Dog Religion: Darwin's English Hound!
Immortalist
approaching the topic of religion....
Darwin wished to deal explicitly only with the problem of the religious
sentiments of savages, though implicitly to suggest an answer to the
question of God's existence quite different from that given by the high
intellects.
The theologically disposed Victorian could dismiss as rank superstition
the native's beliefs in spirits and ghostly beings, yet, as Darwin
knew, most would recognize that the primitive's feelings were of a
genuinely religious cast.
(1) He proposed that as soon as
the faculties of imagination and
wonder had developed, along with
some reasoning ability, early man,
like the contemporary savage, would
have begun to speculate on terrifying
natural phenomena, as well as
on his own existence.
(2) Yet the tendency of primitives to
imagine that natural objects were
animated by spirits seemed, Darwin
observed, little different from that
exhibited by his own dog, which barked
and growled at a parasol blown by the
wind, apparently believing that its
flight indicated the presence of
some invisible agent.
(3) Moreover, the feeling of religious
devotion, which he analyzed as consisting
of "love, complete submission to an
exalted and mysterious superior, a
strong sense of dependence, fear,
reverence, gratitude, hope for
the future, and perhaps other
elements"-such feeling bore
strong resemblance to that
simpler emotional complex
displayed by his dog's
worshipful devotion
to its master.
Darwin and the Emergence of Evolutionary
Theories of Mind and Behavior
by Robert J. Richards
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226712001/
Sean
"Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155664603.4...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Darwin's observations were flawed, as were his assumptions that a dog only
believed there was a presence, as opposed to actually seeing what was only
invisible to Darwin, and not the dog itself.
Darwin is assuming without ANY evidence that the dog was barking at the
parasole. How would Darwin *know* that?
Imm. why would you automatically assume/believe that darwin was right, and
the dog was wrong. Do you actually know from expereince what a dog sees and
can be aware of?
> (3) Moreover, the feeling of religious
> devotion, which he analyzed as consisting
> of "love, complete submission to an
> exalted and mysterious superior, a
> strong sense of dependence, fear,
> reverence, gratitude, hope for
> the future, and perhaps other
> elements"-such feeling bore
> strong resemblance to that
> simpler emotional complex
> displayed by his dog's
> worshipful devotion
> to its master.
>
more assumptions and guesswork based entirly on presumption and a lack of
understanding of things he was either totally unaware of and/or judged could
not exist, and therefore didn't in his worldview, when actually he didn't
know zip about these things.
rip...@azonic.co.nz
Sean wrote:
> Darwin's observations were flawed, as were his assumptions that a dog only
> believed there was a presence, as opposed to actually seeing what was only
> invisible to Darwin, and not the dog itself.
Your claims are flawed. What _evidence_ do you have (other than your
assumptions) that dogs have eyes that can see things that are invisible
to humans.
> Darwin is assuming without ANY evidence that the dog was barking at the
> parasole. How would Darwin *know* that?
The dog _was_ barking at the parasol, there was an 'invisible agent',
the wind.
But in any case it was presented as an analogy.
> Imm. why would you automatically assume/believe that darwin was right, and
> the dog was wrong. Do you actually know from expereince what a dog sees and
> can be aware of?
It is entirely possible to gauge what dogs can see. It is done by
examining the retinas of dog's eyes and comparing them to human eyes.
It is also possible to examine the eyes of people with known
deficiencies (after death) in order to see how the differences in
structure and materials relate to the differences.
It is also possible to study reactions to various stimuli in both
humans and dogs in order to determine what they can distinguish.
We have a reasonable idea of how and what dogs see. It is not a lot
different from what we see except they see less colour.
> more assumptions and guesswork based entirly on presumption and a lack of
> understanding of things he was either totally unaware of
Or perhaps he actually did understand these things and it is simply
your 'assumptions and guesswork' that he didn't.
> and/or judged could
> not exist, and therefore didn't in his worldview, when actually he didn't
> know zip about these things.
If they didn't (don't) exist then there is nothing to know about them,
except that religionist and others just make stuff up about them.
Sean
<rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1155708425.9...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sean wrote:
>
>> Darwin's observations were flawed, as were his assumptions that a dog
>> only
>> believed there was a presence, as opposed to actually seeing what was
>> only
>> invisible to Darwin, and not the dog itself.
>
> Your claims are flawed. What _evidence_ do you have (other than your
> assumptions) that dogs have eyes that can see things that are invisible
> to humans.
>
"seeing" was an analogy for any sense. If you believe that dogs have exactly
the same senses as humans, if you believe that what they see is exactly the
same as what/how humans see, and if you have never heard about the
differences in hearing between dogs and other animals, and yet assume Darwin
knew everything about dogs, including **what the dog believed** ... then
have at it, i don;t care.
as for the rest, yadda yadda yadda . ;-))
Chris H. Fleming
The dog's master is concrete though.
Immortalist
Are you claiming that Darwin's theory is falsifiable and then going on
to claim it is false based upon a similarly falsifiable theory?
An analogy is a similarity or likeness between things in some
circumstances or effects, when the things are otherwise entirely
different. In mathematics, an equation between ratios; as, Napier's
analogies an explaining of something by comparing it point by point
with something else. In biology, similarity in function between parts,
dissimilar in origin and structure: distinguished from homology. In
logic, the inference that certain admitted resemblances imply probable
further similarity. In linguistics, the process by which new or less
familiar words, constructions, or pronunciations conform with the
pattern of older or more familiar (and often unrelated) ones: as,
energize is formed from energy by analogy with apologize from apology.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.philosophy.misc/msg/ff28cf6ee8ba4eb2
> Darwin is assuming without ANY evidence that the dog was barking at the
> parasole. How would Darwin *know* that?
>
Because of his observations of humans and other animals? He was
probably confident that animals react to events and had devised some
sort of standard for when they made mistakes about what really happens.
Besides Error Management Theory is based upon evidentiary claims that
humans and other animals "jump to conclusions" about events in a way
that if they are wrong they survive and if they are right they survive.
Animals that did not reason in these ways died because if they were
right they survived but if they were wrong sometimes they died. This
would slowely eliminate many traits given that the theory of evolution
is somewhat correct.
For instance;
Consider a relatively simple problem of walking through the woods and
fleetingly sensing a slithering object scurry underneath some leaves in
the path directly in front of you. There are two possible states of
reality: either there is a dangerous snake in your path or there is not
a dangerous snake in your path. Given the incomplete and uncertain
information that you have percieved, there are also two inferences you
could make. There is indeed a dangerous snake, and you act to avoid it.
Or you could conclude that there is no snake and continue walking down
the path.
There are also two possible ways that you could be wrong. You could
believe that there is a snake when in fact no snake exists. Or you
could believe that no snake when in fact a venomous rattler is lurking
right in your path. The costs of these two types of errors, however,
are vastly different. In the first case, your belief causes you to
incur the trivial metabolic cost of taking an unnecessary evasive
action. By giving a wide birth to the area that you believe harbors a
snake, you have merely gone out of your way a little, incurring a minor
delay in your walk. In the second case, however, failing to detect a
snake that is in fact lurking in your path can cost you your life. THe
two ways of being wrong carry substantially different costs.
more here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.angst/msg/6259808bd1f89e4d
> Imm. why would you automatically assume/believe that darwin was right, and
> the dog was wrong. Do you actually know from expereince what a dog sees and
> can be aware of?
>
That doesn't apply to empirical theorization. You are assuming that
Darwin was reasoning by deduction instead of induction, didn't anyone
ever tell you that evolution and Darwin's ideas are and were theories?
>
> > (3) Moreover, the feeling of religious
> > devotion, which he analyzed as consisting
> > of "love, complete submission to an
> > exalted and mysterious superior, a
> > strong sense of dependence, fear,
> > reverence, gratitude, hope for
> > the future, and perhaps other
> > elements"-such feeling bore
> > strong resemblance to that
> > simpler emotional complex
> > displayed by his dog's
> > worshipful devotion
> > to its master.
> >
>
> more assumptions and guesswork based entirly on presumption and a lack of
> understanding of things he was either totally unaware of and/or judged could
> not exist, and therefore didn't in his worldview, when actually he didn't
> know zip about these things.
>
Doesn't look like any of us, including you, can know much by your
prescription of value to methods. Unless your standards only apply to
people other than your own presentations.
Immortalist
Can you explain what you mean since either your too vague or ambiguous.
Concrete could mean a hard substance the dog was on or that the master,
Darwin, was concrete about his convictions, or many other possible
vaguities..
Chris H. Fleming
The dog's master is tangible. The dog can see, smell, touch, taste,
hear the master.
Only crazy people do so with their gods.
rip...@azonic.co.nz
Sean wrote:
> > Your claims are flawed. What _evidence_ do you have (other than your
> > assumptions) that dogs have eyes that can see things that are invisible
> > to humans.
>
> "seeing" was an analogy for any sense.
Actually 'seeing' was the only sense used in the analogy.
> If you believe that dogs have exactly
> the same senses as humans, if you believe that what they see is exactly the
> same as what/how humans see, and if you have never heard about the
> differences in hearing between dogs and other animals, and yet assume Darwin
> knew everything about dogs,
I already stated that it is possible to determine what senses the dogs
have, and to what extent they are generally better or worse than
humans, and how this can be, and is, done. As this was known many
centuries ago there is no reason to think that Darwin was unaware of
it.
> including **what the dog believed** ... then have at it, i don;t care.
The words were actually "apparently believing" which indicates our (or
Darwins) _interpretation_ of the motives. Darwin did not claim that he
knew what dogs 'believed' nor what religionists believed, only that he
could see behavioural and social resemblance between dogs and believers
in religions.
The point about this is that the forming of groups around a leader as
exhibited by many animals is beneficial in that it helps survival. In
humans this trait still exists and shows as patriotism, loyalty, family
and clan protection and religions, and is the same mechanism as dogs
have to keep to packs, or to a human leader if brought up that way.
Sean
<rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1155756888....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sean wrote:
>> > Your claims are flawed. What _evidence_ do you have (other than your
>> > assumptions) that dogs have eyes that can see things that are invisible
>> > to humans.
>>
>> "seeing" was an analogy for any sense.
>
> Actually 'seeing' was the only sense used in the analogy.
>
and I can create my own analogy on top of that. YOu may have missed it.
If I said, do you "see" what I mean .... does that actually mean you have to
walk into my room here and look with your eyes?
I know, it all went over your head, and you can't "see" it, but I don't
mind.
Learning to be more flexible in ones thinking means one can begin to learn,
and not just parrot what others have taught you by rote. That still applies
to working Professors as much as grade school kiddies.
Darwin was very clever, and a giant in his day. He still got more wrong in
his conclusions about Life than he got right. imho. You could still learn a
lot from him as far as improving your own observation skills though.
If you really want to see what's there, stop thinking and pre-judging
everything before you even look.
Have a nice day.
Sean
actually I wrote it wrong. I meant the conclusions drawn from his
observations were flawed in this instance, imho of course. I was in a hurry,
sorry.
But I'm sure not all his observations were completely accurate either. He
was only human afterall. or did he also have eyes in the back and sides of
his head as well as a video cam on a tripod?
> An analogy is a similarity or likeness between things in some
> circumstances or effects, when the things are otherwise entirely
> different. In mathematics, an equation between ratios; as, Napier's
> analogies an explaining of something by comparing it point by point
> with something else. In biology, similarity in function between parts,
> dissimilar in origin and structure: distinguished from homology. In
> logic, the inference that certain admitted resemblances imply probable
> further similarity. In linguistics, the process by which new or less
> familiar words, constructions, or pronunciations conform with the
> pattern of older or more familiar (and often unrelated) ones: as,
> energize is formed from energy by analogy with apologize from apology.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.philosophy.misc/msg/ff28cf6ee8ba4eb2
>
>> Darwin is assuming without ANY evidence that the dog was barking at the
>> parasole. How would Darwin *know* that?
>>
>
> Because of his observations of humans and other animals?
That is no answer to my question.
How did darwin *know* that in this specific instance that the dog was
barking at the parasole?
Just because darwin saw the parasole at the same time the dog barked doesn;t
mean he was barking at the parasole now does it?
Ever seen a dog go nuts barking at something, but you never saw what it was
it was all excited about? If I threw a parasole in the right direction at
the same time, you'd probably assume he was barking at the parasole too ....
but you wouldn;t really know now would you?
He was
> probably confident that animals react to events and had devised some
> sort of standard for when they made mistakes about what really happens.
>
Probably? So you don't actually know that either!
And you have no knowledge that dogs have a awareness or 6th senses that
operate at levels far diferent than humans .... and so assume it must have
been the parasole because that;s all darwin saw.
There's a difference between knowing and theories/assumptions. the ASS part
isnt accidental that it;s a part of the last word.
Darwin said xyz, he's a god, so whatever he reports must be true. I can turn
my mind off now, and stop thinking. How clever is that?
rip...@azonic.co.nz
Sean wrote:
> > Actually 'seeing' was the only sense used in the analogy.
>
> and I can create my own analogy on top of that. YOu may have missed it.
You can create whatever you want, but don't criticise Darwin based on
something you just made up.
rip...@azonic.co.nz
Sean wrote:
> But I'm sure not all his observations were completely accurate either. He
> was only human afterall. or did he also have eyes in the back and sides of
> his head as well as a video cam on a tripod?
