomer reasonably well-informed on the probability
of ET, but not so well-informed on the theory of evolution. I
have the overall context, and I think that's sufficient to voice
my small objection here.
If you know of a term for an empirical observation that would be
closer to Truth, large T, than "fact" I would like to be
corrected because I have been using "fact" a lot in this sense.
Larry
John Wilkins
"fact" has a certain meaning in different contexts (think: "moral fact",
"social fact", "legal fact"...). In science, it means, as Gould said,
that which it would be perverse to withold consent to. Hence both "basic
statements" such as empirical observations, and direct implications of
that, can be called facts. [And there is no easy demarcation between
fact and theory either...]
But evolutionary processes have all been observed, including adaptation,
speciation, biogeographic diversification, etc. It is a very short
inference that it has been happening all the period of earth's history
since the first organisms. I don't think this beggars the meaning of
"fact" in this context...
--
John S. Wilkins jo...@wilkins.id.au
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
Bob's Boyfriend
john...@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> "fact" has a certain meaning in different contexts (think: "moral fact",
> "social fact", "legal fact"...). In science, it means, as Gould said,
> that which it would be perverse to withold consent to. Hence both "basic
> statements" such as empirical observations, and direct implications of
> that, can be called facts. [And there is no easy demarcation between
> fact and theory either...]
Facts also appear temporally fixed. The Earth revolves around the Sun
would be perverse to contest, until the Sun goes nova, the Earth's orbit
"decays", a black hole swallows up both, etc.
John Wilkins
Yes, but you can get around this for sub specie aeternitatis cases by
time indexing them:
At t [Earth orbits the sub] - is always true.
Bob's Boyfriend
john...@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> Bob's Boyfriend <toge...@wyoming.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1gluwaw.19lfxji15u80h8N%john...@wilkins.id.au>,
> > john...@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> >
> > > "fact" has a certain meaning in different contexts (think: "moral fact",
> > > "social fact", "legal fact"...). In science, it means, as Gould said,
> > > that which it would be perverse to withold consent to. Hence both "basic
> > > statements" such as empirical observations, and direct implications of
> > > that, can be called facts. [And there is no easy demarcation between
> > > fact and theory either...]
> >
> > Facts also appear temporally fixed. The Earth revolves around the Sun
> > would be perverse to contest, until the Sun goes nova, the Earth's orbit
> > "decays", a black hole swallows up both, etc.
>
> Yes, but you can get around this for sub specie aeternitatis cases by
> time indexing them:
>
> At t [Earth orbits the sub] - is always true.
Perhaps, I am misunderstanding.
If the Earth if 4.5B years old then 5B ago this was also untrue.
John Wilkins
> In article <1gluyzq.7pj3zb1xtz3xpN%john...@wilkins.id.au>,
> john...@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > Bob's Boyfriend <toge...@wyoming.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1gluwaw.19lfxji15u80h8N%john...@wilkins.id.au>,
> > > john...@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> > >
> > > > "fact" has a certain meaning in different contexts (think: "moral fact",
> > > > "social fact", "legal fact"...). In science, it means, as Gould said,
> > > > that which it would be perverse to withold consent to. Hence both "basic
> > > > statements" such as empirical observations, and direct implications of
> > > > that, can be called facts. [And there is no easy demarcation between
> > > > fact and theory either...]
> > >
> > > Facts also appear temporally fixed. The Earth revolves around the Sun
> > > would be perverse to contest, until the Sun goes nova, the Earth's orbit
> > > "decays", a black hole swallows up both, etc.
> >
> > Yes, but you can get around this for sub specie aeternitatis cases by
> > time indexing them:
> >
> > At t [Earth orbits the sub] - is always true.
^^^ sun
>
> Perhaps, I am misunderstanding.
>
> If the Earth if 4.5B years old then 5B ago this was also untrue.
Let's give 4.5bya an absolute date t and the date at which the earth is
consumed by the red giant the sun will become u.
It is always true that "From t to u, the Earth orbits the sun". This is
a time index. It makes that proposition true no matter when it is
uttered.
Bob's Boyfriend
john...@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
As I originally stated, it is temporally fixed. This fact has a 'best
before' and 'not until' date.
Acme Diagnostics
What "Gould" said means no more to me than what my grandma says,
and she died 30 years ago. However, I'm interested in what you
have to say, since you're here to answer objections.
>Hence
"Hence" introduces a conclusion. But I see no premises other than
something about moral, social, legal, none of which is
related to my argument, and something "Gould" said.
>both "basic
>statements" such as empirical observations, and direct implications of
>that, can be called facts.
Anything can be called a fact. Any 8-year-old knows that. You
could instead post a famous example of some implication that is
called a fact by famous scientists, and that is so popularly
well-known that I am likely to be familiar with it according to
my qualifications posted above for that very reason.
>[And there is no easy demarcation between
>fact and theory either...]
That says nothing. It is simply a pure opinion by a Usenet poster
I don't know. I accord my own unsupported opinions equal value.
>But evolutionary processes have all been observed, including adaptation,
>speciation, biogeographic diversification, etc. It is a very short
>inference that it has been happening all the period of earth's history
>since the first organisms.
The above is entirely non-responsive. The assertion was "it does
not preclude intervention." That was the assertion to address.
>I don't think this beggars the meaning of
>"fact" in this context...
I don't see any meaning in that sentence.
>John S. Wilkins jo...@wilkins.id.au
>web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
John, you've made one entirely non-responsive post to me. That
doesn't mean anything, I've done a lot worse. I do not expect all
correspondents to be expert logical arguers, though I do note
the word "debate" in the group name.
I hope you will again respond to my original post, this time
being directly responsive to any point with which you disagree,
and directly underneath my text containing that point.
Also, try to avoid that which is only pure opinion, or the
opinion of some authority figure to you, but give some logic
based on premises with which I am already likely to agree, or
which I've stated more-or-less, or some paragraph-length directly
responsive explanation, or point out a likely error in my
reasoning, or a directly responsive example. That is the
convention all posters in this group have followed with me so
far, also the non-responders I've complimented such as Milan, and
it has been very productive.
I believe you do have something useful to teach us. I fully
expect to be corrected at some point within my argument. That's
why I kept saying "I think," "it seems," and so on.
Larry
Milan
"Acme Diagnostics" <LFinez...@partpostmark.net> wrote in message
news:4173433f$0$10656$45be...@newscene.com...
>
> "Milan" <mtk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"Richard" <nos...@nospam.none> wrote in message
> >
> >You refuse to understand. A theory is not a guess, educated or
uneducated.
> >And what other criteria do you propose to approximate "truth"?
>
> I mostly just wanted to say that I enjoy reading your posts and
> highlighted you in my reader. Quite a bit of material by now and
> it seems I agree with all that I know from long experience and
> otherwise think I know, and I'm learning stuff.
Thanks for the compliment.
> >>> It would be pointless to argue about the theory of evolution when you
> >>> manifestly dont know anything about it. I would advise you to gather
> >some
> >>> information about it and only then talk about it.
> >>
> >> It is a theory, a guess and it should not be thought as fact. That is
my
> >> point.
> >
> >Evolution is both a theory and a fact.
>
> However I think you just hiccupped.
>
> Your previous material seems to suggests that a fact is an
> empirical observation, or a scientific fact is an empirical
> observation confirmed by qualified designated observers. Anyway,
> I'd expect an "agree" here.
A good source of information for these issues is the website
http://www.talkorigins.
There you find the following very brief explanation:
"Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a
population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also
refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The
evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is
so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution
describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact
and a theory."
For a more detailed explanation of why evolution is considered both a fact
and a theory, the same website has the following article:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
> That doesn't include logic, or if it does, I offer that most
> disciplined observers require the logic to be trivially short and
> compelling.
>
> In logic, a fact is very close to the logical test for truth,
> small t, or the same thing because I see logicians use the two
> terms interchangeably, recently in a Tarski description which
> upon my highlighting wasn't jumped on by the 20 other persnickety
> logicians posting. So it appears that, logically, "fact" is right
> up there with "proven" and "theorem."
>
> But you could argue that science is not logic and I'd agree.
> Nevertheless, where logic is involved, I think science holds fact
> to this high logical standard or very close to it.
Science, as an empirical discipline, doesnt work with "proof". It works with
evidence. In this context, fact means a piece of data which has been
confirmed beyond reasonable doubt.
> I understand that the logic of evolutionary theory falls far
> short of that standard. Short logic and observation, I believe,
> confirms natural selection, etc. But it doesn't preclude
> intervention somewhere along the line, for instance by an
> advanced technology, and how could it?
> Of course in strict science the default case is that there is no
> advanced technology, etc. But a default case does not constitute
> a "fact" and I know of no scientist claiming the non-existence of
> ET, or even the non-existence of a visitation, to be a fact.
> Additionally, here we are in a philosophy group and does the
> default case necessarily apply? I think the probability case, let
> the cards fall where they may, applies here. Whatever the
> probability of ET, it is not zero.
The probability of ET tampering with the evolutionary process is not zero,
if you wish. However, science goes for the parsimonious, rather than the
profligate. If you can explain the data without ET, then you explain it
without ET. This goes not only for evolution, but for everything else.
> For those two reasons, I think the general consensus about
> intervention, then, is "most likely not," for whatever that's
> worth. Anyway, I don't think it's worth being a "fact."
If that is the case then there are no facts, because you could posit that
undetectable beings might be tampering with any physical or biological
process.
> I joke about the Raelean guru telling his blonde spokesbimbo
> to go wash the spaceship. I'm no UFO nut, but rather a (former)
> amateur astronomer reasonably well-informed on the probability
> of ET, but not so well-informed on the theory of evolution. I
> have the overall context, and I think that's sufficient to voice
> my small objection here.