> How did darwin *know* that in this specific instance that the dog was
> barking at the parasole?
>
> Just because darwin saw the parasole at the same time the dog barked doesn;t
> mean he was barking at the parasole now does it?
>
> Ever seen a dog go nuts barking at something, but you never saw what it was
> it was all excited about? If I threw a parasole in the right direction at
> the same time, you'd probably assume he was barking at the parasole too ....
> but you wouldn;t really know now would you?
But then I would see that the dog was barking at nothing and then that
you had thrown it in the direction. That is what 'observing' is all
about. If the dog only barked at the parasol and not at 'nothing'
before hand then I can discount your made up story.
> And you have no knowledge that dogs have a awareness or 6th senses that
> operate at levels far diferent than humans ....
If you have a theory about a '6th sense' then please do propose it with
such supporting evidense as what it actually does, the mechanism that
detects it, and so on. Otherwise we may conclude that it is just stuff
that you made up.
> and so assume it must have
> been the parasole because that;s all darwin saw.
You do understand the term 'at' don't you ? If the dog was directing
his attention _at_ the parasol, rather than at several other locations,
then it is most likely that was what he was barking at rather than some
ficticious and undetectable 'something' that doesn't even exist.
Now if the observation had been that the dog barked at random places
and only sometimes this coincided with the parasol then there may be a
conclusion there was something else. Have you any evidence that this
was what was observed, or is it just that you would prefer this to have
been the case ?
> There's a difference between knowing and theories/assumptions. the ASS part
> isnt accidental that it;s a part of the last word.
And you have ASSumed that he lied about what he saw.
> Darwin said xyz, he's a god, so whatever he reports must be true.
I have observed many similar events with dogs barking _*AT*_ objects
blown by the wind or such. I don't have to take Darwin's word, it is
within my experience.
> I can turn
> my mind off now, and stop thinking. How clever is that?
Actually I think that you turned it off a long time ago.
Sean
<rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1155771861....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Why not? He made up stuff as he went along. OoS is the record of a
meandering mind lost in it's own space, and is not science.
Look up "logical fallacies" and then read Darwin's so called infallible
works.
And THINK and use rational logic whilst reading. If you need a comparison of
irrational uninformed spin, read Mien Kampf by Adolf Hitler. It's the
political equivalent of Darwinism. It may be based on some limited known
factual observations, but it spins off into fantasy of irrational
conclusions all of it's own.
Obviously, at present you are unable to see that, same as the Nazis couldn;t
see the errors in Hitler's thinking. Some are still trying to work how they
got it so wrong.
Sean
<rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1155773675....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sean wrote:
>
>> But I'm sure not all his observations were completely accurate either. He
>> was only human afterall. or did he also have eyes in the back and sides
>> of
>> his head as well as a video cam on a tripod?
>
>> How did darwin *know* that in this specific instance that the dog was
>> barking at the parasole?
>>
>> Just because darwin saw the parasole at the same time the dog barked
>> doesn;t
>> mean he was barking at the parasole now does it?
>>
>> Ever seen a dog go nuts barking at something, but you never saw what it
>> was
>> it was all excited about? If I threw a parasole in the right direction at
>> the same time, you'd probably assume he was barking at the parasole too
>> ....
>> but you wouldn;t really know now would you?
>
> But then I would see that the dog was barking at nothing and then that
> you had thrown it in the direction. That is what 'observing' is all
> about. If the dog only barked at the parasol and not at 'nothing'
> before hand then I can discount your made up story.
>
You have some work to do with your own thinking and reading comprehension,
and put your compulsive beliefs aside for a at least a moment.
what do you think "at the same time" meant when I used that term? Look
again, and actually see what I am saying, and stop trying to defend your
irrationality.
>> And you have no knowledge that dogs have a awareness or 6th senses that
>> operate at levels far diferent than humans ....
>
> If you have a theory about a '6th sense' then please do propose it with
> such supporting evidense as what it actually does, the mechanism that
> detects it, and so on. Otherwise we may conclude that it is just stuff
> that you made up.
>
That is exactly what Darwin did, but you say I cannot do the same thing and
come to my own conclusions. For if they happen to conflict with ANY of
Darwins observations or conclusions, I must be wrong and he must be right,
even though we are both following the same MO.
If you want to live in denial that pets are often aware that their owner is
on their way home when he is still several miles form home, you are welcome
to do that. That may make you as irrational as those who still believe in
the litteral interpretation of Genesis, but that;s your choice to make.
Your lack of knowledge and experience, does not make me wrong. Not matter
how much you want to believe it.
>> and so assume it must have
>> been the parasole because that;s all darwin saw.
>
> You do understand the term 'at' don't you ? If the dog was directing
> his attention _at_ the parasol, rather than at several other locations,
> then it is most likely that was what he was barking at rather than some
> ficticious and undetectable 'something' that doesn't even exist.
>
"most likely" from Darwins point of view that does NOT make it a fact.
When you can get over this hurdle of being totally engrossed in your own
beliefs of the infallibility of one man, you will start to learn somethings
of real value for yourself.
> Now if the observation had been that the dog barked at random places
> and only sometimes this coincided with the parasol then there may be a
> conclusion there was something else. Have you any evidence that this
> was what was observed, or is it just that you would prefer this to have
> been the case ?
>
Have you ANY evidence that the dog was actually barking at the parasol blown
by the wind?
besides Darwins word that he MUST HAVE got it right? anything at all
???..... get a piece of paper and write them down before you reply.
>> There's a difference between knowing and theories/assumptions. the ASS
>> part
>> isnt accidental that it;s a part of the last word.
>
> And you have ASSumed that he lied about what he saw.
>
NO my dear friend. YOU are ASSuming that I think he was lying when I do not
think that whatsoever.
What I think, is that even with the best of intentions, ALL humans make
errors in drawing conclusions about what they observed. Science is about
replicatable experiments because they know what we think we see, isn;t
always the WHOLE story.
Yet, even though Darwin lists all these one off personal observations, they
place his conclusions on a pedestal of infallibility and ignore subsequent
scientific eveidence because they are so attached to words like "natural
selection" .
It is a PROVEN scientific fact, that first hand witness statements are
always unreliable as to the facts.
It is irrational to accept this science, and to also accept every single
thing Darwin had to say.
It is irrational to accept natural selection, evolution, heridity, dna,
genetics, quantum mechanics etc and then make the giant leap that this
therefore "proves" there is no God or Creator [ just because Genesis is full
of errors or you are an atheist ]
Darwin maybe the father of biological science, but that does not mean he is
perfect, or proved things his mental meanderings and assumptions did not
actually prove.
>> Darwin said xyz, he's a god, so whatever he reports must be true.
>
> I have observed many similar events with dogs barking _*AT*_ objects
> blown by the wind or such. I don't have to take Darwin's word, it is
> within my experience.
>
What about those things you have NOT expereinced, and refuse to even
investigate as being a possibility? well?
>> I can turn
>> my mind off now, and stop thinking. How clever is that?
>
> Actually I think that you turned it off a long time ago.
>
That's a judgement about soemthing you KNOW nothing about. Therein lies your
own difficulty in a nutshell. Assumptions and personal reactions when your
personal beliefs are being challenged by alternative views, lays at the core
of this problem. imho based upon personal experience.
rip...@azonic.co.nz
Sean wrote:
> > But then I would see that the dog was barking at nothing and then that
> > you had thrown it in the direction. That is what 'observing' is all
> > about. If the dog only barked at the parasol and not at 'nothing'
> > before hand then I can discount your made up story.
>
> You have some work to do with your own thinking and reading comprehension,
> and put your compulsive beliefs aside for a at least a moment.
>
> what do you think "at the same time" meant when I used that term? Look
> again, and actually see what I am saying, and stop trying to defend your
> irrationality.
Ahh, so what you are saying is that you are capable of infalibly
predicting when and where the dog will bark so that your throw can have
the parasol arrive at the exact time the dog starts barking. And not
only that you are capable of 'sensing' where this invisible thing that
only dogs can 'see' so that you can make that prediction.
I think that it is you that is creating irtrational scenarios.
> >> And you have no knowledge that dogs have a awareness or 6th senses that
> >> operate at levels far diferent than humans ....
> >
> > If you have a theory about a '6th sense' then please do propose it with
> > such supporting evidense as what it actually does, the mechanism that
> > detects it, and so on. Otherwise we may conclude that it is just stuff
> > that you made up.
>
> but you say I cannot do the same thing and
> come to my own conclusions.
Talking about reading comprehension difficulties. I just told you to
propose a theory and you read it as if I had said that you may not.
> For if they happen to conflict with ANY of
> Darwins observations or conclusions, I must be wrong and he must be right,
> even though we are both following the same MO.
Not at all. I will judge who _I_ think is right based on the evidence
and the rationality, so far you have produced none of either, but that
does not mean that I think you never will.
I haven't seen you use any sort of MO at all. While Darwin made
extensive observations of the real world and recorded these, or a
number of them. You seem to merely speculate about how you can use
magic to predict invisible things.
> If you want to live in denial that pets are often aware that their owner is
> on their way home when he is still several miles form home, you are welcome
> to do that.
I don't think that Darwin made any comment at all on that subject. Nor
have you seen me make any denial of that particular effect.
> That may make you as irrational as those who still believe in
> the litteral interpretation of Genesis, but that;s your choice to make.
Actually I would seek a _rational_ explanation of that hypothetical
dog's behaviour if I ever saw it and would not make wild speculation
based on hearsay and urban myths.
> Your lack of knowledge and experience, does not make me wrong. Not matter
> how much you want to believe it.
So, exactly how many times have you managed to throw a parasol at where
a dog was about to bark so that its arrival at that point coincided
with the dog barking ?
How many dogs have you observed acting as if they could 'sense' their
master at several miles distance ?
How much effort did you put into checking if it was some other
stimulous causing the behaviour, such as the wife starting to prepare a
meal, or turning on the news.
What tests did you make such as having the master not start home and
seeing whether the behaviour still starts even though there is nothing
to 'sense'.
> > You do understand the term 'at' don't you ? If the dog was directing
> > his attention _at_ the parasol, rather than at several other locations,
> > then it is most likely that was what he was barking at rather than some
> > ficticious and undetectable 'something' that doesn't even exist.
>
> "most likely" from Darwins point of view that does NOT make it a fact.
In what way is your ficticious and undetectable 'something' a 'fact' ?
Were you there throwing the parasol ? Was anybody ?
In what way is _anything_ you claim a 'fact' of any kind ?
> When you can get over this hurdle of being totally engrossed in your own
> beliefs of the infallibility of one man, you will start to learn somethings
> of real value for yourself.
You just made that up. What evidence do you have of my "being totally
engrossed" or that I think Darwin was "infalible" ? None at all ? Just
another of your rants.
> Have you ANY evidence that the dog was actually barking at the parasol blown
> by the wind?
I was not making the observation, but I have made sufficient similar
observations to know that it is typical. OTOH I have never observed
anyone being able to throw anything at a point that was about to be
barked at by a dog, nor anyone failing to get it right while the dog
barked somewhere else. Can you provide evidence that this can or has
actually happened anywhere ?
> besides Darwins word that he MUST HAVE got it right? anything at all
> ???..... get a piece of paper and write them down before you reply.
I am not sure why you extrapolate from one single example to
'everything' ?
I am also not sure what it is that you find objectionable about his
ability to observe.
""" exhibited by his own dog, which barked and growled at a parasol
blown by the wind, """
You may speculate that the dog was actually barking at invisible pixies
hiding in the parasol, but do they hide in everything blown by the wind
?
> NO my dear friend. YOU are ASSuming that I think he was lying when I do not
> think that whatsoever.
> What I think, is that even with the best of intentions, ALL humans make
> errors in drawing conclusions about what they observed. Science is about
> replicatable experiments because they know what we think we see, isn;t
> always the WHOLE story.
>
> Yet, even though Darwin lists all these one off personal observations,
They are not 'one off'. He may relate a single incident, but this is
typical of hundreds of similar observations.
> they
> place his conclusions on a pedestal of infallibility and ignore subsequent
> scientific eveidence because they are so attached to words like "natural
> selection" .
Actually, they don't. Darwin's work was significant but it wasn't the
first and is certainly not the last. Natural selection is just _one_
part of the scope of evolution. It is just a part of the whole. For
example 'sexual selection' is another part which Darwin did not address
to any great extent.
> It is a PROVEN scientific fact, that first hand witness statements are
> always unreliable as to the facts.
Irrelevant unless you are attempting to prove that no dog ever barked
at any parasol.
It is even irrelevant whether it was a newspaper or a hat. He was
describing a general and common behaviour, illustrating it with a
single example from his experience.
> It is irrational to accept this science, and to also accept every single
> thing Darwin had to say.
He wasn't presenting it as science. He wasn't even explaining the
behaviour of dogs, he was discussing religion (which is not a subject
that scince deals with) by drawing a parallel between how dogs behaved
and how primitives thought that natural objects were animated by
spirits.
It is irrational to that that everything Darwin said was about science.
It is also irrational to think that it is necessary to agree with
everything Darwin said.
> It is irrational to accept natural selection, evolution, heridity, dna,
> genetics, quantum mechanics etc and then make the giant leap that this
> therefore "proves" there is no God or Creator [ just because Genesis is full
> of errors or you are an atheist ]
It is irrational to think that is the case. Evolution does not "prove
that there is no god". Science makes no comment either way about any
the thousands of gods, goddesses, that religions believe in, that is
outside of the ability of science. Many theists think that evolution is
just the mechanism that their deity uses.
> Darwin maybe the father of biological science,
No. he isn't actually. You may not be aware of anything before Darwin,
but he built on an existing raft of knowledge.
> but that does not mean he is
> perfect, or proved things his mental meanderings and assumptions did not
> actually prove.
I am not sure where anyone claimed perfection for Darwin, that is
usually reserved for religious leaders and ones that churches want to
bestow honours on.
> What about those things you have NOT expereinced, and refuse to even
> investigate as being a possibility? well?
Where have I refused ? If there actually is something to be
investigated (other than stuff you just made up) then I may do so.
However, if there is no 'experience' then there is nothing to observe,
the only 'investigation' can be speculation an 'making stuff up'.
Still, that doesn't stop you.
> >> I can turn
> >> my mind off now, and stop thinking. How clever is that?
> >
> > Actually I think that you turned it off a long time ago.
>
> That's a judgement about soemthing you KNOW nothing about.
Isn't that special. You have been making judgements that you know
nothing about* yet you don't seem to be concerned about that.
* such as my "compulive beliefs", such as "putting on a pedestal", such
as "thinking infalible".
> Therein lies your
> own difficulty in a nutshell. Assumptions and personal reactions when your
> personal beliefs are being challenged by alternative views,
Given you have no idea about my "personal beliefs" other than what you
have assumed, and that the only "alternative views" have been rantings
that were just made up, I don't see any substance in your claims about
my alleged 'difficulties'.
I told you that if you actually have a theory about what the dog may be
barking at, or some other than you are welcome to present it, but you
seem to think that means you cannot.
> lays at the core
> of this problem. imho based upon personal experience.
There is no 'this problem', there is no 'difficulty', at least not on
my side.
rip...@azonic.co.nz
Sean wrote:
> Why not? He made up stuff as he went along. OoS is the record of a
> meandering mind lost in it's own space, and is not science.
You are entitled to that opinion.
> Look up "logical fallacies" and then read Darwin's so called infallible
> works.
Who, other than you, called them 'infalible' ?
> And THINK and use rational logic whilst reading. If you need a comparison of
> irrational uninformed spin, read Mien Kampf by Adolf Hitler. It's the
> political equivalent of Darwinism. It may be based on some limited known
> factual observations, but it spins off into fantasy of irrational
> conclusions all of it's own.
Wheras you may prefer to have some different 'fantasy of irrational
conclusions' ?
> Obviously, at present you are unable to see that, same as the Nazis couldn;t
> see the errors in Hitler's thinking. Some are still trying to work how they
> got it so wrong.
Actually I have studied Germany of the 30s and I can see how they 'go
it wrong'. The public became devoted to the ideas that had originated
in Pan-Germanism of the 19th century and were reawaken in the 20s led
by the Nazis. Hitler promised a better life after, the fullfilling of a
Germanic destiny. The public treated him as a god, in fact one could
say that they had """the feeling of religious devotion, which he
analyzed as consisting of "love, complete submission to an exalted
and mysterious superior, a strong sense of dependence, fear,
reverence, ratitude, hope for the future, and perhaps other
elements"""
One documentary made from contemporary film from the 30s had a child
say "Hitler is so good he must have created the world". Naziism was a
form of religious devotion.
OTOH no one would say that about Darwin, quite the opposite actually,
he never promised a better life here or after, there was no dependence,
fear, reverence, ... or even hope for the future. Certainly not from
me.
Sean
<rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1155815973.8...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sean wrote:
>
>> Why not? He made up stuff as he went along. OoS is the record of a
>> meandering mind lost in it's own space, and is not science.
>
> You are entitled to that opinion.
>
>> Look up "logical fallacies" and then read Darwin's so called infallible
>> works.
>
> Who, other than you, called them 'infalible' ?
>
My label for observed behaviour right on this group. Your good self
included, though less extreme.
>> And THINK and use rational logic whilst reading. If you need a comparison
>> of
>> irrational uninformed spin, read Mien Kampf by Adolf Hitler. It's the
>> political equivalent of Darwinism. It may be based on some limited known
>> factual observations, but it spins off into fantasy of irrational
>> conclusions all of it's own.
>
> Wheras you may prefer to have some different 'fantasy of irrational
> conclusions' ?
>
That;s my perogative. So you've gone back to darwins writings to look for
any logical fallacies yet? ;-)
>> Obviously, at present you are unable to see that, same as the Nazis
>> couldn;t
>> see the errors in Hitler's thinking. Some are still trying to work how
>> they
>> got it so wrong.
>
> Actually I have studied Germany of the 30s and I can see how they 'go
> it wrong'. The public became devoted to the ideas that had originated
> in Pan-Germanism of the 19th century and were reawaken in the 20s led
> by the Nazis. Hitler promised a better life after, the fullfilling of a
> Germanic destiny. The public treated him as a god, in fact one could
> say that they had """the feeling of religious devotion, which he
> analyzed as consisting of "love, complete submission to an exalted
> and mysterious superior, a strong sense of dependence, fear,
> reverence, ratitude, hope for the future, and perhaps other
> elements"""
>
It wasn;t what he promised, it was "how" he promised it. And that was
achieved by rhetoric chock full with logical fallacies and distractions that
the average person was not "aware" of. And Hitler knew exactly what he was
doing as he created this cult of personality.
The use of radio, a new powerful medium at that time, also contributed
greatly to the impact on the average person because Hitler's speeches came
right into the nations living room. But that's another story.
> One documentary made from contemporary film from the 30s had a child
> say "Hitler is so good he must have created the world". Naziism was a
> form of religious devotion.
>
> OTOH no one would say that about Darwin, quite the opposite actually,
> he never promised a better life here or after, there was no dependence,
> fear, reverence, ... or even hope for the future. Certainly not from
> me.
>
and yet look around, and you'll see oddles of religious devotion to his
ideas. Like most "religions" the founder wasn;t responsible for the devotion
and mis-interpretaion of the revered founders words.
Darwin specifically wrote that nothing in his work could or should be used
to say whether there was or was not a god/creator. Yet right there today on
my TV, that is exactly what a science doco said and they said that is what
Darwin's Evolution proved. Yes, *proved* was the word.
Now, I am not making that up. And I have seen many here cross-posting
basically the same ideas.
Feel free to think what you like. But people like Dawkins are twisting
Darwins work into something far from what it was [ they confuse the
pondering of his conclusions with the hard science/observations he was
basing these upon] with what I would consider not a lot different than
religious devotion to the cause of a more radical form of atheism.
Naturally he and they would deny this, the same as the Bishops at the
Council of Nicea would have denied they had got Jesus completely wrong, and
made up stuff that he never ever said or meant, and that the Bishops
certainly couldn;t prove.
This sort of stuff has been going on for thousand s of years. Just because
it;s 2006 doesn;t mean it has suddenly stopped. people leap to all sorts of
incomplete conclusions, become overly identified with these ideas, turn them
into a fixed dogma and then refuse to ever question them again. Darwinism
for *some* people has become their own form of religion, not much different
than any other religion in it;s early days. I speak of the negative aspects
of the modus operandi of religions and how they usually come about and are
formed over time. Obviously people don't think Darwin is God, but there is
an element of "believers" that are as fundamental as any southern baptist,
or those that believed in Hitler's ideas.
My guess is that in many respects this may have come about as a natural
reaction to the more extreme and fundamentalist creation adherents that have
been trying to re-assert their ideology in recent decades. anyway the
discussion was very enjoyable, thanks.
Sean
<rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1155814572....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sean wrote:
>
>> > But then I would see that the dog was barking at nothing and then that
>> > you had thrown it in the direction. That is what 'observing' is all
>> > about. If the dog only barked at the parasol and not at 'nothing'
>> > before hand then I can discount your made up story.
>>
>> You have some work to do with your own thinking and reading
>> comprehension,
>> and put your compulsive beliefs aside for a at least a moment.
>>
>> what do you think "at the same time" meant when I used that term? Look
>> again, and actually see what I am saying, and stop trying to defend your
>> irrationality.
>
> Ahh, so what you are saying is that you are capable of infalibly
> predicting when and where the dog will bark so that your throw can have
> the parasol arrive at the exact time the dog starts barking. And not
> only that you are capable of 'sensing' where this invisible thing that
> only dogs can 'see' so that you can make that prediction.
>
> I think that it is you that is creating irtrational scenarios.
>
Well of course you do.
>> >> And you have no knowledge that dogs have a awareness or 6th senses
>> >> that
>> >> operate at levels far diferent than humans ....
>> >
>> > If you have a theory about a '6th sense' then please do propose it with
>> > such supporting evidense as what it actually does, the mechanism that
>> > detects it, and so on. Otherwise we may conclude that it is just stuff
>> > that you made up.
>>
>> but you say I cannot do the same thing [ as Darwin ] and
>> come to my own conclusions.
>
> Talking about reading comprehension difficulties. I just told you to
> propose a theory and you read it as if I had said that you may not.
>
>> For if they happen to conflict with ANY of
>> Darwins observations or conclusions, I must be wrong and he must be
>> right,
>> even though we are both following the same MO.
>
> Not at all. I will judge who _I_ think is right based on the evidence
> and the rationality, so far you have produced none of either, but that
> does not mean that I think you never will.
>
> I haven't seen you use any sort of MO at all.
Then that;s your difficulty. I am drawing conclusions from my own persoanl
observations, no different than darwin seeing a dog barking.
QUOTE:
> > (2) Yet the tendency of primitives to
> > imagine that natural objects were
> > animated by spirits seemed, Darwin
> > observed, little different from that
> > exhibited by his own dog, which barked
> > and growled at a parasol blown by the
> > wind, apparently believing that its
> > flight indicated the presence of
> > some invisible agent.
Where is darwins hard eveidence that the dog "believed" the flight of the
parasole was indicative of some invisible agent?
Where si the hard eveidence that what "seemed" to be the case was EXACTLY
the case. Where is replicatable scientific studies that proves a connection
between an acceptance of "spirituality" and Dogs everyday normal behaviour.
Show me Darwins supposed rationality of this is anything more than "drawing
conclusions from personal observations" that any person can do any day of
the week.
> While Darwin made
> extensive observations of the real world and recorded these, or a
> number of them. You seem to merely speculate about how you can use
> magic to predict invisible things.
>
<shaking head>
>> If you want to live in denial that pets are often aware that their owner
>> is
>> on their way home when he is still several miles form home, you are
>> welcome
>> to do that.
>
> I don't think that Darwin made any comment at all on that subject. Nor
> have you seen me make any denial of that particular effect.
>
OMG are you drunk? I am referring to your requirement that I provide a
theory with supporting evidence about a dogs 6th sense. It's not my
responsiblity to point out what already exists ad nauseum across the world
already. Do your own research and study.
>> That may make you as irrational as those who still believe in
>> the litteral interpretation of Genesis, but that;s your choice to make.
>
> Actually I would seek a _rational_ explanation of that hypothetical
> dog's behaviour if I ever saw it and would not make wild speculation
> based on hearsay and urban myths.
>
Then go seek young man, go seek it.
>> Your lack of knowledge and experience, does not make me wrong. Not matter
>> how much you want to believe it.
>
> So, exactly how many times have you managed to throw a parasol at where
> a dog was about to bark so that its arrival at that point coincided
> with the dog barking ?
>
I thought he was barking at some invisible agent?
You're so DOGmatic ;-))
> How many dogs have you observed acting as if they could 'sense' their
> master at several miles distance ?
>
More than you obviously. Look it up. or GO FETCH
> How much effort did you put into checking if it was some other
> stimulous causing the behaviour, such as the wife starting to prepare a
> meal, or turning on the news.
>
How much effort did you go to to consider that the dog was barking at a bee,
and not the parasole or the invisible agent?
Why do you accept Darwins analogy that there is any correspondance between
spiritual beliefs and the behaviour of dogs, and yet you are trying to be
all over me like flies on shit?
If you appraoched Darwins rhetoric with the same vigour of doubt, you may
get a big surprise. Look up logical fallacies, it;s a start at least. Then
try and find the hard scientific and replicatable evidence that clearly
supports the many and varied conclusions he made in OoS.
> What tests did you make such as having the master not start home and
> seeing whether the behaviour still starts even though there is nothing
> to 'sense'.
>
Where are Darwins tests that support all his conclusions?
Show me ONE test that shows "natural selection" as force in nature, and the
math that proves it.
>> > You do understand the term 'at' don't you ? If the dog was directing
>> > his attention _at_ the parasol, rather than at several other locations,
>> > then it is most likely that was what he was barking at rather than some
>> > ficticious and undetectable 'something' that doesn't even exist.
>>
<smile>
...........apparently believing that its
> > flight indicated the presence of
> > some invisible agent.
IS the wind invisible?
What does this have to do with spiritual beliefs of humans? Anything?
>> "most likely" from Darwins point of view that does NOT make it a fact.