>
> If you know of a term for an empirical observation that would be
> closer to Truth, large T, than "fact" I would like to be
> corrected because I have been using "fact" a lot in this sense.
Truth has a large T only when it appears at the beginning of a sentence;
otherwise it always has a small t.
regards
Milan
> Larry
Milan
"Richard" <nos...@nospam.none> wrote in message
> "Milan" <mtk...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
> > >My point is that
> > > it logically follows that if the complex human body has a force or
> > > consciousness to govern its actions, and the universe is infinitely
more
> > > complex, then it must have an infinitely more complex force or
> > consciousness
> > > to govern it.
>
> > No, it doesnt. It doesnt even follow that the universe is governed by
any
> > force or consciousness. Your logic is flawed.
>
> So by your logic, it is reasonable to assume that other people do not have
> consciousness, just because you can't prove it?
No, I dont think it is reasonable. Like I dont think that it is reasonable
to assume that other people have no livers, hearts, bones or mitochondria.
However, this doesnt lead me to assume that rivers, mountains or the
universe have livers, hearts, bones or mitochondria.
> > > I consider this to be the most parsimonious and simple answer
> > > to the existance of the world, for example. Where does the world come
> > from?
> > > Guesses are all that anyone has to offer.
> >
> > So positing a mysterious force or consciousness is a parsimonious
answer?
> > Parsimony means economy of hypotheses, not excess of hypothesis. It's
the
> > good old Ockam's razor.
>
> I know well what it means and I think that it is a very simple observation
> that if we are physical and have consciousness to function, then so can
the
> universe.
This is not an observation at all; it is an analogy at best; and an utterly
flawed analogy at that. As I said before, would you assume that the universe
has neurons, bones, hearts, livers, etc. If not, why not?
> > > There is no other way of measuring what we can percieve in terms or
> modern
> > > maths etc, no. However, as has been stated previously, we have little
> > > knowledge what this information actually means.
> >
> > What information are you talking about? You are not making sense.
>
> We can measure things as much as we like, but what does that actually tell
> us? Apart from the measurements?
It tells us how things work.
> > > There is nothing wrong with empirical science, but its like trying to
do
> > > all your homework with a ruler alone. You need to use more.
> >
> > Such as a feverish imagination?
>
> If you want measurements, science is great. If you want truth and meaning,
> it has no answers.
You keep repeating this as a mantra. Please give us a method that gives us
truth which is not based on reason and evidence.
> > > That sounds almost like a religious answer if we're talking about the
> > > nature of the world here :-)
> >
> > No, it doesnt. If you want to know why somebody did something you ask
> them.
> > It's simple.
>
> That was actually an analogy. There aren't two guys to ask. It's
> unscientific to ask what the meaning of the world is. It is scienctific to
> measure it.
But why do you think that the world has a meaning?
> > > But we don't understand the meaning of the world, or do we? And it
> hasn't
> > > gone bust.
> >
> > The problem is that you are assuming taht the world has a meaning. That
is
> > your problem, not mine. Why do you assume it does? You just like to
think
> it
> > does.
>
> It came from somewhere didn't it?
You are assuming a creator. And therefore you try to force the conclusion
that the universe must therefore have a meaning. This is wishful thinking.
> > > However it is also not to be confused with truth. At best it is an
> > educated
> > > guess, and the variable on which this guess is made are often
> > generalisation
> > > made from measurements of different environmental aspects.
> >
> > You refuse to understand. A theory is not a guess, educated or
uneducated.
>
> Em, yes it is. A theory can never be proven, only disproven. You should
know
> this is one of the findamentals you learn when you study science.
That doesnt make a theory a guess.
> > And what other criteria do you propose to approximate "truth"?
>
> Everything! If everything we experience is the product of this universe,
> then we owe it to ourselves to learn more about everything in every way to
> further our knowledge and understanding.
Everything? What on earth do you mean by "everything"? You keep repeating
vague statements that have zero content.
And how can you learn without observing and measuring?
> My point is quite simple that science is not where the answers lie. It is
> just one small vein of a much bigger picture.
But you contribute zero as alternative.
> > > It is a theory, a guess and it should not be thought as fact. That is
my
> > > point.
> >
> > Evolution is both a theory and a fact.
>
> That is a very unscientific statment, and you should know that. It is a
> theory which is an educated guess which may or may not be proven wrong at
> any time.
It is not an unscientific statement. From the talk origins website:
"Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a
population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also
refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The
evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is
so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution
describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact
and a theory."
> > > As I have said before, I believe in the intersection of science,
> > philosophy
> > > and religion to understand this amazing world in which we find
> ourselves.
> > We
> > > need to use all resources available to us.
> >
> > There is no intersection between science and religion. Religion is
> > mythology, how can it help you understand the world? You must as well
take
> > LSD.
>
> What do you mean by religion in general being mythology? Prove to me that
> religion is mythology if you wish to make that statement. And be more
> specific as to what you are referring to by that statement.
I am simply saying that religions are a collection of myths, legends with
exceedingly little or no supporting evidence whatsoever. It is not up to me
to prove that religions are just mythology. It is up to whoever asserts that
bronze-age myths say something of value about the world to demonstrate that
they do.
> You are generalising and making assupmtions - a very unscientific and
> dangerous view to take.
Not really.
regards
Milan
> Richard
>
>
Alan Wostenberg
Milan wrote:
> "Alan Wostenberg" <awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
> news:41708E6B...@psalmweaver.com...
>
>>
>>Milan wrote:
>>
>>>"Alan Wostenberg" <awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
>>>news:416F5177...@psalmweaver.com...
>>>>Creation scientists do consider God in their explanations. Some
>>>>scientists say they aren't True Scientists[tm]. Who adjudicates the
>>>
>>>dispute?
>>>
>>>The issue is quite simple. There is no dispute. There is no creation
>>>science. There is no theory of creation. Ergo there are no creation
>>>scientists.
>>
>>They call themselves scientists. By what authority do you cast them out?
>
>
> By the authority that simple definitions give. Nobody has ever produced a
> theory of creation. There is no research done by these "scientists", there
> are no data and no publications. All there is is open or very thinly veiled
> Christian apologetics. I dont think this is a contentious issue, really.
But *they* call themselves scientist, so there is no definition of
science to which all who call themselves "scientist" agree. You clearly
equate "science" with "methodological naturalism", but not all
scientists agree to that.
Alan Wostenberg
And yet you think it's not scientific. So what's the distinctio nhere?
The method they are using for detecting signals by nonhuman intellects
is rational but not scientific? Or is it irrational because it's not
scientific?
Milan
Some people may think that science involves dancing around a fire or singing
old Welsh songs or tatooing their bodies with Mondrian designs or perhaps
reading bronze-age myths and legends and repeating them. They are wrong, of
course. There is no need to bother with them. Just ignore them.
Regards
Milan
Matt Silberstein
By logic and evidence, no authority. The creation "scientists" don't
do experiments. They don't make parsimonious predictive theories. They
start out with their conclusions and warp the evidence to fit them,
often requiring that people swear an oath to uphold the conclusion
first. The only thing that is "sciene" about mordern creation science
is, as you say, the word "science" in the name.
Ryan Tanaka
Personally I think they have their priorities out of wack. They're
trying to look for a needle in the haystack using a chopstick or
something that has a minimal chance of success. It'd probably be
better if they developed a more efficient signal scanning system,
which would be something a scientist would do.
The best thing I can think of that will come out of SETI is if they
manage to develope better and better signal processing or
communication devices...but not too sure if they're the type of group
who would actually produce results like that.
Ryan
Acme Diagnostics
"Milan" <mtk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Acme Diagnostics" <LFinez...@partpostmark.net> wrote
>> "Milan" <mtk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> highlighted you in my reader. Quite a bit of material by now and
>> it seems I agree with all that I know from long experience and
>> otherwise think I know, and I'm learning stuff.
>
>Thanks for the compliment.
>
>>
>> However I think you just hiccupped.
>>
>> Your previous material seems to suggests that a fact is an
>> empirical observation, or a scientific fact is an empirical
>> observation confirmed by qualified designated observers. Anyway,
>> I'd expect an "agree" here.
>
>A good source of information for these issues is the website
>http://www.talkorigins.
>There you find the following very brief explanation:
>
>"Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a
>population over time. That this happens is a fact.
Ok, I think this is my error. I was assuming your "theory of
evolution" to assert the only explanation. That probably comes
from reading too many heated debates on evolution where the sides
become polarized. Of course "change in ... characteristics" is
indeed a fact.
Thanks for a good example of explanatory text, i.e. the excerpt.
>Biological evolution also
>refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The
>evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is
>so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact.
Yes, I agree that that is a fact too.
>The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause
>evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory."
I had assumed "all the mechanisms," not "the mechanisms." The
latter is a soft universal, so I am in error. What the theory of
evolution describes is a fact. That it could be revised,
scientifically, upon new evidence is also a fact. Of course
that's what a scientific theory is.
<snip now redundant>
>Science, as an empirical discipline, doesnt work with "proof". It works with
>evidence. In this context, fact means a piece of data which has been
>confirmed beyond reasonable doubt.
That sounds right in our context. I would usually avoid that last
term for the fuzzy "jurist" loading, but of course here you are
rightly responding to my loading for "proof, logic," etc.
>> I understand that the logic of evolutionary theory falls far
>> short of that standard. Short logic and observation, I believe,
>> confirms natural selection, etc.
There I am agreeing with your article. I'll take 2 measly points.
>
>> Of course in strict science the default case is that there is no
>> advanced technology, etc. But a default case does not constitute
>> a "fact" and I know of no scientist claiming the non-existence of
>> ET, or even the non-existence of a visitation, to be a fact.