>
> In what way is your ficticious and undetectable 'something' a 'fact' ?
> Were you there throwing the parasol ? Was anybody ?
> In what way is _anything_ you claim a 'fact' of any kind ?
>
Is natural selection a fact?
>> When you can get over this hurdle of being totally engrossed in your own
>> beliefs of the infallibility of one man, you will start to learn
>> somethings
>> of real value for yourself.
>
> You just made that up. What evidence do you have of my "being totally
> engrossed" or that I think Darwin was "infalible" ? None at all ? Just
> another of your rants.
>
Hey one good rant deserves another. It's simple, like darwin I have observed
your behaviour subjectively and then come to a conclusion. If it is good
eneough for darwin then it's good enough for me.
If you get your nose out about it from me, why do you accept the same from
Darwin? Is that rational?
>> Have you ANY evidence that the dog was actually barking at the parasol
>> blown
>> by the wind?
>
> I was not making the observation, but I have made sufficient similar
> observations to know that it is typical. OTOH I have never observed
> anyone being able to throw anything at a point that was about to be
> barked at by a dog, nor anyone failing to get it right while the dog
> barked somewhere else. Can you provide evidence that this can or has
> actually happened anywhere ?
>
Given you have the premises wrong I can't answer
> > besides Darwins word that he MUST HAVE got it right? anything at all
>
>> ???..... get a piece of paper and write them down before you reply.
>
> I am not sure why you extrapolate from one single example to
> 'everything' ?
>
> I am also not sure what it is that you find objectionable about his
> ability to observe.
>
> """ exhibited by his own dog, which barked and growled at a parasol
> blown by the wind, """
You missed ..... "apparently believing that its flight indicated the
presence of some invisible agent."
Where is the evidence that Darwin knew what the dog believed? There is none.
His works are full of words like "apparently" and "seemed" and "appears."
These are not facts they are assumptions. Science is not based on
assumptions, likelihoods or opinions, it is based on replicatable evidence.
What does darwins dog have to do with south sea islanders spiritual beliefs?
Why is this accepted by people who require rationality from sceince?
>
> You may speculate that the dog was actually barking at invisible pixies
> hiding in the parasol, but do they hide in everything blown by the wind
> ?
maybe it was a bee. or a kite 200 yeards away in line of sight past the
parasol. You do not know, but it is possible.
the question is HOW do you know Darwin's simple observation is actually
correct? This is not science, everyone lives their life like this everyday,
and they are not automatically believed that everyhting they think they see
is 100% correct. Why do you believe darwin got this aspect correct?
>
>> NO my dear friend. YOU are ASSuming that I think he was lying when I do
>> not
>> think that whatsoever.
>
>> What I think, is that even with the best of intentions, ALL humans make
>> errors in drawing conclusions about what they observed. Science is about
>> replicatable experiments because they know what we think we see, isn;t
>> always the WHOLE story.
>>
>> Yet, even though Darwin lists all these one off personal observations,
>
> They are not 'one off'. He may relate a single incident, but this is
> typical of hundreds of similar observations.
>
How many hundreds of times did darwin observe his dog barking at a parasol?
What does that have to do with sceince?
>> they
>> place his conclusions on a pedestal of infallibility and ignore
>> subsequent
>> scientific eveidence because they are so attached to words like "natural
>> selection" .
>
> Actually, they don't. Darwin's work was significant but it wasn't the
> first and is certainly not the last. Natural selection is just _one_
> part of the scope of evolution. It is just a part of the whole. For
> example 'sexual selection' is another part which Darwin did not address
> to any great extent.
>
If natural selection falls, the whole concept of evolution as Darwin
expressed it falls. And that would be a good thing if his long winded
rhetoric was stripped to the bone of reliable facts only from his extensive
studies, and conclusions that are ACTUALLY supported by that hard evidence.
Because 145 years later, in 2006, people are still posting crap like this
...
---
> > Darwin trod carefully, but, I think, with some gleeful malice in
> > approaching the topic of religion....
----
.... under the guise of Darwins scientific credentials, and totally twisting
what the man actually stood for: High standards in scientific rigour!
>> It is a PROVEN scientific fact, that first hand witness statements are
>> always unreliable as to the facts.
>
> Irrelevant unless you are attempting to prove that no dog ever barked
> at any parasol.
>
> It is even irrelevant whether it was a newspaper or a hat. He was
> describing a general and common behaviour, illustrating it with a
> single example from his experience.
>
So am I in regards to dogs 6th sense, and yet you choose to demand hard
evidence to back up my supposed theory. Your logic here is seriously
conflicted, and that;s because it's *apparently* beyond your awareness.
It is irrational to complain about me using the same MO as Darwin, and yet
you *seem* to have no problem with him.
* [ Darwin can use these terms without complaint ]
>> It is irrational to accept this science, and to also accept every single
>> thing Darwin had to say.
>
> He wasn't presenting it as science.
Thnakyou, that's THE point exactly
He wasn't even explaining the
> behaviour of dogs, he was discussing religion (which is not a subject
> that scince deals with) by drawing a parallel between how dogs behaved
> and how primitives thought that natural objects were animated by
> spirits.
>
I'll repeat. On TV today, and often on this newsgroup people MISREPRESENT
Darwin's good work and say that there is no God because Evolution proved it.
> It is irrational to that that everything Darwin said was about science.
> It is also irrational to think that it is necessary to agree with
> everything Darwin said.
>
EXACTLY .... especially when it comes to God or religion or spirituality.
>> It is irrational to accept natural selection, evolution, heridity, dna,
>> genetics, quantum mechanics etc and then make the giant leap that this
>> therefore "proves" there is no God or Creator [ just because Genesis is
>> full
>> of errors or you are an atheist ]
>
> It is irrational to think that is the case. Evolution does not "prove
> that there is no god".
Exactly.
Science makes no comment either way about any
> the thousands of gods, goddesses, that religions believe in, that is
> outside of the ability of science. Many theists think that evolution is
> just the mechanism that their deity uses.
>
I am aware of that.
And there;s nothing in what darwin says that would preclude the possibility
that a dog may well have an awareness of the presence of some invisible [
spiritual ] agent that Darwin may not have been aware of, because HIS
attention as taken by the parasol in the wind, or that you are not aware of
what is behind the ability to know when one;s master is on his way home.
And given you already accept that science has no role in
god/religion/spirituality it appears a moot point to expect some scientific
theory with hard eveidence to support everything one may happen to say on a
newsgroup. don;t you think?
>> Darwin maybe the father of biological science,
>
> No. he isn't actually. You may not be aware of anything before Darwin,
> but he built on an existing raft of knowledge.
>
"considered" then .... I have actually seen articles by scientists that
refer to him in those terms. and of course I'm aware that Darwin didn;t
operate in a vacume.
>> but that does not mean he is
>> perfect, or proved things his mental meanderings and assumptions did not
>> actually prove.
>
> I am not sure where anyone claimed perfection for Darwin, that is
> usually reserved for religious leaders and ones that churches want to
> bestow honours on.
>
It happens believe me. Or should a provide a complete theory with supporting
evidence as well?
>> What about those things you have NOT expereinced, and refuse to even
>> investigate as being a possibility? well?
>
> Where have I refused ? If there actually is something to be
> investigated (other than stuff you just made up) then I may do so.
How do you know if I made it up unless you investigate it?
> However, if there is no 'experience' then there is nothing to observe,
> the only 'investigation' can be speculation an 'making stuff up'.
> Still, that doesn't stop you.
>
>> >> I can turn
>> >> my mind off now, and stop thinking. How clever is that?
>> >
>> > Actually I think that you turned it off a long time ago.
>>
>> That's a judgement about soemthing you KNOW nothing about.
>
> Isn't that special. You have been making judgements that you know
> nothing about* yet you don't seem to be concerned about that.
>
> * such as my "compulive beliefs", such as "putting on a pedestal", such
> as "thinking infalible".
>
Poor dear.
>> Therein lies your
>> own difficulty in a nutshell. Assumptions and personal reactions when
>> your
>> personal beliefs are being challenged by alternative views,
>
> Given you have no idea about my "personal beliefs"
you believe i made the stuff about dogs 6th sense. One example is enough, I
won;t bother with more.
> other than what you
> have assumed, and that the only "alternative views" have been rantings
> that were just made up, I don't see any substance in your claims about
> my alleged 'difficulties'.
>
> I told you that if you actually have a theory about what the dog may be
> barking at, or some other than you are welcome to present it, but you
> seem to think that means you cannot.
>
do your own research, I;m not your man servant.
>> lays at the core
>> of this problem. imho based upon personal experience.
>
> There is no 'this problem', there is no 'difficulty', at least not on
> my side.
>
Denial, thy wine is so sweet. ;-)
have fun, and thanks. I enjoyed that.
Immortalist
Some sane people might do it unless you have interveiwed everyone.
Aside from human language and its effects I suppose the dog does things
like other mammals mentally and inferentially, including humans.
1. Certain religious ideas, specifically, the personal nature of
"spirit" persist in cultures worldwide.
2. There are certain concepts that our minds easily entertain. Much
like language acquisition, the mind automatically receives certain
concepts more readily than others.
3. Religion ...is the normal product of normal human minds, functioning
in the normal way, and that the normal way is the normal way because of
the evolutionary design of the human mind.
4. An agent is just some entity that is moved or guided by its own
awareness and goals; for humans, other human beings are among the most
important agents in our environments, but there are also the various
non-human animals.
5. Given that the presence of other agents (and what they are doing)
matters to our prospects for survival and reproduction, partially
explains why we are over-sensitive to their presence.
6. Detecting a predator that is not there is not a terribly bad thing;
failing to detect a predator that is there is much more serious. And
something very similar goes for prey: Detecting lunch that isn't there
is much less serious than failing to detect lunch when it is there.
7. Our capacities for agency detection should be tuned to generate more
false positives than false negatives. For evolutionary reasons, we
should expect to 'detect' some agents which are not there.
8. The perception of (accidental) patterns of cues in our environment
may be at the root of the detection of supernatural agents, of gods.
http://personal.bgsu.edu/~roberth/log2002.html
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/2002/aug02/Sellick.htm
Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought
Pascal Boyer
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465006965/
Error Management Theory & Instinct Again;
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.angst/msg/6259808bd1f89e4d
Neil Kelsey
Riplin: how are you managing to keep a straight face? Nice work.
rip...@azonic.co.nz
Sean wrote:
> My label for observed behaviour right on this group. Your good self
> included, though less extreme.
You should show exactly where you saw this 'observed behaviour' from
me. You just rant on about what you 'observe', nut you seem to see
things that just aren't there.
> So you've gone back to darwins writings to look for
> any logical fallacies yet? ;-)
Why would I bother to do that ? Whether there are any or not is
irrelevant, I don't have him as a deity, nor as infallible.
The point about evolution is that it is an observable progression. 70
or more million years ago there were dinosaurs and the only mammals
were shrew like. Today the dinosaurs are birds and there are vast
numbers of diiferent mammals. The progression is clear.
In explaining this there have been many ideas about what causes
evolution and how the outcomes have arrived. It happens that Darwin
made some detailed observations that led him to a conclusion that _one_
of the driving forces of evolution was 'natural selection'. Actually I
don't even agree with the name. It is more 'natural deselection', the
culling of those individuals who cannot adapt.
This is observable. In fact there are measurable changes in the species
on Galapagos just recently due to changes in weather leading to
differences in food availability.
Now 'natural selection' is just one driver of evolution, not the only
one. For example I think that sexual selection has a significant part.
I chose my wife and I don't see any reason to think that other animals
have preferences too.
You appear to think that Darwin _caused_ evolution whereas he merely
explained a part of what causes it. Even if Darwin was discredited and
eliminated it won't stop evolution it will be necessary to find another
better explanation (and ID is not it).
In the same way you could discredit Gallileo but that wouldn't stop the
Earth orbitting the Sun.
> It wasn;t what he promised, it was "how" he promised it. And that was
> achieved by rhetoric chock full with logical fallacies and distractions that
> the average person was not "aware" of. And Hitler knew exactly what he was
> doing as he created this cult of personality.
In much the same way as religious leaders still do this, no doubt.
> The use of radio, a new powerful medium at that time, also contributed
> greatly to the impact on the average person because Hitler's speeches came
> right into the nations living room. But that's another story.
Just as evangelising churches do today.
> and yet look around, and you'll see oddles of religious devotion to his
> ideas.
Evolution has occurred, and still occurs, independently of those that
explain it. In the same way that the Earth is a sphere and orbits the
Sun independantly of Gallileo and Newton.
> Like most "religions" the founder wasn;t responsible for the devotion
> and mis-interpretaion of the revered founders words.
Darwin never founded anything. The change from biblical literal
fundementalism to rational observing of nature had been going since the
17th century in england.
> Darwin specifically wrote that nothing in his work could or should be used
> to say whether there was or was not a god/creator. Yet right there today on
> my TV, that is exactly what a science doco said and they said that is what
> Darwin's Evolution proved. Yes, *proved* was the word.
Then don't watch TV if it upsets you.
Actually I think that you just made that up. Please indicate the name
of the program, who made it and where it was screened so that I can
check.
> Now, I am not making that up. And I have seen many here cross-posting
> basically the same ideas.
> Feel free to think what you like. But people like Dawkins are twisting
> Darwins work into something far from what it was [ they confuse the
> pondering of his conclusions with the hard science/observations he was
> basing these upon] with what I would consider not a lot different than
> religious devotion to the cause of a more radical form of atheism.
I am sure that you see the 'forces of evil gathering behind this
anti-christ' in everything in the real world.
> Naturally he and they would deny this, the same as the Bishops at the
> Council of Nicea would have denied they had got Jesus completely wrong, and
> made up stuff that he never ever said or meant, and that the Bishops
> certainly couldn;t prove.
They were building a religion and attempting to unify it into one
church dispite having different ideas. What's you point ?
> This sort of stuff has been going on for thousand s of years. Just because
> it;s 2006 doesn;t mean it has suddenly stopped. people leap to all sorts of
> incomplete conclusions, become overly identified with these ideas, turn them
> into a fixed dogma and then refuse to ever question them again. Darwinism
> for *some* people has become their own form of religion, not much different
> than any other religion in it;s early days. I speak of the negative aspects
> of the modus operandi of religions and how they usually come about and are
> formed over time. Obviously people don't think Darwin is God, but there is
> an element of "believers" that are as fundamental as any southern baptist,
> or those that believed in Hitler's ideas.
Well actually that was the exact point that Darwin was making.
Primitive people have _evolved_ the way that they have because they
form into groups with similar aims and beliefs and this bestows on then
an ability to survive better as a group. This may be patriotism or
religion or obedience to some leader. This mechanism evolved and is
observable in other higher animals, such as dogs.
I think that it is enlightening to study, say, the Rastafarians. They
developed a religion, for various reasons, based on the divinity of
Hailae Salasie. (did I mention that my grandfather had been presented a
lion skin cape personally by Ras Tafari in 1922?). Now I certainly
don't agree with what they believe but the mechanism they went through
and the outcome certainly fits with what Darwin observed. Yet they
didn't do it to fullfill Darwin's theory, they did it because human
nature (and that of some animals ) has evolved to act in that way.
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> Naturally he and they would deny this, the same as the Bishops at the
> Council of Nicea would have denied they had got Jesus completely wrong, and
> made up stuff that he never ever said or meant, and that the Bishops
> certainly couldn;t prove.
Particularly since they didn't do any such thing.... <smile>
Most of what you will find online about Nicaea is factually suspect
(not your fault, of course). Always go direct to the ancient sources
on this one.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
rip...@azonic.co.nz
> Then that;s your difficulty. I am drawing conclusions from my own persoanl
> observations, no different than darwin seeing a dog barking.
And where _exactly_ did you observe a dog start to bark at some
invisible thing just as someone threw an object to coincide with that ?
There is a difference between 'observing' actual events and making up
stuff that you might be able to observe should it ever happen.
> QUOTE:
> > > (2) Yet the tendency of primitives to
> > > imagine that natural objects were
> > > animated by spirits seemed, Darwin
> > > observed, little different from that
> > > exhibited by his own dog, which barked
> > > and growled at a parasol blown by the
> > > wind, apparently believing that its
> > > flight indicated the presence of
> > > some invisible agent.
>
> Where is darwins hard eveidence that the dog "believed" the flight of the
> parasole was indicative of some invisible agent?
Did you not notice the word 'apparently' or not understand it ?
He did not say that the dog _did_ believe, he said the dog acted
_as_if_ it believed. That is what 'apparently' indicates.
In any case there _was_ an 'invisible agent', the wind, though the
passage indicates that this may be an animate agent, just as
religionists thought of it a few centuries ago with cherubs blowing the
winds.
In any case, do you deny that primitives imagined natural objects were
animated by spirits ? That the winds wer blown by cherubs, that the sun
was dragged across the sky on a chariot ? The use of the dog was merely
an anology yet you fixate on this as if it offends you that he put
these beliefs as 'primitive' and 'dogs'.
Maybe your real objection is that you do believe cherubs blow the winds
and Thor makes the thunder, or similar, and you feel slighted that this
is called 'primitive' and the realm of dogs.
> Where si the hard eveidence that what "seemed" to be the case was EXACTLY
> the case. Where is replicatable scientific studies that proves a connection
> between an acceptance of "spirituality" and Dogs everyday normal behaviour.
If he did not mean 'apparently' then he would have used some other
word. Get over it.
> Show me Darwins supposed rationality of this is anything more than "drawing
> conclusions from personal observations" that any person can do any day of
> the week.
Yeah, but you just make stuff up and claim it as 'drawing conclusions'.
> > While Darwin made
> > extensive observations of the real world and recorded these, or a
> > number of them. You seem to merely speculate about how you can use
> > magic to predict invisible things.
>
> <shaking head>
As in, for example, your claims that it would be possible to throw a
parasol to intercept the arrival of an invisible something.
> > I don't think that Darwin made any comment at all on that subject.
Nor
> > have you seen me make any denial of that particular effect.
> >
>
> OMG are you drunk? I am referring to your requirement that I provide a
> theory with supporting evidence about a dogs 6th sense. It's not my
> responsiblity to point out what already exists ad nauseum across the world
> already. Do your own research and study.
You _claim_ it exists, yet provide nothing except speculation and
mythology.
> How much effort did you go to to consider that the dog was barking at a bee,
> and not the parasole or the invisible agent?
That is the nature of 'observation'. If there actually was a bee it
would have been considered as a possible candidate and the actual
direction the dog was facing would indicate one or the other. If the
dog was barking at a pixie then it may not be conincidental with the
position of the parasol (or paper or whatever else the many
observations were of).
Of course you are always welcome to come up with your own explanation,
such as 'pixies live in parasols' or somesuch. But you also have to
consider observations such as 'the dog doesn't bark in a particular
direction if there is no parasol (or paper or somesuch)' and 'dogs do
not bark at parsols (or papers) if they are not being blown by the
wind'.
> Why do you accept Darwins analogy that there is any correspondance between
> spiritual beliefs and the behaviour of dogs,
Because I have my own indepenent observations about how dogs behave and
about how religious (or similar) beliefs behave. Darwin did not create
evolution, nor beliefs, he merely presented explanations based on his
observations, some of which (not necessarily all) are good fit to the
reality that I observe.
> and yet you are trying to be
> all over me like flies on shit?
All that he was saying is that primitive people, and not so long ago,
used to believe such things as Thor made the thunder and spirits caused
earthquakes if you upset them. Dogs act as if they saw things in a
similar way. We know about thunder and earthquakes and that it is wind
that blows stuff around. Primitives and dogs apparently do not.
If you are upset about that then you should crawl out of the primitive
fantasy world you live in.
> If you appraoched Darwins rhetoric with the same vigour of doubt, you may
> get a big surprise. Look up logical fallacies, it;s a start at least. Then
> try and find the hard scientific and replicatable evidence that clearly
> supports the many and varied conclusions he made in OoS.
It is nothing to do with Darwin, he is just one of a number of authors
that expressed ideas that fitted better with how the world works than
religious beliefs did.
> > What tests did you make such as having the master not start home and
> > seeing whether the behaviour still starts even though there is nothing
> > to 'sense'.
>
> Where are Darwins tests that support all his conclusions?
That is irrelevant. The whole point of science is that _I_ can make
observations and tests that allow me to determine whether his
conclusions are reasonable or not. This is unlike 'it was done by
undetectable something or other' which is not possible to test in any
way.
> Show me ONE test that shows "natural selection" as force in nature, and the
> math that proves it.
That is actually quite easy. The abilities of the Cheetah and the
Antelope show natural selection as the co-evolution of these. If an
antelope can evade the Cheetah it will survive to have offspring that
will continue with those characteristics in its genes, it not then
those characteristics that led to non-evasion are not passed to any
descendants. If a Cheetah can outrun an Antelope for long enough
(being limited by endurance) then it will not starve to death and can
live to pass its attributes to the next generation.
In this way the Cheetahs and Antelopes have evolved from earlier
animals that were not so fast or agile.
The observations of such things as weight, acceleration, turning and
the pysiology of the body processes involved have been studied if you
want to actually invetigate them.
> IS the wind invisible?
Actually, yes. It is possible to see the _result_ of wind, such as
items blown in the air, and dust etc, but air itself in small
quantities (hundreds of metres) is invisible, and 'wind' is not an
object but is the movement of air.
> What does this have to do with spiritual beliefs of humans? Anything?
I doubt that _anything_ has 'to do' with spiritual beliefs of humans.
> Is natural selection a fact?
It is observable. Weak birds can't fly and die. What is so hard about
that, do you think that each creature has a little spirit assigned to
them and they vote on which ones live or die or are food for the cats
(whose spirit guardian also gets a vote) ?
<sudden realisation> Oh, shit, you do don't you !!!!!!! ;-)
> > You just made that up. What evidence do you have of my "being totally
> > engrossed" or that I think Darwin was "infalible" ? None at all ? Just
> > another of your rants.
>
> Hey one good rant deserves another. It's simple, like darwin I have observed
> your behaviour subjectively and then come to a conclusion. If it is good
> eneough for darwin then it's good enough for me.
Actually my observation of your behaviour indicates that you had
already made up your mind before you read anything of mine.
> If you get your nose out about it from me, why do you accept the same from
> Darwin? Is that rational?
Where do you see me 'getting my nose out about it' ?
In fact, if you had actually been observant, you may have noticed that
I disputed that Darwin was the only explanation
> You missed ..... "apparently believing that its flight indicated the
> presence of some invisible agent."
>
> Where is the evidence that Darwin knew what the dog believed? There is none.
You missed the word 'apparently' yet again. Deliberately no doubt.
> His works are full of words like "apparently" and "seemed" and "appears."
> These are not facts they are assumptions. Science is not based on
> assumptions, likelihoods or opinions, it is based on replicatable evidence.
Just because Darwin wrote something does not mean that it is science.
He is allowed to write about religion or philosophy or even fiction.
You seem to think that just because Darwin wrote something it has to be
'provable'.
It is common for religious fundemetalists to take extreme positions.
For example they may claim that the bible is 'all true' and that
atheists think it is 'all false'. This allows them to show one point,
such as archeologists have found Jericoh' to 'prove' that the bible is
not 'all false' therefore it is 'all true'.
You seem to be making the same argument about Darwin. By making up this
idea that it must be 'all true' or 'all false' you hope to show it is
the latter by having one example of 'false'.
First of all your example is not false in that sense, and then it
doesn't have to be 'all true'.
But even if Darwin's natural selection is shown to be completely wrong
(which it isn't), that does not show anything about evolution other
than we need to find a better explanation. Discoveries about his
observations may change some details (they haven't so far) and the
effects of other mechanisms may be given more prominence (such as
sexual selection) but it isn't like some religion that depends on a
single entity.
> What does darwins dog have to do with south sea islanders spiritual beliefs?
> Why is this accepted by people who require rationality from sceince?
You obviously didn't understand what he was actually saying or were
blinded by the red mist when he called spirit beliefs 'primitive' and
'apparently like dogs'.
> maybe it was a bee. or a kite 200 yeards away in line of sight past the
> parasol. You do not know, but it is possible.
Not if there is no kite, no bee. Nor if the same observation can be
made everytime something blows past - is there a kite in exactly the
place each time ? In any case if the parasol is blown then it moves
and the dog's attention follows. Has the kite followed the same path ?
It was relating a single example of an observation, do you think that
was the only observation he ever made ?
> the question is HOW do you know Darwin's simple observation is actually
> correct?
Because I can reproduce it. I can take a dog - my daughters for example
- to the beach, as I have done many times, and have stuff blow past it.
> This is not science, everyone lives their life like this everyday,
> and they are not automatically believed that everyhting they think they see
> is 100% correct. Why do you believe darwin got this aspect correct?
Because I can make the same observations with the same conditions. You
have not shown anything other than speculation with no evidence at all.
> > They are not 'one off'. He may relate a single incident, but this is
> > typical of hundreds of similar observations.
>
> How many hundreds of times did darwin observe his dog barking at a parasol?
Irrelevant. It doesn't need to be a parasol to make a similar
observation. You are just obsessive about this.
> What does that have to do with sceince?
I doubt that you would know even if explained.
> If natural selection falls, the whole concept of evolution as Darwin
> expressed it falls.
No. That is not true. It is obviously what you wish to happen.
Lamarkism failed and evolution did not go away. But in any case
natural selection is observable. It may not be all of evolution but it
is a part of it.
> And that would be a good thing if his long winded
> rhetoric was stripped to the bone of reliable facts only from his extensive
> studies, and conclusions that are ACTUALLY supported by that hard evidence.
Actually there are millions of subsequent observations subsequent to
Darwin and they don't disprove anything. It is not like the bible
where there is just one book and you believe it or not. Darwin wasn't
the first and there are hundreds that follow. He was just one.
> Because 145 years later, in 2006, people are still posting crap like this
> ...
> ---
> > > Darwin trod carefully, but, I think, with some gleeful malice in
> > > approaching the topic of religion....
> ----
>
> .... under the guise of Darwins scientific credentials, and totally twisting
> what the man actually stood for: High standards in scientific rigour!
I am not sure what it is you are calling 'crap'. I think that it is
you that is putting Darwin on a pedestal where he may not comment on
other things.