>> Additionally, here we are in a philosophy group and does the
>> default case necessarily apply? I think the probability case, let
>> the cards fall where they may, applies here. Whatever the
>> probability of ET, it is not zero.
>
>The probability of ET tampering with the evolutionary process
>is not zero, if you wish.
Ok we agree here. But now I see that you weren't asserting the
contrary, so my point is irrelevant.
>However, science goes for the parsimonious, rather than the
>profligate. If you can explain the data without ET, then you explain it
>without ET. This goes not only for evolution, but for everything else.
Agreed. That is science. It is enjoyable talking to someone so
careful about maintaining terminology.
>> For those two reasons, I think the general consensus about
>> intervention, then, is "most likely not," for whatever that's
>> worth. Anyway, I don't think it's worth being a "fact."
>
>If that is the case then there are no facts, because you could posit that
>undetectable beings might be tampering with any physical or biological
>process.
I would flesh out "no facts" with "no facts in science." I call
the probability of rolling 6 with a fair die a "fact." Gamblers
can get rich by relying on it, for instance. One can seek the
probability of anything, as you say, not saying any useful
results obtain.
The probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is
generally considered higher than the probability of ghosts, for
instance (assuming a difference <g>). Well, the U.S. government
financed SETI research at one time, and there still remains much
more serious effort in that area than in finding ghosts, ignoring
tabloid media.
I actually have little curiousity at all in whether or not ET
exists remaining from my youth, and less than that in evolution.
My work involves the investigation of "independence" in
coincidental probability all across the board.
I use ET for my "well-formed example" mainly for it's
entertainment value in written venues. But I also have background
in related areas from my youth. I also use the P of
ancient writings describing advance technology and the P of UFOs.
But my interest remains focused on the independence issue
generally, especially for its applicability in an AI model.
Also, I always seek better definitions of key words like "fact."
>> If you know of a term for an empirical observation that would be
>> closer to Truth, large T, than "fact" I would like to be
>> corrected because I have been using "fact" a lot in this sense.
>
>Truth has a large T only when it appears at the beginning of a sentence;
>otherwise it always has a small t.
Hehe. Agree in your context. Some appear to think otherwise,
though.
Thanks for correcting me.
Larry
Alan Wostenberg
That bad, eh? What kind of exerpiments did you have in mind to detect
supernatural activity?
Alan Wostenberg
Milan wrote:
> "Alan Wostenberg" <awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
> news:417472E8...@psalmweaver.com...
>>But *they* call themselves scientist, so there is no definition of
>>science to which all who call themselves "scientist" agree. You clearly
>>equate "science" with "methodological naturalism", but not all
>>scientists agree to that.
>
>
> Some people may think that science involves dancing around a fire or singing
> old Welsh songs or tatooing their bodies with Mondrian designs or perhaps
> reading bronze-age myths and legends and repeating them. They are wrong, of
> course. There is no need to bother with them. Just ignore them.
The fire dancer, unlike the creation scientist, does not call himself a
scientist.
If he did, I'd ask him, as I ask you: what do you mean by science? You
said earlier "the scientist seeks naturalistic explanations". Like many
thoughtful people, the creation scientist begs to differ, for "Reality
is under no obligation to conform to human definitions"{1}
{1}
http://www.iowastatedaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/10/13/416caca854de6
Alan Wostenberg
Chzwmn wrote:
>>science, philosophy or just plain common sense can go a long
>>way..........what meaning asks a daisy (if a daisy could think) can my
>>life have?.......btw evolution does not rely on chance.........things
>>change because they must meet the challenges that are before
>>it.....weather, other species etc
>
>
> This is just SO wrong. THey call that Lamarkism at best, creationism at worse.
> By what mechanism do animals and plants recognise the challenges and change
> their genes ?????
It is not so much changing their genes, but activating pre-programmed
capability in response to environmental cues,
like unzipping and installing a device driver onto your hard drive. The
driver code was always there, dormant, until an a external cue activated
it. Coding schemes can do that, and a good Engineer endows his creatures
with a certain amount of this adaptive ability. How do we know these
"mutations" are random?
Milan
because they have zero understanding of what science is. Reality has no
obligation to conform to human definitions. But it is very useful if humans
conform to them. Science is methodologically naturalistic. It cannot be
otherwise.
regards
Milan
Milan
You've hit the nail on the head. Well done.
regards
Milan
Matt Silberstein
> Chzwmn wrote:
> >>science, philosophy or just plain common sense can go a long
> >>way..........what meaning asks a daisy (if a daisy could think) can my
> >>life have?.......btw evolution does not rely on chance.........things
> >>change because they must meet the challenges that are before
> >>it.....weather, other species etc
As far as all of our experiments can show evolution has a chance and a
non-chance component. As far as all experiments have shown, and people
have tried very hard to show otherwise, mutations happen randomly with
respect to the situation. That is, a particular mutation is equally
likely no matter the conditions of an organism. Selection is, in a
sense, the "challenges" facing an organism. Particularly, selection is
those things that promote or inhibit reproduction.
> >
> > This is just SO wrong. THey call that Lamarkism at best, creationism at worse.
> > By what mechanism do animals and plants recognise the challenges and change
> > their genes ?????
>
> It is not so much changing their genes, but activating pre-programmed
> capability in response to environmental cues,
> like unzipping and installing a device driver onto your hard drive. The
> driver code was always there, dormant, until an a external cue activated
> it. Coding schemes can do that, and a good Engineer endows his creatures
> with a certain amount of this adaptive ability.
He asked what mechanism. Handwaving is not a mechanism. No such
pre-programmed capability has been found and, again, people have
looked very hard for one. No one can think of how such a mechanism
would work. How do you keep mutations out of this dormant "code"
before it is used? After a few million years it will get changed
beyond usefullness.
> How do we know these "mutations" are random?
Because they do tests. I know this has been explained to you in the
past. A good high school can do this experiment. Take a single
bacteria (bacteria only have one copy of their genes). Let it grow to
a colony and then make multiple colonies from that. At this point,
baring mutations, you have multiple genetically identical bacterial
colonies. Subject them to some kind of stress (an anti-bacterial
agent, for example). Only some of the colonies will survive and only a
small portion of the colony. If the mutations were not random then all
or none would survive.
If you have a lab (no longer a high school project) you can look at
the genome and find the mutation (by comparing it to the original)
that enabled it to survive. You can then look for that mutation in
other colonies that were not subject to the agent and see how common
it is. That will confirm that the mutation was random.
Alan, this is actual science, not evidence free reasoning. The
evidence and arguments don't go away because you refuse to acknowledge
them or follow the discussion.
Matt Silberstein
I don't, but then again, I don't call them scientists. It is their
responsibility, if they are going to claim the mantal of success that
science has created, to come up with experiments to test their ideas.
The closest they come is systematically ignoring evidence (if opposite
is close).
If creationism depends on the supernatural then it is not science, it
is religion. Its proponents should admit that and not try to play
games (i.e. lie) so that they can get in the U.S. public schools.
X's Lover
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
I'm curious about the degree of empiricism that is applied.
Democritus theorized about atoms over 2,000 years ago. We can't call
that science. There was no way to produce empirical scientific data to
demonstrate their existence or behaviour. They were nothing more than a
belief, an imagining, a musing.
We must conclude that atoms didn't exist until the 20th century when the
evidence became available. There was no evidence at the time.
Matt Silberstein
Alan, as a proponent of essentialism you have less standing to make
this claim than anyone I know of. You keep on asserting that things
exist because we have names for them. You seem to actually think that
reality does conform to our words.
> {1}
> http://www.iowastatedaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/10/13/416caca854de6
Let's take a look at this (quotes from the article in []):
[Reality is under no obligation to conform to human definitions.
That, a lecturer said Tuesday, is why scientists shouldn't be hasty to
exclude theories -- such as intelligent design, an argument purporting
that design by an external agent can be detected in nature -- from
discussion and consideration.]
Well, duh, unless you are an essentialist you know that human words do
not contrain the Universe. Unfortunately for the speaker this has
nothing to do with why ID is not part of science. ID is not part of
science because it presents untestable undefined unconstrained
entities. Science deals with observations and tests.
[Ratzsch said design is often a legitimate or even essential term in
science in order to explain and then describe the world. Whether a
thing was designed can be determined without knowing who -- or why or
how -- did it, he said.]
Nice argument by assertion. Unfortunately no one has actually provided
an example of this. They show examples of human design, situations
when we know plenty about the existence, abilities, and goals of the
proposed designers, but nothing about other designers. Arguments like
his work by confusing inability to identify the specific individual
with inability to say anything at all about the designer.If I say that
an item is a pot shard made by some Native American 3,000 years ago I
am making quite a few specific statements about the designer. When I
say some biological structure somewhere was made by some unknown
entity at some time for some reason by some process I am not saying
anything at all.
[An explanation offered by some -- that science by definition rules
out supernatural explanations -- is not satisfactory, Ratzsch said.
"No one has a completely defensible definition of science," he said.]
Spoken like a true philospher (stepping outside his area of
expertise). Yep, we don't have "completely defensible" definitions of
either science or supernatural. Luckily nature does not have to
conform to our definitions. For any meaningful definition of science
the supernatural is excluded. (And as you point out in a different
post science can't detect the supernatural. So it has to excluded it
from science.)
[Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin, to give examples, Ratzsch said,
argued against long-established theories and ultimately increased
knowledge about the physical world -- and they did it following a
scientific principle of following natural facts where they led.]
Too bad the ID proponents don't do that. Instead they try to attack
science itself. Newton and Darwin had evidence, they established
research programs, so to speak, to gather more evidence to confirm or
refute their theories. No one on the ID side does that.
[Allowing the concept of a designer that may be supernatural, he said,
didn't necessarily mean scientific inquiry into tough questions would
stop because investigators would start attributing unexplainable
concepts to the supernatural.]
So how do you use the "supernatural" in science? I can't see how it
differs at all from "we don't currently know the answer to this".
["Design doesn't just pose risks. It also in this exact context has
some positive features as well," he said, giving the example of making
an absurd move in a chess game that forces an opponent into a furious
search for the purpose or design behind the move.]
An example that uses known designers and uses your knowledge of the
designer and the goals and methods of the designer. I would love to
see how this applies to biology.
I do like the ending of the article though:
[Jonathan Shier, junior in philosophy, said he came to the lecture to
hear a "professional" account of intelligent design.
He said Ratzsch's speech and responses to questions addressed the
legitimacy of intelligent design "only in the broadest sense that it
could possibly be a question we need to keep in our minds."]
Alan Wostenberg
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> Alan Wostenberg <awost...@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message news:<41752356...@psalmweaver.com>...
>
>>Chzwmn wrote:
>>
>>>>science, philosophy or just plain common sense can go a long
>>>>way..........what meaning asks a daisy (if a daisy could think) can my
>>>>life have?.......btw evolution does not rely on chance.........things
>>>>change because they must meet the challenges that are before
>>>>it.....weather, other species etc
>
>
> As far as all of our experiments can show evolution has a chance and a
> non-chance component. As far as all experiments have shown, and people
> have tried very hard to show otherwise, mutations happen randomly with
> respect to the situation. That is, a particular mutation is equally
> likely no matter the conditions of an organism. Selection is, in a
> sense, the "challenges" facing an organism. Particularly, selection is
> those things that promote or inhibit reproduction.
>
>>>This is just SO wrong. THey call that Lamarkism at best, creationism at worse.
>>>By what mechanism do animals and plants recognise the challenges and change
>>>their genes ?????
>>
>>It is not so much changing their genes, but activating pre-programmed
>>capability in response to environmental cues,
>>like unzipping and installing a device driver onto your hard drive. The
>>driver code was always there, dormant, until an a external cue activated
>>it. Coding schemes can do that, and a good Engineer endows his creatures
>>with a certain amount of this adaptive ability.
>
>
> No such
> pre-programmed capability has been found and, again, people have
> looked very hard for one. No one can think of how such a mechanism
> would work. How do you keep mutations out of this dormant "code"
> before it is used? After a few million years it will get changed
> beyond usefullness.
I admit it's speculative. So people "looked very hard" for a mechanism,
not finding one, say "it's random"?
>>How do we know these "mutations" are random?
>
> Because they do tests.... Take a single
> bacteria (bacteria only have one copy of their genes). Let it grow to
> a colony and then make multiple colonies from that. At this point,
> baring mutations, you have multiple genetically identical bacterial
> colonies. Subject them to some kind of stress (an anti-bacterial
> agent, for example). Only some of the colonies will survive and only a
> small portion of the colony. If the mutations were not random then all
> or none would survive.
I read in _not by chance_ such tests have been done
and the same multipoint mutations did happen in certain cases.
Matt Silberstein
How did you conclude that? You must have some definition of
"empericism" that I am not familiar with. I agree that it is incorrect
to connect the current limit of our knowledge with the non-existent or
some such. So all those who say that science can't explain X therefore
God exist are making an error. Our current ability to know or explain
is a constraint on us, not the Universe.
Matt Silberstein
in the data, we can't find any correlations. Random does not mean
uncaused. Mutations are certainly caused, we often can point out the
cause. They are just not correlated to the problem facing the
organism.
Sorry, Alan, but it takes evidence to back up an asserted mechanism.
You have proposed some pre-programmed capability in the genome. You
have to show how it would work and provide some evidence for its
existence. Or, at least, show how your proposed mechanism differs from
completely random mutation. Think about the characteristics of your
proposed mechanism. Somehow this mechanism has to know about the
external conditions, say increased cold weather. (More to the point,
increase cold weather in the future.) It then has to know what
morphology, say a thick coat, would deal with the environmental
change. Then it has to figure out what genetic change is necessary to
achieve that morphological change. Then it has to do this for only
some few of the organisms. Remember, most organisms do not survive to
reproduce.
> >>How do we know these "mutations" are random?
> >
> > Because they do tests.... Take a single
> > bacteria (bacteria only have one copy of their genes). Let it grow to
> > a colony and then make multiple colonies from that. At this point,
> > baring mutations, you have multiple genetically identical bacterial
> > colonies. Subject them to some kind of stress (an anti-bacterial
> > agent, for example). Only some of the colonies will survive and only a
> > small portion of the colony. If the mutations were not random then all
> > or none would survive.
>
> I read in _not by chance_ such tests have been done
> and the same multipoint mutations did happen in certain cases.
And the same mutations can happen even if the environment does not
"require" them. That said, I would ignore most of Spetner's stuff. He
is a physicist, not a biologist, for one thing. For another, he
actually thinks that all of this stuff is explained by the Kabbalah.
He really does not know the material and offers not much more than "it
is so complex and wonderful, it must be from God".
X's Lover
I made no such claims about any gods. I did point out how the position
affects prior beliefs until such a time that scientific evidence can be
provided to support such hypotheses.
I'm referring to the hypocrisy.
Astronomers believe that black holes have a non-steller origin.
Stephen Hawking "postulates" that a black hole has a non-stellar origin.
IOW, there is no evidence, yet.
An agnostic or theist "postulates" that a god exists. IOW, there is no
evidence, yet.
Both are thoughts of humans that lack any evidence. One hypotthesis is
treated differently than the other, both share the feature of lacking
scientific evidence.
Milan
They are treated differently, of course, because they are categorically
different. The first hypothesis refers to entities that are known to exist,
namely black holes and stars, the second does not. The first hypothesis is
testable, the second is not. The first refers to entities whose nature is
knowable and known; the second does not.
Let's compare the following two hypotheses, as an analogy to clarify the
point.
Hypothesis 1: "My cousin Nigel came from London today; I dont think he came
by train; I think that he came by bus, but so far I dont have any evidence.
I will try to find out".
Hypothesis 2: "There is a Drogulus in my sitting room. Let me add that a
Drogulus is a being which is invisible and absolutely undetectable by any
physical means. I know absolutely nothing about the nature of the Drogulus,
and in fact his nature is unknowable".
Are these two hypotheses to be treated equally? Of course not. In the first
case we are talking about Nigel, who is my cousin, I can see him and I know
him well. And we can find out how he got here. Maybe he refuses to tell us,
but there are ways to find out.
In the second case we are positing the existence of a being for whose
existence there is no evidence whatsoever, there has never been any evidence
for his existence, and in fact its very nature precludes the obtention of
evidence for his existence. So, on what basis are we suggesting that
Drogulus exist? Zero basis.
So, there is no hypocrisy involved in treating these two types of hypotheses
differently. We treat them differently because they are absolutely
different.
regards
Milan
Milan
"Matt Silberstein" <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:76998029.04102...@posting.google.com...
I agree with your post. However, some time ago in another ng, t.o, I think,
somebody mentioned some papers by Barry Hall on the E coli lactose operon. I
got interested in the story and did a search in pubmed. I only have access
to the abstracts, but was very surprised to find one paper in which the
authors indicated that they had observed that under certain circumstances
certain point mutations took place to restore a certain enzymatic activity
and that such mutations were "not random". I tried to find out more, but I
could not find the full articles (or comments on them) in the web, and, even
though I thought the story rather interesting, I was frankly too lazy to go
and read the papers at the library. Can anybody comment on this one?
regards
Milan
X's Lover
wrote:
> They are treated differently, of course, because they are categorically
> different. The first hypothesis refers to entities that are known to exist,
> namely black holes and stars, the second does not. The first hypothesis is
> testable, the second is not. The first refers to entities whose nature is
> knowable and known; the second does not.
So what evidence will you accept to support the existence of a god and
what evidence will you accept to support the exist of a black hole as
having a non-stellar formation.
Milan
The question in reality is not what evidence we would accept, but actually,
whether there can be any evidence at all, ie, whether the statements are
indeed testable or not.
My knowledge of black holes is , to say the least, meagre, but I imagine
that there can be ways of establishing their origin; in any case, the case
seems to be amenable to scientific study and examination.
In the case of gods, the situation is entirely different. We have never seen
gods, we dont know what they would look like if we saw one, we know nothing
directly about their nature or properties. And more to the point, as gods'
propagandists usually define them as omnipotent, omniscient, invisible,
supernatural, metaphysical, etc etc, it does not seem as there is any
possibility of testing for their existence, as they are -by definition-
beyond the physical domain; in other words, it is not possible -by
definition- to acquire evidence for their existence.
In fact my previous post already answered your question. I said very
clearly, in my previous post, that the hypothesis "gods exist" is *not
testable*. That is why the hypothesis "gods exist" does not belong in the
scientific realm. And that is why the two hypotheses that you mentioned are
totally different in nature. And that is why we treat them differently.
regards
Milan
X's Lover
wrote:
> In fact my previous post already answered your question. I said very
> clearly, in my previous post, that the hypothesis "gods exist" is *not
> testable*. That is why the hypothesis "gods exist" does not belong in the
> scientific realm. And that is why the two hypotheses that you mentioned are
> totally different in nature. And that is why we treat them differently.
You went to extreme lengths to avoid an answer to my question.
I'll try again and rephrase to accommodate your comments.
What tests could we devise to prove the existence of a god or a specific
god?
Milan
Well, this is getting difficult. Let me give you a simple answer so you can
understand it. Read the following very slowly and *aloud* to allow it to
penetrate the dense cobwebs that cloud your confused little mind:
1. It is not good netiquette to snip posts in the way you do.
2. I have said it twice: the hypothesis "gods exist" is NOT TESTABLE. IT IS
NOT TESTABLE. IT-IS-NOT-TESTABLE. I T I S N O T T E S T A B L E.