> So am I in regards to dogs 6th sense, and yet you choose to demand hard
> evidence to back up my supposed theory.
No, I just want your theory not just some mismash of speculation and
mythology.
> Your logic here is seriously
> conflicted, and that;s because it's *apparently* beyond your awareness.
Things that don't exists are _actually_ beyond my awareness.
> It is irrational to complain about me using the same MO as Darwin, and yet
> you *seem* to have no problem with him.
I don't see you using the "same MO". How many times have you observed a
dog barking at a parasol (or paper etc) and noticed a bee or a kite or
an invisible pixie that happened to be in the same direction as the
moving object ?
You don't seem to even realise that the relative positions change as
the wind blows the object so the possible 'explanation' of a kite is
just nonsense and obviously shows lack of any observations at all.
> * [ Darwin can use these terms without complaint ]
Just because I haven't complained about Darwin does not mean that I
can't complain about how you just make stuff up and present it as
observations.
> > He wasn't presenting it as science.
>
> Thnakyou, that's THE point exactly
So you want to conclude that 'natural selection' is wrong because
Darwin wrote something else ?. That would be just dogma.
> I'll repeat. On TV today, and often on this newsgroup people MISREPRESENT
> Darwin's good work and say that there is no God because Evolution proved it.
Darwin's work is misrepresented everywhere, mostly by religionists with
an axe to grind.
If you want to argue with the TV then do so.
> > It is irrational to that that everything Darwin said was about science.
> > It is also irrational to think that it is necessary to agree with
> > everything Darwin said.
>
> EXACTLY .... especially when it comes to God or religion or spirituality.
Science makes no claims about religions, but it may study the
mechanisms that lead to religious beliefs, patriotism, devotion in
dogs, and such like.
> And given you already accept that science has no role in
> god/religion/spirituality it appears a moot point to expect some scientific
> theory with hard eveidence to support everything one may happen to say on a
> newsgroup. don;t you think?
Some evidence is useful if you don't want to be thought of as a kook.
> It happens believe me. Or should a provide a complete theory with supporting
> evidence as well?
Evidence is useful, rather than assertions and mythology.
> > Where have I refused ? If there actually is something to be
> > investigated (other than stuff you just made up) then I may do so.
>
> How do you know if I made it up unless you investigate it?
You made up the stuff about the kite and the bee.
> > Given you have no idea about my "personal beliefs"
>
> you believe i made the stuff about dogs 6th sense. One example is enough, I
> won;t bother with more.
Not at all. You didn't make up anything at all on '6th sense', you
simply asserted that there was such a thing, or might be, without any
indication of what it might be or how it might work. You also related
what may be myths without even bothering to make up observations that
you haven't made.
> > I told you that if you actually have a theory about what the dog may be
> > barking at, or some other than you are welcome to present it, but you
> > seem to think that means you cannot.
>
> do your own research, I;m not your man servant.
So you have no actual theory, then, just a mishmash of stuff you made
up.
Yet you want me to:
>>> How do you know if I made it up unless you investigate it?
That shows the standards that you apply.
Sean
<roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1155850885.8...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Sean wrote:
>> Naturally he and they would deny this, the same as the Bishops at the
>> Council of Nicea would have denied they had got Jesus completely wrong,
>> and
>> made up stuff that he never ever said or meant, and that the Bishops
>> certainly couldn;t prove.
>
> Particularly since they didn't do any such thing.... <smile>
>
Did you mean that they did admit they got jesus wrong? hehehehe
or did you mean something else?
> Most of what you will find online about Nicaea is factually suspect
> (not your fault, of course). Always go direct to the ancient sources
> on this one.
>
I have actually. Original manuscripts minutes of meetings, via the net of
course. I was thinking of the divine god vs human debate they had and the
man made conclusion they drew and incorporated into the Profession of Faith,
not to mention the consequences if one went against that Profession of
faith. I don;t recall any evidence being available that Jesus killed people
who didn;t believe in his teachings.
Sean
<rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1155844070....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sean wrote:
>
>> My label for observed behaviour right on this group. Your good self
>> included, though less extreme.
>
> You should show exactly where you saw this 'observed behaviour' from
> me. You just rant on about what you 'observe', nut you seem to see
> things that just aren't there.
>
Look it;s simple. Initially all I said was that Darwin could NOT know what
the dog believed, either about the parasol or about the invisible forces. He
could NOT possibly be certain that the dog was barking at the parasol or a
bee 3 feet infront of the parasol, or some other 6th sense issue ..........
and underlying that is the obvious point that Darwin could NOT have done any
real sienctific studies to "prove" to sound science standards in his day
that what he "believed" about the dog on that occasion was correct or not.
I basically said Darwins *quoted* comments were an assumption, a conclusion
based solely on his personal obervations and opinions. My point being that
this apporoach which is replete in his OoS is in fact NOT scientific.
Whether he was right or wrong about evolution, [ even considereing
subsequent science] is irrelevant. Individual personal and isolated
observations, are fundamentally problematic as far as accuracy is concerned.
MY conclusion about such things is that much of what Darwin "concludes" is
seriously prone to error because of this. Not everything. Evolution, no
matter what word one uses is obvious today. BUT that does not mean that all
of Darwins conclusions, say about "natural selection" and how he "concluded"
it at the time, are necessarily fully accurate.
Obviously however the overall thrust of his ideas were and are spot on, but
only relative to the prevailing views of his day. Obviously his observations
are more authoritive than a chimmney sweeper at the time.
BUT there are huge holes in some of his leaps to conclusions that have
nothing to support them. Logical fallacies are not that hard to pick. I
didn;t make up ipso facto or non-sequitur.
It is Darwin's style which reflects his thinking processes. These are great,
but also at times it is clear that he is making leaps in logic. If you have
read Darwin, it should be clear that HE said the exact same thing.
The problem that I see, is that so very often, people seem to think, or
should I say not think, that just because the concept of evolution is a
given, then anything else he said has undergone the same rigour,
investigation, and subsequent verification as being true.
When I point out one simple example of irrationality in darwins "arguments"
eg the dog here, then it;s fiunny how people over-react and see this as some
kind of attack of everything darwin ever said, when all I am talking about
is the specific, and using it as an example that Darwin did that a lot.
Instead of simply nodding, and accepting the obvious lack of logic in what
he;s said in this particualr instance, you demand I provide some evidence
about dog's 6th senses and prove that Darwin is wrong. He;s clearly wrong in
the way he articualted his suggestion that there is an anaology between
religious beliefs and a dog barking at a parasol or anything. It;s a CHEAP
shot, it is not SCIENCE.
I say it;s not science and all hell breaks loose as if I have called Pat
Robertson a Islamic terrorist. Why all the knee jerk??
Your choice seems to be that you simply accept what Darwin had to say in the
quote without any evidence he was correct about the dog and it's connection
to tribal beliefs, and yet demand evidence from me.
THAT is the issue I am pointing to, the demand for evidence from me when
clearly you refuse to demand the same from darwin on this particualr issue,
and it has occured here often and is available in the archives but I;m not
going to hold your hand to help you find it. Not my problem.
If THAT is not yet clear to you, then no further evidence or response from
me is going to help.
I do not care if you accept my view or not.
>> So you've gone back to darwins writings to look for
>> any logical fallacies yet? ;-)
>
> Why would I bother to do that ?
Gee maybe you might learn something about yourself and human nature. It
might be a useful exercise that will help you personally in the future to
spot fallacies in other things you read or hear. But I don;t know. Advice is
cheap on usenet.
Whether there are any or not is
> irrelevant, I don't have him as a deity, nor as infallible.
>
> The point about evolution is that it is an observable progression. 70
> or more million years ago there were dinosaurs and the only mammals
> were shrew like. Today the dinosaurs are birds and there are vast
> numbers of diiferent mammals. The progression is clear.
>
I was NOT arguing that point, and this is what you are totally missing as
you leap to defend Darwin and your own beliefs. You have been so blind sided
here, you are unable to even see what I'm speaking about, and the principles
involved.
That's obvious and not the point I was making. The "founder" doesn;t matter,
it is what their blind followers do that causes the creation of the cult of
personality. Nothing wrong with admiring Darwin, but some seem to think
evolution proves there is no God, as just one example of blind believers, as
opposed to fair mindedly separating the wheat fom the chaff of what darwin
offers. Some, ok just SOME people lose sight of the facts and then get drawn
into some crusade such as using the "founders" ideas to create a cult like
religion out of something that was never intended to be like. You may not
do, but others do.
In some respects, some things that Dawkins has said comes very close to
being a cult-like priest as opposed to open minded about possibilities,
especially where it comes to anything spiritual or anyting connected with
the concept of creation of the universe by a supremem being or God. Science
may be able to show that the world did not start 10,000 years ago at Genesis
states, that;s fine, but going the next step is beyond the scope of science
[at this time, and certainly in Darwins time]
As far as you are concerned I;m simply pointing to a cpl of inconsistencies
but you are seeing this as a total rejection of everything Darwin, and you
bring in things like ID which is sign that you think I have some hidden
agenda to bring Darwin down when I don't.
It's logical fallacies, and wooly thinking, and believing assumptions are
true that I'm interested in here. I don;t care what the subject matter might
be, Darwin or cooking recipes, it;s the "psychology" of what goes down, and
how zealots behave that intersts me. Religious or scientific I do not care,
I'm happy to challenge them all if they are doing the same thing. Have you
got this yet? I hope so.
>> Darwin specifically wrote that nothing in his work could or should be
>> used
>> to say whether there was or was not a god/creator. Yet right there today
>> on
>> my TV, that is exactly what a science doco said and they said that is
>> what
>> Darwin's Evolution proved. Yes, *proved* was the word.
>
> Then don't watch TV if it upsets you.
>
> Actually I think that you just made that up. Please indicate the name
> of the program, who made it and where it was screened so that I can
> check.
>
Jeez ur a wanker! LOL
02:00 pm DOCUMENTARY SERIES - LIGHT FANTASTIC - The Light Of Reason
This compelling four-part series from the BBC explores the phenomenon
that surrounds and affects nearly every aspect of our lives but one which we
take for granted: light. This second episode explores the link between the
development of practical tools that manipulate light and the emergence of
new ideas. For example, Galileo's observation that the sun did not go around
the earth, was made with a telescope that had been invented for Venetian
soldiers and traders. Presented by Cambridge scholar Simon Schaffer. (From
the UK, in English) (Part 2) G (Rpt) CC WS
http://www.sbs.com.au/whatson/index.php3?progdate=17:08:2006
Please don;t ask me to also provide you with a transcript. But if you do,
simply request the last 1 minute of the show.
HAHAHA
>> Now, I am not making that up. And I have seen many here cross-posting
>> basically the same ideas.
>
>> Feel free to think what you like. But people like Dawkins are twisting
>> Darwins work into something far from what it was [ they confuse the
>> pondering of his conclusions with the hard science/observations he was
>> basing these upon] with what I would consider not a lot different than
>> religious devotion to the cause of a more radical form of atheism.
>
> I am sure that you see the 'forces of evil gathering behind this
> anti-christ' in everything in the real world.
>
Make that dbl wanker. What you just said was a classic "logical fallacy".
Look it upo and see if you can find which type it is. You are the one who
sounds like a blind believer reacting to evil everywhere.
I had an opinion and I expressed it. Deal with it.
>> Naturally he and they would deny this, the same as the Bishops at the
>> Council of Nicea would have denied they had got Jesus completely wrong,
>> and
>> made up stuff that he never ever said or meant, and that the Bishops
>> certainly couldn;t prove.
>
> They were building a religion and attempting to unify it into one
> church dispite having different ideas. What's you point ?
>
at the risk of wasting my time. Humans are humans. They love power. They
love to become totally identified with their particular world view and their
personal beliefs. *Some* will do anything to protect the total rightness of
their personal opinions, of their egos.
In the scientific and associated fields people do the exact same thing that
ALL humans have been doing since time immorial, eg Nicea. True believers
never ever doubt the authoritiveness of those figures. Just as humble
religious people had great difficulty in believeing that their leaders could
act in any way contrary to the principles of their faith, so it is that some
people who have invested their faith in science would never ever believe
that scientists would ever act in ways that were completely contrary to the
high standards of science.
It is not a question of if some scientists cannot be trusted, but being
aware that human nature tells us they all cannot be, at all times. Buyer
beware. The only way to tell the difference is to for each person, that is
you & me, to have some personal skills to actually be able to see the signs
of this.
Scientists that supported the tobacco companies are one such example, as are
those special interest groups that seek out scientists to push their
particualr agenda, such as exxon oil putting millions of dollars into anyone
who will speak out against global warming and debunking other scientists.
The method that these people use to spin the facts is logical fallacies,
just like Hitler, just like the Churches. If you cannot pick up a logical
fallacy that is right in front of your eyes, then you are doomed to be
manipulated sooner or later.
If you cannot freely admit to Darwins logical fallacies, whislt still
holding to what is valid, then you have a serious problem in developing
sound scientific and rational conclusions about anything.
This has been a free public service. Do with it what you will.
But if you think I am some crazed ID or a fanatical religous creationist or
an anti-athiest who's only interest is attacking Darwin any way I can, then
you my dear sir are simpy wrong.