3. Let me repeat this again: the hypothesis "gods exist" IS NOT TESTABLE.
4. Let me repeat it once more for emphasis: the hypothesis "gods exist" IS
NOT TESTABLE.
5. Let me try again: the hypothesis "gods exist" IS NOT TESTABLE.
6. It follows from 2, 3, 4 and 5, that there are no tests we can devise to
test for the existence of gods.
7. Let me emphasize this point: THERE ARE NO TESTS WE CAN DEVISE TO TEST FOR
THE EXISTENCE OF GODS.
8. Once more with feeling: THERE ARE NO TESTS TO TEST FOR THE EXISTENCE OF
GODS.
8. Let me add a simple punchline to help comprehension: gods are imaginary
beings. There aint such thing as gods. There are the product of primitive
cultures.
Good night
Milan
X's Lover
wrote:
Your resistance is once again noted as is the hypocrisy of those of us
who call ourselves atheist.
Life on other planets are also imaginary beings until such a time that
tests are devised to prove their existence.
However, I find your sarcasm inappropriate and I'll likely pass on
reading your posts.
Acme Diagnostics
Hehe! Good show.
Matt Silberstein
> > And the same mutations can happen even if the environment does not
> > "require" them. That said, I would ignore most of Spetner's stuff. He
> > is a physicist, not a biologist, for one thing. For another, he
> > actually thinks that all of this stuff is explained by the Kabbalah.
> > He really does not know the material and offers not much more than "it
> > is so complex and wonderful, it must be from God".
>
> I agree with your post. However, some time ago in another ng, t.o, I think,
> somebody mentioned some papers by Barry Hall on the E coli lactose operon. I
> got interested in the story and did a search in pubmed. I only have access
> to the abstracts, but was very surprised to find one paper in which the
> authors indicated that they had observed that under certain circumstances
> certain point mutations took place to restore a certain enzymatic activity
> and that such mutations were "not random". I tried to find out more, but I
> could not find the full articles (or comments on them) in the web, and, even
> though I thought the story rather interesting, I was frankly too lazy to go
> and read the papers at the library. Can anybody comment on this one?
I don't know of the paper in question, but I can make a few guesses.
Some areas of the genome can have a higher mutation *rate* than
others. Also, conditions can lead to a greater overall change in rate.
When an organism is under significant stress the DNA repair mechanism
does not work as well and the mutation rate increases.
That said, I am cross-posting this to talk.origins where people with
more relevant knowledge may respond.
Matt Silberstein
> In article <76998029.04102...@posting.google.com>,
> mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>
> > How did you conclude that? You must have some definition of
> > "empericism" that I am not familiar with. I agree that it is incorrect
> > to connect the current limit of our knowledge with the non-existent or
> > some such. So all those who say that science can't explain X therefore
> > God exist are making an error. Our current ability to know or explain
> > is a constraint on us, not the Universe.
>
> I made no such claims about any gods. I did point out how the position
> affects prior beliefs until such a time that scientific evidence can be
> provided to support such hypotheses.
>
> I'm referring to the hypocrisy.
>
> Astronomers believe that black holes have a non-steller origin.
> Stephen Hawking "postulates" that a black hole has a non-stellar origin.
> IOW, there is no evidence, yet.
The above confuses me, partially because I think it is contrary to
fact. Scientists certainly postulate things before they have evidence
for them, this is called making a prediction. They are very clear to
distinguish between the predictions and the conclusions from evidence.
So your claim about "belief" is really incorrect. If a model says
something should exist, but we don't have evidence for it yet,
scientists do not just assert it exists. Instead they work to find the
evidence to show that it does or does not exist.
Also, I think that you mean that *some* black holes have non-stellar
origins. That would be those created in the early Universe. I think
that is an area of active research. That is, they are trying to figure
out how to get evidence that would show this one way or the other.
The scientific claims about black holes are absolutely founded on
evidence, it is simply false to claim otherwise.
> An agnostic or theist "postulates" that a god exists. IOW, there is no
> evidence, yet.
Sorry, but the existence of God is not something that can be shown one
way or the other by evidence.
> Both are thoughts of humans that lack any evidence. One hypotthesis is
> treated differently than the other, both share the feature of lacking
> scientific evidence.
Sorry, but this is simply wrong. Scientific claims about black holes
do come from evidence.
X's Lover
> The above confuses me, partially because I think it is contrary to
> fact. Scientists certainly postulate things before they have evidence
> for them, this is called making a prediction. They are very clear to
> distinguish between the predictions and the conclusions from evidence.
> So your claim about "belief" is really incorrect. If a model says
> something should exist, but we don't have evidence for it yet,
> scientists do not just assert it exists. Instead they work to find the
> evidence to show that it does or does not exist.
We agree. The scientist will search. The scientist will create
experiments to test if a hypothesis is true. This is what I mean by
hypocrisy though. In the case of theism, we assume it to be false and
therefore are unwilling to design experiments to test the hypothesis.
For example, if a god is believed to be all-knowing then, what is the
criteria for all knowing. Is it the ability to answer questions? The
ability to respond and accurately? The ability to respond to specific
questions?
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 03:58:10 +0000 (UTC), mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt
Silberstein) wrote:
>"Milan" <mtk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2u28q0F...@uni-berlin.de>...
>> "Matt Silberstein" <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>[snip]
>> > And the same mutations can happen even if the environment does not
>> > "require" them. That said, I would ignore most of Spetner's stuff. He
>> > is a physicist, not a biologist, for one thing. For another, he
>> > actually thinks that all of this stuff is explained by the Kabbalah.
>> > He really does not know the material and offers not much more than "it
>> > is so complex and wonderful, it must be from God".
See http://home.mira.net/~reynella/debate/spetner.htm
>> I agree with your post. However, some time ago in another ng, t.o, I think,
>> somebody mentioned some papers by Barry Hall on the E coli lactose operon. I
>> got interested in the story and did a search in pubmed. I only have access
>> to the abstracts, but was very surprised to find one paper in which the
>> authors indicated that they had observed that under certain circumstances
>> certain point mutations took place to restore a certain enzymatic activity
>> and that such mutations were "not random".
Ahhh, good old Cairnsian "directed-mutation", here's something I wrote
about this a long time ago.
Most people know that mutations arise at random in dividing cells, and
that the mutations occur at various places in the replication cycle as
a consequence of damage (eg from mutagenic chemicals or radiation) or
proof reading errors in the copying process.
However, most people are unaware that there is significant DNA
turnover in non-growing (non-dividing) cells.
Adaptive (directed) mutation are mutations that apparently result in
the selective appearance of favorable mutations. The designation of
these mutations has caused considerable controversy and they have been
called adaptive, directed, Cairnsian, selection-induced, and stressful
lifestyle associated mutations (SLAM). One researcher coined the name
"Fred" while trying to find a name that would not inflame the critics,
and "Fred" seems to have found it's way into at least informal
discourse by the relevant researchers.
(see http://www.biomednet.com/hmsbeagle/14/cutedge/overview.htm, needs
subscription)
"Fred" occurs only under non-lethal selection non-dividing cells, and
has been suggested to be a neo-Lamarkian mechanism for getting
environmental information into the genes. However, "Fred" is no such
thing.
1) Fred is not Larmakian. There is no reverse transcriptase involved,
mutants are not back transcribed from some environmentally altered
protein or even from a fortuitously modified mRNA.
2) Fred is not directed, mutations are found throughout the genome,
not just in the "adaptive" gene
3) Fred is dependent on recombination, damaging either RecA or RecBCD
reduces the rate of "adaptive" mutations
4) Fred is dependent on DNA polymerase, in DNA polIII mutants with
better proof reading, the rate of "adaptive" mutations is reduced
5) Fred is largely depended on defective mismatch repair (MMR).
Defects in MMR increase "adaptive" mutations and increased MMR or
over expression of MMR reduces "adaptive" mutation. Crucially, MMR is
reduced in non-growing and stressed cells.
So the following model shows how "adaptive" mutations occur.
Nutritionally deprived non-growing cells are under stress, stress
leads to double stranded breaks in the DNA, recombination vis RecBCD
primes the DNA synthesis, DNA PolIII finishes the job but makes
mistakes, which slip through because starvation has largely turned off
mismatch repair. This results in genome wide mutation at a faster rate
than normal, and the occasional mutant that can utilise the
"selective" substrate.
The canonical example is _E._coli_ that have a crippled Lac gene, and
cannot utilise lactose, when plated on a medium that has only lactose
as a carbon source, the cells cannot grow, but after a time colonies
appear that can use lactose. These colonies contain a version of the
crippled gene that has been restored to function (usually by a 1 bp
frameshift).
So Fred, while certainly exciting from the genetic point of view,
turns out just another boring random mutation from the neo-Lamarkian
point of view.
References:
Rosenberg, SM. Mutation for Survival Curr Opinion Gen Dev 1997,
7:829-834
http://biomednet.com/0959437X00700829 (costs money)
Foster PL & Rosche WA. Mechanisms of mutation in nondividing cells.
Insights from the study of adaptive mutation in Escherichia coli
Ann N Y Acad Sci 1999, 870, 133-45.
Rosche WA, and Foster PL. (1999 Jun 8). The role of transient
hypermutators in adaptive mutation in Escherichia coli. Proc Natl Acad
Sci U S A , 96, 6862-7.
http://www.biomednet.com/hmsbeagle/14/cutedge/overview.htm
=====================================================
Ian Musgrave Peta O'Donohue,Jack Francis,Michael James and Andrew Thomas Musgrave
reynella@RemoveInsret_werple.mira.net.au http://home.mira.net/~reynella/
Southern Sky Watch http://www.abc.net.au/science/space/default.htm
Matt Silberstein
I don't know, why don't you tell me. I don't see any hypocrisy here.
Science is in the business of developing testable models. God just
does not happen to be part of such a model. There are other things
that are not testable either, there is no hypocrisy in science not
studying them.
As for assuming theism false, some people do, some don't. That is not
why people don't make testable experiment regarding God. They don't
make testable experiments regarding God because there are no such
experiments.
Mani Deli
Mani Deli
Shorty Paden
cracking.
Mani Deli
a blindly conformist society, which makes its business to scare the
shit out of its innocent little kids. Before they have any ability to
reason, it coerces them into believing that they were born rotten
sinners and carefully describes all the wonderful punishments their
loving god might just have in store for them if they stray from
whatever their branch of the superstition business tells them.
Starting early, the education system and peer groups then teach blind
conformity, avoidance of rationality and any questioning of dogmas
while it punishes deviators. In the social background a religious
sales force continually preaches dire warnings.
Amazingly, the whole fear system in sky-god religions is grounded on
the belief that someone ate the wrong apple and a society too
intimidated, too scared and too stupid to question this.
Should doubt ever arise about Eve having actually eaten that apple
become universal, the whole of theological sky god theory would
evaporate.
Smith Computer
confirmation.
First and foremost there is the evidence, (that is correct, ...evidence) of
intelligent design, along with the fact that the human species is very
limited in his range of sensory discernment. It is apparent that these two
items belong on the same page, as it were, rather than many who would
separate them. The simple explanation is that said limitations were also by
design.
Mankind sees evidences of the above and reasoning individuals (that means,
those without dissident agenda) group together in an effort to better
understand the ultimate purpose of their creation.
The Smitty
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:e5g48111obcjgv6h2...@4ax.com...
Mani Deli
Mani Deli
<smithc...@charter.com> wrote:
>You are quite in error and need only look to several glaring facts for
>confirmation.
>
>First and foremost there is the evidence, (that is correct, ...evidence) of
>intelligent design,
Where below did I mention intellegent design.
> along with the fact that the human species is very
>limited in his range of sensory discernment. It is apparent that these two
>items belong on the same page, as it were, rather than many who would
>separate them. The simple explanation is that said limitations were also by
>design.
>
>Mankind sees evidences of the above and reasoning individuals (that means,
>those without dissident agenda) group together in an effort to better
>understand the ultimate purpose of their creation.
>
Amazing, this is a message of an utter moron. It has nothing to do
with any point I made. And what is he saying?
AL
"Smith Computer" <smithc...@charter.com> wrote in message
news:Sfvge.7368$fY4....@fe07.lga...
>
> >First off it's good to see the courage and the philosophical
non-conformity that Mai exhibited.All change comes from such non-conformity.
Philosophers have known of the conformist nature of religion for quite some
time. This is why religions create hierachys and dogmas (Popes, Creeds, and
Preachers). Smitty intellegent design is unneccesary for creation. From
this intellegent design as a philosophy was dealt a mortal blow, in doing so
by invoking this argument, you sir are blowing hot air. My Philosphy states
that everything except void is Mind. Seems it's all intellegent.
AL
StillHighInFallon
> >
>
>
Smith Computer
"Mani Deli" replied to
> >You are quite in error and need only look to several glaring facts for
> >confirmation.
> >First and foremost there is the evidence, (that is correct, ...evidence)
of
> >intelligent design,
with this question:
> Where below did I mention intellegent design.
You did not, and therein lies a portion of the error we mention.
> > along with the fact that the human species is very
> >limited in his range of sensory discernment. It is apparent that these
two
> >items belong on the same page, as it were, rather than many who would
> >separate them. The simple explanation is that said limitations were also
by
> >design.
> >Mankind sees evidences of the above and reasoning individuals (that
means,
> >those without dissident agenda) group together in an effort to better
> >understand the ultimate purpose of their creation.
> Amazing, this is a message of an utter moron. It has nothing to do
> with any point I made. And what is he saying?
Your inability to address the concern while you hastily point your finger
does not speak well for your abilty to reason or debate. As for the points
you were attempting to make, that again, is a portion of the error we
previously mentioned.
> >"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >news:e5g48111obcjgv6h2...@4ax.com...
> >> The reason for belief in the existence of gods and religions is due to
> >> a blindly conformist society, which makes its business to scare the
> >> shit out of its innocent little kids. Before they have any ability to
> >> reason, it coerces them into believing that they were born rotten
> >> sinners and carefully describes all the wonderful punishments their
> >> loving god might just have in store for them if they stray from
> >> whatever their branch of the superstition business tells them.
> >>
> >> Starting early, the education system and peer groups then teach blind
> >> conformity, avoidance of rationality and any questioning of dogmas
> >> while it punishes deviators. In the social background a religious
> >> sales force continually preaches dire warnings.
> >>
> >> Amazingly, the whole fear system in sky-god religions is grounded on
> >> the belief that someone ate the wrong apple and a society too
> >> intimidated, too scared and too stupid to question this.
> >>
> >> Should doubt ever arise about Eve having actually eaten that apple
> >> become universal, the whole of theological sky god theory would
> >> evaporate.
The word of the Creator makes no mention that the fruit from the tree of
knowledge was an apple, however you are not alone in that presumption.
The Smitty
Smith Computer
"AL" replied:
> > >First off it's good to see the courage and the philosophical
> non-conformity that Mai exhibited.All change comes from such
non-conformity.
> Philosophers have known of the conformist nature of religion for quite
some
> time. This is why religions create hierachys and dogmas (Popes, Creeds,
and
> Preachers). Smitty intellegent design is unneccesary for creation. From
> this intellegent design as a philosophy was dealt a mortal blow, in doing
so
> by invoking this argument, you sir are blowing hot air. My Philosphy
states
> that everything except void is Mind. Seems it's all intellegent.
> AL
> StillHighInFallon
Yes, indeed, courage is an admirable quality as long as it is actually
courage and not foolhardiness. It is very accurate to state that some
change comes from nonconformance, however there are those who change from
being nonconformist to conformity. Those who steal might learn not to steal
and liars may stop telling falsehoods, thus we see that change to conformity
can be a very good thing.
You are again correct that false religions create the platforms on which
they stand in order for that religion to appear correct even while it does
not conform to the word of the Creator or the principles they say they
aspire to. It is however, quite true that intelligent design is required
for creation of this biosphere. So many factors are involved and elements
are required in order for life to exist as we know it on this earth. it is
absolutely untenable that a thinking and reasoning individual could attest
otherwise.
Philosophy actually means the love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual
means and moral self-discipline. If that is so, then it goes without saying
that there must be some standard to which we aspire. Limited humans have
presented all manner of philosophy throughout the ages in order to acquire
that aspiration however it is so easy to find it is often overlooked.
Solipsism seldom enlightens one to greater happiness.
The Smitty
AL
and your right the self seldom leads to any satisfaction, but such is it's
nature as it springs from the singularity that was influenced by the Love of
the Source. Singularities exhibit selfness, always wanting to go back to
it's singular nature, while Love seeks total dispersal, the antithesis of
Self. As a philosopher of Mind I have to look at all relevant
possibilities, even acausal approaches, at least the ones that are
rationally and conceptually plausible. I have found that through Boolean
functions a creation was induced in this universe. That this creation is
more probable than improbable, frankly surprised me. That nothing and
something could come together and create a system is only something that
something could do. It would seem something needed something to create with.
Hence the Mind. Matter, ie: Proto-Mind or the Boolean switch turned off, and
Energy compounding, leading to the Boolean switch being turned on, which we
call life, all spring from the original Energy input (Love). Matter as well
as Energy is Mind. All Mind is Energy Fields compounded from the Matter
matrix. (conscious). Since only something can begat something then all Mind
is everything that is something. Everything in existence is Mind in one
stage or another, although both the singularity and Love are represented
solely to emerge Mind. Matter as Self, Energy as Love emerge aware mind
compounding finally to conscious Self-awareness as thinking beings. Us.
Under the rules of two variable systems, or 0 and 1 this is the most
probable of the possibilities. It seems from this optimal level of
possibility that we are the expression of the essence of the Loves' Source.
The shear number of possibilities ensured that I would have this
conversation with you. But remember, that faith that relies on Authority is
conformity, so don't have that faith that is professed by those too lazy to
investigate. So keep in Mind that we are but Love, although as with craps,
there's always that possible other explanation brought on by it's one chance
of probability. As I hope you can see it does seem that the other or any
other explanation is highly unlikely. But I could be wrong, for I fear that
that one chance in hell will get ya every time. Let's Hope not for I kinda
like it this way.
AL
StillHighInFallon
This is the basis of my theory on Mind as Potential, or Emergent Potential
Field Dynamics
Smith Computer
"AL" <gra...@cccomm.net> wrote in message
news:118r5nr...@corp.supernews.com...
Field Dynamics is one of my favorite studies, however it seems I am
unfamiliar with your particular usage. From the time I determined that
atomic devices were geodetic and that they could not be used against any
target at any time, I went on to discover a minimum of three energy field
grids, all separate and distinct from one another. Yet, here I digress from
the original intent of our postings.
It is good that you recognize the need for the Creator and therefore
believe.
The Smitty
Mani Deli
<smithc...@charter.com> wrote:
>It is good that you recognize the need for the Creator and therefore
>believe.
>
What's good about it?
Keefer Milton
Your assertion that the world is far too complicated to have not been
created by an intelligent being or entity is shortsighted, at best. Fractals
look amaizingly complex, don't they? I certainly could put one together with
such accuracy. I guess that means God did it, eh?
The universe follows certain rules and has certain forces that follow those
rules: gravity, strong nuclear, etc. Why is it so hard for creationists to
understand that through these forces are produced everything we see? If
you'd feel more comfortable calling gravity God, be my guest.