<smile>
No you never mentioned that, but thanks. Better late than never. <G>
Now I certainly
> don't agree with what they believe but the mechanism they went through
> and the outcome certainly fits with what Darwin observed. Yet they
> didn't do it to fullfill Darwin's theory, they did it because human
> nature (and that of some animals ) has evolved to act in that way.
>
Right now follow these thoughts through to their natural conclusions. That
is assume that I am in fact totally in agreement with you here, because I
am, but now apply this same principle to Scientists, and their special
interests, as much as you feel free to apply it to me, or creationists.
Then try the BIG one ...... actually apply this to yourself, and alwasy be
willing to suspend your beliefs and be open to new ideas and information
without wasting time knee-jerking in order to defend your current accepted
beliefs.
Just because "logical fallacies" occur, does not mean they are done on
purpose, and it still doesn't mean that the argument someone is making is
automatically false. But it does show that the rational thought processes of
the argument are faulty, and can be improved and made more accurate. In some
cases, it is a clear case of intentional manipulation. In others it is case
of just poor logical thought processes and a lack of information.
bon jour
Sean
<rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1155852115.5...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Sean wrote:
>
>> Then that;s your difficulty. I am drawing conclusions from my own
>> persoanl
>> observations, no different than darwin seeing a dog barking.
>
> And where _exactly_ did you observe a dog start to bark at some
> invisible thing just as someone threw an object to coincide with that ?
>
> There is a difference between 'observing' actual events and making up
> stuff that you might be able to observe should it ever happen.
>
I understand you're having trouble following. That's ok. Kiwis alwasy were a
little slow. ;-))
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
Unfortunately for you, I really have looked at the ancient sources and
I know what they say. So I know that there are no "original
manuscripts minutes of meetings", offline or otherwise. I know that
there was no "divine god vs human debate" -- both sides considered
Jesus fully God, as an extant letter of Arius shows. I don't know of
any statements of "consequences" -- Constantine banished two bishops
who would not reach agreement, a very mild punishment indeed, but even
these were allowed to return -- and I don't know of anyone being
killed.
All the ancient sources, for those who want to see them, are available
online:
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html.
Meanwhile, we have you to deal with. You lied here, deliberately and
did so repeatedly, believing that no-one would know better. Frankly I
have no interest in exchanging a single word with someone who would do
this.
Piss off, you dishonest little prick.
Roger Pearse
Sean
<roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1155894856....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
well fuck off then, see if I care. dick head.
Sean
news:1155894856....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Oh gosh, did I say "original manuscripts minutes of meetings" in a quick off
the cuff reply instead of "online copies of original translated texts
listing all council meetings from 325AD to 1965"? Fuck I am so sorry, what
poor form. Please forward nearest address for Opus Dei and I'll submit to a
100 lashes.
The Council of Trent
The Fourth Session
The canons and decrees of the sacred
and oecumenical Council of Trent,
Trans. J. Waterworth (London: Dolman, 1848), 17-21.
Hanover Historical Texts Project
Scanned by Hanover College students in 1995.
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.htm
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH OF THE 318 FATHERS
1.. We believe in one God the Father all powerful, maker of all things
both seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the
only-begotten begotten from the Father, that is from the substance [Gr.
ousias, Lat. substantia] of the Father, God from God, light from light, true
God from true God, begotten [Gr. gennethenta, Lat. natum] not made [Gr.
poethenta, Lat. factum], CONSUBSTANTIAL [Gr. homoousion, Lat. unius
substantiae (quod Graeci dicunt homousion)] with the Father, through whom
all things came to be, both those in heaven and those in earth; for us
humans and for our salvation he came down and became incarnate, became
human, suffered and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, is
coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the holy Spirit.
2.. And those who say
1.. "there once was when he was not", and "before he was begotten he was
not", and that
2.. he came to be from
a.. things that were not, or
b.. from another hypostasis [Gr. hypostaseos] or substance [Gr.
ousias, Lat. substantia],
affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration
these the catholic and apostolic church anathematises.
Translation taken from Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman P.
Tanner
http://www.piar.hu/councils/
and
DOCUMENTS FROM
THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICEA
[THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL]
A.D. 325
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nicea1.txt
Terribly sorry if a made any errors in fact before , because gee, I hadn;t
looked at these for some time, and my photographic memory is a little poor
.... anyway a few comment s below Roger if your interested
> I know that
> there was no "divine god vs human debate" -- both sides considered
> Jesus fully God, as an extant letter of Arius shows.
Oh fuck, did my memory wash out and I couldn't recall the words homousios or
CONSUBSTANTIAL, I won't be able to sleep for months now after that terrible
mistake.
So you don;t know of any debates about this consubstantial homousios thingy
at Nicea and others? You know of no knowledge of any divergent opinions
about whether Jesus was just human, both human and divine, or fully divine?
You can't recall any discussions at Councils about pockets peoples or
Churches that held what was decreed as anathema views on these issues? Can;t
recall anyone in Africa say a Bishop or two who couldn't agree that Jesus
was Divine and thus faced some consequences because they wouldn't agree to
Decrees by the Holy and Apostolic Church?
Well if you don;t know about these things can one must only conclude that
it never happened then. I must have just been lying all the time. Silly me.
"First of all the affair of the impiety and lawlessness of Arius and his
followers was discussed in the presence of the most pious emperor
Constantine. It was unanimously agreed that anathemas should be pronounced
against his impious opinion and his blasphemous terms and expressions which
he has blasphemously applied to the Son of God, "
"Of that man and the fate which befell him, you have doubtless heard or will
hear, lest we should seem to trample upon one who has already received a
fitting reward because of his own sin. Such indeed was the power of his
impiety that Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais shared in the
consequences, for they too suffered the same fate. "
I don't know of
> any statements of "consequences" -- Constantine banished two bishops
> who would not reach agreement, a very mild punishment indeed, but even
> these were allowed to return -- and I don't know of anyone being
> killed.
>
CONSEQUENCES .... do you know what I meant by that? Obviously not. But yo're
welcome to ask.
And if you believe that the Councils never said anything that Jesus never
said or intended, well feel free to think as you wish as it;s your head.
You do not know of anyone being killed? Is that ever or at the Council of
Nicea specifically?
Well let me enlighten you my dear expert as to my particular meaning then.
I said:
> I don;t recall any evidence being available that Jesus killed people who
> didn;t believe in his > teachings.
Have you ever heard of these guys? "Concerning those who have given
themselves the name of Cathars, and who from time to time come over publicly
to the catholic and apostolic church, this holy and great synod decrees that
they may remain among the clergy after receiving an imposition of hands."
Well, you may remember that at a few separate times in Catholic history,
these guys wouldn't go along with the Catholic Profession of Faith [ or
something] , and gosh, they were all hunted down and killed. I don't know
for certain, and hey I could even be lying, but I have a funny feeling more
than the just the cathars were killed for not going along with the catholic
church. Of course, you may not see the connection here with the word
"consequences & killed" in the context it was used, but hey,
Is that clearer now? I hope so.
Now , feel free to piss off yourself. But thanks for listening. Always nice
to chat with a fella who knows what he knows and never jumps to conclusions
hey. ;-))))
Sean
cheers
I;ve had hitting my head against a brick wall, got better things to do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.Crumbs - Its nice to agree for once.
I started another thread here of the teleology of evolutionism you seem
to be following.
Darwin, due to his unique historical position uses teleological
language in his work even when he clearly means to describe an
accidental and random process. He was locked into a debate which he
knew had to challenge the status quo: creationism. Many so called
darwinists apply that same language thoughtlessly.
There is a particularly good posting concerning a description of f tv
program about "an arms race" between particular animals which
unashamedly implies intentionality in evolution. This hurts the theory
and creates confusion.
Sean wrote:
> "chazwin" <chaz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1155835427.7...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Sean wrote:
> >> "a_friend" <a_f_r_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1155818300.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Sean wrote:
> >> >> "a_friend" <a_f_r_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1155772028.7...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Sean wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I appreciate the appeal to authority.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> and that's all it is. especially considering the presumptions,
> >> >> >> assumptions,
> >> >> >> ifs/buts, lack of knowledge, and non-sequiturs in Darwins quoted
> >> >> >> monologue.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Unfortunately, we are in agreement. It is our collective arrogance
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > will be our own downfall. Those suffering from confirmation bias
> >> >> > only
> >> >> > see one side of the coin, the rest of us see things for what they
> >> >> > are.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> That's alwasy a relative reality. There is always another step. But
> >> >> it;s
> >> >> nice to find folks we can harmonise with along the way. So thanks.
> >> >> may
> >> >> I
> >> >> call you "a friend" ? <smile>
> >> >>
> >> >> Darwinism has now become a solidified religious cult, because of the
> >> >> powerful group think that now accepts everything said as "a given"
> >> >> without
> >> >> even really looking at what is actually being said.
> >> >>
> >> >> By co-incidence, a cpl hours ago I was wathcing a so called
> >> >> "scientific
> >> >> doco" that followed the journey from Gallileo to Darwin to
> >> >> Rutherford.
> >> >>
> >> >> They quite rationally accepted that Gallileos invention of the
> >> >> telescope
> >> >> proved that the Earth was not the centre of the universe, and that
> >> >> the
> >> >> accept group think of the time, based in religious thought, was in
> >> >> fact
> >> >> incorrect.
> >> >>
> >> >> But when it came to Darwin's "theory" this program then made the
> >> >> irrational
> >> >> giant leap into fantasy that this therefore proved without doubt
> >> >> that
> >> >> the
> >> >> universe was not created, that there was no God.
> >> >>
> >> >> Darwin himself stated clearly severla times, that his theory could
> >> >> not
> >> >> possibly prove any such thing. But this does not stop people 145
> >> >> years
> >> >> later
> >> >> to say exactly the the opposite.
> >> >>
> >> >> In other words, things have come full circle again. One religious
> >> >> belief
> >> >> without scientific evidence [ Genesis ] has been replaced by a new
> >> >> religious
> >> >> belief [ Evolution ] without any evidence to support such a claim.
> >> >> Two
> >> >> sides
> >> >> of the same coin.
> >> >>
> >> >> Most Darwinists today now think they are the centre of the Universe.
> >> >> ;-)
> >> >
> >> > I wouldn't write our darwinist off just yet. Darwinist is at least
> >> > willing to entertain the notion that one's beliefs can be questioned.
> >> >
> >>
> >> nah nah, not the poster here .... a generic term for a small group of
> >> folks
> >> who accept almost anything Darwin said as a given without much thought.
> >> or
> >> turn it into something it never was.
> >
> > I think the point is off the mark. How many "Darwinists" have actually
> > read "On the Origins of Species"? Very few!!
>
> actually I think that is my point in a way. Many are so enamoured by what
> they have heard what OoS might mean foir their own world view, that no
> matter what pops up as a quote, they just accept it, even IF they have
> never
> read it before.
>
> I also think that many also miss the many times where darwin says he
> really
> does not know what or why, or if his conclusions are accurate ... then he
> gives them anyway, but people assume that because of the great body of
> work
> that this in itself means that all of his ponderings are not only true but
> beacked by evidence that they are true.
>
> This is simply not the case, and is not science, and that's basically all
> I
> am saying.
>
> Except, when an individual comes to this book from an already emotionally
> entrenched point of view, be it a devoted creationist, or a devoted
> athiest,
> then they read Darwin with very strong filters .... seeing what they want
> to
> see, and missing those things they do not want to see.
>
> This is human nature, and not something that Darwin ever looked into
> himself, except when it came to his observations of tribal relious
> beliefs.
> In this aspect, Darwin came to those observations with quite strong biases
> himself, that even he may not have been aware of in himself. iow even
> though
> he was obviously more broad minded with a scientific analyitical bent than
> those natives, he still had his own very conflicted ideas about religion,
> spirituality, and God and I think that should be considered when one reads
> his so called observations. These observations were also highly coloured
> thru the prism of Darwin himself.
>
> On other matters, no doubt he was not so biased.
>
>
> > I have - from cover to
> > cover. The point is that the book itself is a massive collection of
> > observations. Fantastically well collected and presented. What he
> > actaully says on natural and domestic selection; and how this has given
> > rise to the infinite variety of species can be condensed into five
> > thousand words.
>
>
> Yes agreed. I have not read the whole thing, skipping the appendix areas
> of
> his records.
>
> Darwin said up front, didn't he ?,that what follows could not be
> considered
> totally reliable, but he felt that he had a responsibility to put it all
> down, and express his views and conclusions even though he knew he had not
> actually proved them to be true, because so much more work needed doing.
>
> I admire what he achieved. I don;t see anythign worng in pointing some of
> the more obvious things that amount to nothing more than a guess on his
> part, espcially when since his time it;s pretty clear that some of his
> analogies and ideas cannot be substanciated. That doesn;t belittle those
> things he was spot on about, and which were far ahead of his times, and
> later shown by additional science to be accurate guesses or conclsuions".
>
> I think the problem lies not in these "Darwinists"
> > accepting everything he has said, but in going too far by 1) accepting
> > the uses to which those words have been put ; and 2) pretending that he
> > said a lot more than he did: that his words would ever provide a
> > meaning of life or a replacement for god. Which they cannot.