As for your "proof," you have none but "I don't know, therefore it must be
God."
Here are a few points for you to mull over:
Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore there was no beginning and
there is no end. Therefore, the universe is cyclical. Therefore there was no
Creator.
From Sextus: If the Gods exist, they are living beings. But if they are
living beings, they have sensations. If human beings had more senses than
gods, they would be superior to gods, so the gods have taste, which means
they can taste bitter, which means some things displease them, which means
some things can harm them. But if this is so, they are perishable.
From Sextus: The Gods must have sensation in order to be superior to men.
Therefore there must be certain things that are vexations to them.
Therefore, God is subject to change for the worse, hence destruction.
Courage is a virtue. God is all virtuous. In order to have courage, one must
first fear. If one fears something one must be able to be harmed by
something. If one may be harmed by something, one is perishable. If god is
all virtuous, god is perishable.
The list goes on and on...
Smith Computer
"Mani Deli"
> >It is good that you recognize the need for the Creator and therefore
> >believe.
> What's good about it?
Hello Mani,
Said recognition puts one in a position more able to to gain accurate
knowledge, whereas those who do not consider the Creator readily draw wrong
conclusions from the things that they observe.
The Bible repeatedly links the Creator and knowledge, calling him "a God of
knowledge" and describing him as "perfect in knowledge."-1Sa 2:3; Job 36:4;
37:14, 16.
The Smitty
Smith Computer
"Keefer Milton" replies:
> Your assertion that the world is far too complicated to have not been
> created by an intelligent being or entity is shortsighted, at best.
Fractals
> look amaizingly complex, don't they? I certainly could put one together
with
> such accuracy. I guess that means God did it, eh?
Perhaps, however could you design an expanding universe complete with
support for a self healing biosphere, having never seen or experienced one?
Yes, the Creator did that.
> The universe follows certain rules and has certain forces that follow
those
> rules: gravity, strong nuclear, etc. Why is it so hard for creationists to
> understand that through these forces are produced everything we see? If
> you'd feel more comfortable calling gravity God, be my guest.
The rules you speak of are commonly referred to as laws by the scientific
community, and I suspect that most of that ilk recognize that the laws are
coordinated and imposed in such a manner that the linear universe exists
accordingly. Now you seem to be unwilling to venture beyond the aspect of
those laws, themselves, being created, however I will not call you
shortsighted.
> As for your "proof," you have none but "I don't know, therefore it must be
> God."
You present an assumption with agressive assertion however the facts do not
seem to lend themselves to that position. The realm of human knowledge has
spanned several thousand years and increases daily. Still, the layman and
many scientists alike recognize the patterns and evidence of intelligent
design.
> Here are a few points for you to mull over:
As you wish.
> Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore there was no beginning
and
> there is no end. Therefore, the universe is cyclical. Therefore there was
no
> Creator.
You cite a well known axiom as a point from which to argue, however your
conclusion(s) does not match the concept. Energy, as humans know it, could
just as easily been converted from the types of energy you do not know about
and can not measure. You are, after all, a limited being and can not even
discern beyond a limted scope.
> From Sextus: If the Gods exist, they are living beings. But if they are
> living beings, they have sensations. If human beings had more senses than
> gods, they would be superior to gods, so the gods have taste, which means
> they can taste bitter, which means some things displease them, which means
> some things can harm them. But if this is so, they are perishable.
Sextus assumes much without accurate knowledge. He assigns human frailty to
that which he does not know and has not attempted to learn. There are
things which displease the Creator, however those things present no danger.
> From Sextus: The Gods must have sensation in order to be superior to men.
> Therefore there must be certain things that are vexations to them.
> Therefore, God is subject to change for the worse, hence destruction.
The limited sensations of Sextus seem to have occluded his thinking
processes.
With certainty, the logical progression of greater sensation is the ability
to process greater information, therefore greater interface and influence.
> Courage is a virtue. God is all virtuous. In order to have courage, one
must
> first fear. If one fears something one must be able to be harmed by
> something. If one may be harmed by something, one is perishable. If god is
> all virtuous, god is perishable.
The above ascribes human virtue and those things associated with human
virtue to a spirit entity. Is it any wonder mankind muddles through
philosophy without recourse?
> The list goes on and on...
Of that, there is no doubt.
The Smitty
AnotherJD
spread through fear, and the "masses" when scared will listen to anyone
and avoid logic. There are however religions (Zoroastrianism, Hinduism,
worship of Kali etc.) which are not guilt based and strongly uphold the
notion of "Doing good for the sake of good, without want of reward nor
fear of reprisal".
Mani Deli wrote:
> The reason for belief in the existence of gods and religions is due to
> a blindly conformist society, which makes its business to scare the
> shit out of its innocent little kids. Before they have any ability to
> reason, it coerces them into believing that they were born rotten
> sinners and carefully describes all the wonderful punishments their
> loving god might just have in store for them if they stray from
> whatever their branch of the superstition business tells them.
>
This is factually incorrect. The big religions are big because they are
spread through fear, and the "masses" when scared will listen to anyone
and avoid logic. There are however religions (Zoroastrianism, Hinduism,
worship of Kali etc.) which are not guilt based. Some of these strongly
uphold the notion of "Doing good for the sake of good, without want of
reward nor fear of reprisal".
> Starting early, the education system and peer groups then teach blind
> conformity, avoidance of rationality and any questioning of dogmas
> while it punishes deviators. In the social background a religious
> sales force continually preaches dire warnings.
This is true. It is the sad reality that the majority of people who
teach our children are themselves not exceptional. Truly a case of the
blind leading the blind.
> Amazingly, the whole fear system in sky-god religions is grounded on
> the belief that someone ate the wrong apple and a society too
> intimidated, too scared and too stupid to question this.
>
> Should doubt ever arise about Eve having actually eaten that apple
> become universal, the whole of theological sky god theory would
> evaporate.
>
This is inaccurate. Without rehashing the story of Eve eating the fruit
the point it makes is self evident. There is sin and man is not
perfect. If today the Catholic church came out and said the Old
Testament is mistaken, we were dropped here imperfect already, there
would be no further change to their dogma. A lot of harm because they
changed their mind, but no harm due to the actual fact changing.
It is also interesting to note that in a "society too
intimidated, too scared and too stupid to question this" Eve would never
have eaten the Fruit from the tree of Knowledge. The very root of these
fear based religion is a collective punishment of the human race for one
persons refusal to embrace blind faith.
AnotherJD
good for the sake of good alone, this does not however apply to all the
examples mentioned.
Keefer Milton
>
> "Keefer Milton" replies:
>
>> Your assertion that the world is far too complicated to have not been
>> created by an intelligent being or entity is shortsighted, at best.
> Fractals
>> look amaizingly complex, don't they? I certainly could put one together
> with
>> such accuracy. I guess that means God did it, eh?
>
> Perhaps, however could you design an expanding universe complete with
> support for a self healing biosphere, having never seen or experienced
> one?
> Yes, the Creator did that.
A typo on my part. *couldn't*
>
>> The universe follows certain rules and has certain forces that follow
> those
>> rules: gravity, strong nuclear, etc. Why is it so hard for creationists
>> to
>> understand that through these forces are produced everything we see? If
>> you'd feel more comfortable calling gravity God, be my guest.
>
> The rules you speak of are commonly referred to as laws by the scientific
> community, and I suspect that most of that ilk recognize that the laws are
> coordinated and imposed in such a manner that the linear universe exists
> accordingly. Now you seem to be unwilling to venture beyond the aspect of
> those laws, themselves, being created, however I will not call you
> shortsighted.
Actually, I contend that nothing was created. My personal belief is of the
cyclical nature.
>
>> As for your "proof," you have none but "I don't know, therefore it must
>> be
>> God."
>
> You present an assumption with agressive assertion however the facts do
> not
> seem to lend themselves to that position. The realm of human knowledge
> has
> spanned several thousand years and increases daily. Still, the layman and
> many scientists alike recognize the patterns and evidence of intelligent
> design.
>
I've yet to see one displayed in this forum for debate.
>> Here are a few points for you to mull over:
>
> As you wish.
>
>> Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore there was no beginning
> and
>> there is no end. Therefore, the universe is cyclical. Therefore there was
> no
>> Creator.
>
> You cite a well known axiom as a point from which to argue, however your
> conclusion(s) does not match the concept. Energy, as humans know it, could
> just as easily been converted from the types of energy you do not know
> about
> and can not measure. You are, after all, a limited being and can not even
> discern beyond a limted scope.
>
My conclusion most certainly matches the concept. Whether energy was or was
not converted from some form of which we're unknowing, it has still always
been present.
>
>> From Sextus: If the Gods exist, they are living beings. But if they are
>> living beings, they have sensations. If human beings had more senses than
>> gods, they would be superior to gods, so the gods have taste, which means
>> they can taste bitter, which means some things displease them, which
>> means
>> some things can harm them. But if this is so, they are perishable.
>
> Sextus assumes much without accurate knowledge. He assigns human frailty
> to
> that which he does not know and has not attempted to learn. There are
> things which displease the Creator, however those things present no
> danger.
>
And how exactly can you know what displeases "the creator" or what does not?
You argue from fantasy.
>
>> From Sextus: The Gods must have sensation in order to be superior to men.
>> Therefore there must be certain things that are vexations to them.
>> Therefore, God is subject to change for the worse, hence destruction.
>
> The limited sensations of Sextus seem to have occluded his thinking
> processes.
> With certainty, the logical progression of greater sensation is the
> ability
> to process greater information, therefore greater interface and influence.
>
You're only helping my point. If things were as you say, than "the creator"
would be even more subject to change.
>> Courage is a virtue. God is all virtuous. In order to have courage, one
> must
>> first fear. If one fears something one must be able to be harmed by
>> something. If one may be harmed by something, one is perishable. If god
>> is
>> all virtuous, god is perishable.
>
> The above ascribes human virtue and those things associated with human
> virtue to a spirit entity. Is it any wonder mankind muddles through
> philosophy without recourse?
I don't know from what faith you consider yourself to belong yet I will
assume you are of the Christian persuasion. If "the creator" displays
anything, he displays human emotions: jealous, vengeance, anger, and love.
In fact, most would attest that god IS love. You can't have it both ways.
Either humans were created in the image of god, meaning god has emotions not
unlike those of humans, making him, in essence, mortal, or god/"the creator"
is a crutch and a simpleton's fall back argument for debate his acquired
knowledge cannot combat.
<snip>
Keefer Milton
"AnotherJD" <an...@anon.com> wrote in message
news:d6qvaq$i0r$2...@domitilla.aioe.org...
An interesting addition. The influence of Zoroastrianism on Judaism is the
origin for the Heaven/Hell concept of Christianity.
Keefer Milton
And why should one accept the bible as an accurate source of research? This
debate should be about truth, not hearsay.
Smith Computer
"Keefer Milton" replies to:
"Mani Deli" who replied to:
> >> >It is good that you recognize the need for the Creator and therefore
> >> >believe.
by asking:
> >> What's good about it?
> > Hello Mani,
> > Said recognition puts one in a position more able to to gain accurate
> > knowledge, whereas those who do not consider the Creator readily draw
> > wrong
> > conclusions from the things that they observe.
> > The Bible repeatedly links the Creator and knowledge, calling him "a God
> > of
> > knowledge" and describing him as "perfect in knowledge."-1Sa 2:3; Job
> > 36:4;
> > 37:14, 16.
> > The Smitty
> And why should one accept the bible as an accurate source of research?
This
> debate should be about truth, not hearsay.
The word has shown itself accurate in all levels of scrutiny and it is only
those who have misplaced agenda or a lack of accurate understanding who say
otherwise. While it is understood that many may not like what the word has
to say, that makes it no less true.
The Smitty
Smith Computer
"Keefer Milton"
responded to:
> "Smith Computer"
> > "Keefer Milton" replies:
> >
> >> Your assertion that the world is far too complicated to have not been
> >> created by an intelligent being or entity is shortsighted, at best.
> > Fractals
> >> look amaizingly complex, don't they? I certainly could put one together
> > with
> >> such accuracy. I guess that means God did it, eh?
> > Perhaps, however could you design an expanding universe complete with
> > support for a self healing biosphere, having never seen or experienced
> > one?
> > Yes, the Creator did that.
> A typo on my part. *couldn't*
Mankind designed the computer, the Creator designed man.
> >> The universe follows certain rules and has certain forces that follow
> > those
> >> rules: gravity, strong nuclear, etc. Why is it so hard for creationists
> >> to
> >> understand that through these forces are produced everything we see? If
> >> you'd feel more comfortable calling gravity God, be my guest.
> >
> > The rules you speak of are commonly referred to as laws by the
scientific
> > community, and I suspect that most of that ilk recognize that the laws
are
> > coordinated and imposed in such a manner that the linear universe exists
> > accordingly. Now you seem to be unwilling to venture beyond the aspect
of
> > those laws, themselves, being created, however I will not call you
> > shortsighted.
>
> Actually, I contend that nothing was created. My personal belief is of the
> cyclical nature.
Yes, and you are still unwilling.
> >> As for your "proof," you have none but "I don't know, therefore it must
> >> be
> >> God."
> > You present an assumption with agressive assertion however the facts do
> > not
> > seem to lend themselves to that position. The realm of human knowledge
> > has
> > spanned several thousand years and increases daily. Still, the layman
and
> > many scientists alike recognize the patterns and evidence of intelligent
> > design.
> I've yet to see one displayed in this forum for debate.
That, in itself, speaks only for what you have seen.
> >> Here are a few points for you to mull over:
> > As you wish.
> >> Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore there was no beginning
> > and
> >> there is no end. Therefore, the universe is cyclical. Therefore there
was
> > no
> >> Creator.
> > You cite a well known axiom as a point from which to argue, however
your
> > conclusion(s) does not match the concept. Energy, as humans know it,
could
> > just as easily been converted from the types of energy you do not know
> > about
> > and can not measure. You are, after all, a limited being and can not
even
> > discern beyond a limted scope.
> My conclusion most certainly matches the concept. Whether energy was or
was > not converted from some form of which we're unknowing, it has still
always
> been present.
Your assertion ignores certain facts which stand in contrast to your
position. You do not know the true nature of energy save what you can
measure and you can not measure time beyond your limited scope. Stating the
facts regarding what you can measure merely places emphasis on those things
you can not.
> >> From Sextus: If the Gods exist, they are living beings. But if they are
> >> living beings, they have sensations. If human beings had more senses
than
> >> gods, they would be superior to gods, so the gods have taste, which
means
> >> they can taste bitter, which means some things displease them, which
> >> means
> >> some things can harm them. But if this is so, they are perishable.
> > Sextus assumes much without accurate knowledge. He assigns human frailty
> > to
> > that which he does not know and has not attempted to learn. There are
> > things which displease the Creator, however those things present no
> > danger.
> And how exactly can you know what displeases "the creator" or what does
not? > You argue from fantasy.
Have you come to know what you argue against or do you merely parrot?
It is no fantasy that the Creator gave us the word and in that rendering we
have the written word which illuminates what is pleasing and what is not.
> >> From Sextus: The Gods must have sensation in order to be superior to
men.
> >> Therefore there must be certain things that are vexations to them.
> >> Therefore, God is subject to change for the worse, hence destruction.
> > The limited sensations of Sextus seem to have occluded his thinking
> > processes.
> > With certainty, the logical progression of greater sensation is the
> > ability
> > to process greater information, therefore greater interface and
influence.
> You're only helping my point. If things were as you say, than "the
creator"
> would be even more subject to change.
Your assertion seems less like a point and more like a whim of fancy.
Change is with mankind and those who stand against the Creator. If you have
an argument which supports your cause, I am sure the entire forum would love
to disect it for accuracy.
> >> Courage is a virtue. God is all virtuous. In order to have courage, one
> > must
> >> first fear. If one fears something one must be able to be harmed by
> >> something. If one may be harmed by something, one is perishable. If god
> >> is
> >> all virtuous, god is perishable.
> > The above ascribes human virtue and those things associated with human
> > virtue to a spirit entity. Is it any wonder mankind muddles through
> > philosophy without recourse?
> I don't know from what faith you consider yourself to belong yet I will
> assume you are of the Christian persuasion. If "the creator" displays
> anything, he displays human emotions: jealous, vengeance, anger, and love.
> In fact, most would attest that god IS love. You can't have it both ways.
> Either humans were created in the image of god, meaning god has emotions
not
> unlike those of humans, making him, in essence, mortal, or god/"the
creator"
> is a crutch and a simpleton's fall back argument for debate his acquired
> knowledge cannot combat.
I suspect you make the same error in judgement that Sextus did. You try
very hard to ascribe limited human concepts to a spirit entity that has no
such limitations. Debate requires knowledge of the subject being debated.
The Smitty
stumper
What is the spirit anyway?
~Stumper.
Keefer Milton
Proven to whom, zealots such as yourself? Discussions with those as dilluded
as you are useless.
Smith Computer
"Keefer Milton" says:
> Proven to whom, zealots such as yourself? Discussions with those as
dilluded
> as you are useless.
Your inability to debate is noted and while you present yourself quite
zealous, sir, your disparaging avails no one good.
The Smitty
Keefer Milton
You don't win a debate because your view is pure fantasy and you refuse to
see any differently.
Keefer Milton
Furthermore, mine is not an inabilty to debate, but a recognition that
you've no capacity for reconing reality and the ensuing disillusionment in
any sort of dialogue on topics other than invisible men in the sky and
hearsay.
Smith Computer
"stumper" <stu...@newvessel.com> wrote in message
news:tW6dnTDwBud...@ptd.net...
The Greek pneu´ma (spirit) comes from pne´o, meaning "breathe or blow," and
the Hebrew ru´ach (spirit) is believed to come from a root having the same
meaning. Ru´ach and pneu´ma, then, basically mean "breath" but (had) have
extended meanings beyond that basic sense. (Compare Hab 2:19; Re 13:15.)
They can also mean wind; the vital force in living creatures; one's spirit;
spirit persons, including God and his angelic creatures; and God's active
force, or holy spirit. (Compare Koehler and Baumgartner's Lexicon in Veteris
Testamenti Libros, Leiden, 1958, pp. 877-879; Brown, Driver, and Briggs'
Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1980, pp. 924-926;
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Friedrich,
translated by G. Bromiley, 1971, Vol. VI, pp. 332-451.) All these meanings
have something in common: They all refer to that which is invisible to human
sight and which gives evidence of force in motion. Such invisible force is
capable of producing visible effects.
The Smitty
The Smitty
Smith Computer
> > "Keefer Milton" says:
> >
> >
> >> Proven to whom, zealots such as yourself? Discussions with those as
> > dilluded
> >> as you are useless.
> >
> > Your inability to debate is noted and while you present yourself quite
> > zealous, sir, your disparaging avails no one good.
> >
> > The Smitty
> You don't win a debate because your view is pure fantasy and you refuse to
> see any differently.
Please, dear Keefer, when you learn how to address an issue and/or debate
same, rest assured there will be those who still claim that you have not.
In this case however, you have not shown willingness to resemble a thought
provoking debate or even to attempt any position other than that of an
unreasoning "name caller".
At this point you have proven yourself unworthy of further response.
The smitty