> >
>
> Agreed
>
> >>
> >>
> >> > When people construct a false dilemma of god or evolution, they tend
> >> > to
> >> > ignore alot of information that the universe has to offer.
> >> >
> >>
> >> agree
> >>
> >>
> >> > Using darwinist's analogy though, if we were to write and install
> >> > software into our thinking of good decision making, I think he would
> >> > find that many of our decisions are nowhere near 'good'.
> >> >
> >
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Sean wrote:
> Darwin's observations were flawed, as were his assumptions that a dog only
> believed there was a presence, as opposed to actually seeing what was only
> invisible to Darwin, and not the dog itself.
At least in some dogs we can trust.
Michael Gordge
rip...@azonic.co.nz
Sean wrote:
> Look it;s simple. Initially all I said was that Darwin could NOT know what
> the dog believed, <blah blah blah>
That is why he used the word 'apparently' which you seemed to have
missed.
> Your choice seems to be that you simply accept what Darwin had to say in the
> quote without any evidence he was correct about the dog and it's connection
> to tribal beliefs,
You are a complete prat. The comment was an analogy, an illustration,
that primitives think that natural objects were moved by animate
spirits. They are _like_ a dog chasing a parasol.
It was not a scientific invetigation into the behaviour of dogs, nor of
the beliefs of dogs. You are simply so obsessed that you cannot put it
into context.
> and yet demand evidence from me.
No. You are displaying your lack of observation skills and your
tendancy to hyperbole.
I invited you to present theory and evidence if you had any. This was
not a demand, only an opportunity for you to support your claims and
your opinions.
> THAT is the issue I am pointing to, the demand for evidence from me when
> clearly you refuse to demand the same from darwin on this particualr issue,
I don't need to make any demands. His dog behaves just like mine (my
daughter's actually). Science is about repeatable experiments. If you
can show a dog barking _at_ a bee or a kite while following a parasol
blowing off in another direction then it may be interesting, but as it
stands it is less believable.
In your counter aguments you seem to cast a situation as a static
moment in time. With the parasol fixed and the bee in front or the kite
behind or some invisible spirit somewhere. The event is dynamic, the
wind blows, objects move, angles change. You give the impression that
you have never seen a dog chase an object.
It is irrelevant and unimportant whether I 'believe' Darwin on this, it
is just an analogy. But I find that you say nothing that I would
believe. What you say simply does not 'ring true' and you just make
stuff up. You ignore (several times) the markers that indicate the
level given to the words, such as 'apparently' and you hyperbolate such
as changing an invitation into a 'demand'.
> and it has occured here often and is available in the archives but I;m not
> going to hold your hand to help you find it. Not my problem.
Exactly. You like making hyperbolic claims but fail to support them.
> I do not care if you accept my view or not.
Well, apparently you do else you wouldn't bother replying.
> Gee maybe you might learn something about yourself and human nature. It
> might be a useful exercise that will help you personally in the future to
> spot fallacies in other things you read or hear.
Well, actually, I think that I am quite good at doing that already. I
can see all the holes in your arguments.
> But I don;t know. Advice is cheap on usenet.
And yours is worth the paper it is printed on.
> I was NOT arguing that point, and this is what you are totally missing as
> you leap to defend Darwin and your own beliefs. You have been so blind sided
> here, you are unable to even see what I'm speaking about, and the principles
> involved.
You are so obsessed that you failed to notice that the comment was not
a thesis on dog theology.
> but some seem to think
> evolution proves there is no God,
Then you should address that. Instead you attack Darwin and show
yourself to be obsessed with a single analogy. You lose credability,
well actually you never started with any, by dismissing the need for
evidence from you while persuing some purported lack of evidence of
normal behaviour in a throw away line.
> as just one example of blind believers, as
> opposed to fair mindedly separating the wheat fom the chaff of what darwin
> offers. Some, ok just SOME people lose sight of the facts and then get drawn
> into some crusade such as using the "founders" ideas to create a cult like
> religion out of something that was never intended to be like. You may not
> do, but others do.
While you little crusade is ...
> In some respects, some things that Dawkins has said comes very close to
> being a cult-like priest as opposed to open minded about possibilities,
> especially where it comes to anything spiritual or anyting connected with
> the concept of creation of the universe by a supremem being or God.
How 'open-minded' are you about the possibilty that it was actually
Brahma that created the universe:
"""In order to create the world and produce the human race, Brahma made
a goddess out of himself. One half was woman and the other half was
man. Brahma called the woman Gayatri, but she also became known by many
other names such as Saraswati."""
This, after all, is many centuries before Jehovah, the son of El of the
Canaanites, is aledged to have done this.
Or perhaps one of the other hundreds of myths.
> Science
> may be able to show that the world did not start 10,000 years ago at Genesis
> states, that;s fine, but going the next step is beyond the scope of science
> [at this time, and certainly in Darwins time]
You seem to think that it must 'start' at genesis and step on from
that. Complete crap. It starts by looking at the world, not at some
book written by a bunch of goat-herders.
> As far as you are concerned I;m simply pointing to a cpl of inconsistencies
I find that your claims are more inconsistent with my observations than
those in a throw-away line.
> but you are seeing this as a total rejection of everything Darwin,
More of your hyperbole. Where did I do that ?
> and you
> bring in things like ID which is sign that you think I have some hidden
> agenda to bring Darwin down when I don't.
It is no longer 'hidden', you just stated it:
""" but going the next step is beyond the scope of science [at this
time, and certainly in Darwins time] """
Your stated agenda is that the bible is true and science goes too far
if it discredits it beyond a few minor points.
> 02:00 pm DOCUMENTARY SERIES - LIGHT FANTASTIC - The Light Of Reason
> This compelling four-part series from the BBC explores the phenomenon
> that surrounds and affects nearly every aspect of our lives but one which we
> take for granted: light. This second episode explores the link between the
> development of practical tools that manipulate light and the emergence of
> new ideas. For example, Galileo's observation that the sun did not go around
> the earth, was made with a telescope that had been invented for Venetian
> soldiers and traders. Presented by Cambridge scholar Simon Schaffer. (From
> the UK, in English) (Part 2) G (Rpt) CC WS
That is a series about light and not about evolution. Your claim was:
"""Darwin specifically wrote that nothing in his work could or should
be used
to say whether there was or was not a god/creator. Yet right there
today on
my TV, that is exactly what a science doco said and they said that is
what
Darwin's Evolution proved. Yes, *proved* was the word. """
Given your hyperbole and the subject of the program I doubt that they
even referred to Darwin, let alone claimed that it 'proved'
non-existence.
I may have believed you if they had said that your god was unnecessary.
But then _all_ gods are unnecessary. We don't need Thor to make
thunder, or Venus to be the light in the sky or Brahma to be the
creator, or ...
> True believers
> never ever doubt the authoritiveness of those figures.
The difference is that religions tell people _what_ to think and
science teaches _how_ to think.
Darwin didn't invent evolution, nor even discover it, that was current
thinking for centuries (in spite of what religions told people to
believe). Darwin only wrote a series of observations, some commentary,
and one explanation. Many others have written expansions, rebuttals
and alternates. I certainly do not take any of them uncritically, I am
as critical of them as I am of you.
I can dismiss some of Darwin by referring to rebuttals and alternates,
but I cannot dismiss their observations that I can reproduce.
> If you cannot freely admit to Darwins logical fallacies, whislt still
> holding to what is valid, then you have a serious problem in developing
> sound scientific and rational conclusions about anything.
And if you get obsessive and miss the point of what is being actually
said, such as 'apparently', then you will simply rant while applying
even more hyperbole.
> Then try the BIG one ...... actually apply this to yourself, and alwasy be
> willing to suspend your beliefs and be open to new ideas and information
> without wasting time knee-jerking in order to defend your current accepted
> beliefs.
Well, actually, it is you that is 'knee-jerking' - a reaction no doubt
to being bundled with the beliefs of 'primitives' and 'apparently,
dogs'.
Sean
<rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1155934479.0...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sean wrote:
>
>> Look it;s simple. Initially all I said was that Darwin could NOT know
>> what
>> the dog believed, <blah blah blah>
>
> That is why he used the word 'apparently' which you seemed to have
> missed.
>
Then you actually agree with me on this point. Why not simply say so in the
beginning? It would have saved enormous quantities of pixels from going to
waste.
> No. You are displaying your lack of observation skills and your
> tendancy to hyperbole.
>
This isn't the hyperbole room? damn, I thought it was when you turned up. Go
figure.
Sean
<mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1155934063....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I thought you never make contradictions with reality Michael? Keep your
guard up, you're slipping.
But I must admit, it was a crappy sentence I wrote. Of that there is no
doubt.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Sean wrote:
> I thought you never make contradictions with reality Michael?
I endevour not to and am always keen to know when I have, so why didn't
you explain instead of gloat?
In dog we trust.
Michael Gordge
rip...@azonic.co.nz
Sean wrote:
> but some seem to think
> evolution proves there is no God, as just one example of blind believers,
I searched on this group looking for evidence to support your claim. I
found many references where atheists and others stated quite
categorically that:
""it is impossible to prove God does not exist""
""it does not prove/disprove God""
""Even Charles Darwin did not think that his theory was a proof or
indicator of the non-existence of God.""
"" Darwin himself stated clearly severla times, that his theory could
not possibly prove any such ..""
I grant that there are kooks who persistently claim that they can
disprove gods with 'logic', but they don't seem to rely on Darwin to
help them.
However I did find that some religionist kooks making false and
misrepresentive claims about what they thought atheists believe:
""" ... who say .. the work of darwin proves without doubt that God and
creation has absilutley nothing to do with anything"""
""" since darwin evolution precludes any possibility of seeing a
creator as being involved in the
universe. """
Which just shows that the latter don't base their opinions on
observations and evidence, but just make up what they need for their
arguments.
Now who did write those last two ?
rip...@azonic.co.nz
Sean wrote:
> > That is why he used the word 'apparently' which you seemed to have
> > missed.
>
> Then you actually agree with me on this point. Why not simply say so in the
> beginning? It would have saved enormous quantities of pixels from going to
> waste.
And yet I had pointed out 'apparently' several times in the beginning.
That you failed to notice this before reinforces my views on your
onservation skills.
> > No. You are displaying your lack of observation skills and your
> > tendancy to hyperbole.
> >
>
> This isn't the hyperbole room? damn, I thought it was when you turned up. Go
> figure.
Do you see _any_ hyperbole from me ? or is it just your projection.
Sean
Nice try ........
<rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1155939758.2...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sean wrote:
>
>> but some seem to think
>> evolution proves there is no God, as just one example of blind believers,
>
> I searched on this group looking for evidence to support your claim. I
> found many references where atheists and others stated quite
> categorically that:
>
> ""it is impossible to prove God does not exist""
>
> ""it does not prove/disprove God""
>
> ""Even Charles Darwin did not think that his theory was a proof or
> indicator of the non-existence of God.""
>
> "" Darwin himself stated clearly severla times, that his theory could
> not possibly prove any such ..""
>
> I grant that there are kooks who persistently claim that they can
> disprove gods with 'logic', but they don't seem to rely on Darwin to
> help them.
>
QUOTE July 26th 2006
Email: "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kel...@hotmail.com>
Groups: alt.religion.christian, alt.talk.creationism, alt.atheism,
alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible
Science may not be put forth as an alternative to religion, but it
becomes one when it contradicts the claims religion makes, which it
does regularly
Science IS neutral. But the facts it uncovers (e.g. evolution)
contradicts and disproves the claims of the bible.
Science does disprove god, but individuals can ignore the facts, not
understand the facts, twist the facts, and lie about the facts. It
still doesn't make the truth any less true. Either humans were created
or they evolved. There is irrefutable evidence they evolved. Therefore
the claims of your bible about the creator are false, but that doesn't
stop millions of people from willfully ignoring these facts.
That's not what is happening. A scientist who sees the results from
evolution as saying the bible story of creation is wrong, then they may
conclude they don't believe in god.
> The evidence of evolution at best is
> subjective;
No it isn't. It's conclusive.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/97a4757ec94dd8c2
Sean: Is that sufficient, or do you still not see it?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> However I did find that some religionist kooks making false and
> misrepresentive claims about what they thought atheists believe:
>
> """ ... who say .. the work of darwin proves without doubt that God and
> creation has absilutley nothing to do with anything"""
The Quote in CONTEXT:
My beef is *extremist* athiests who use these facts and demand other people
bow down to their God of un-created evolution in a petri dish of a universe
and demaand others accept their view that this , and [THAT] the work of
darwin
proves without doubt that God and creation has absilutley nothing to do with
anything..... and then say that THEY have scienctific proof on their side
that what they say is 100% correct.
Well the example I have been using is that Darwin himself, in his OWN words
does not support such *extremist ideology* from these obbsessive athiests.
[ note not talking about ***all athiests***, only the outspoken twits who
frequent
newsgroups and love arguning with those who follow religious paths]
When really, all they are is as blindly adheriong to a "beleif" of how life
exists which is no different from that of those they abuse, and ridicule for
being un-scientific and stupid.
I think it's is all kinda funny to me ...... but I understadn that not too
many people are able to follow what it is I am getting at here. <smile>
But I do hope that explains this issue I see a little clearer for some folks
who can see past their own biases on this issue, and separates it from the
whole of "evolution" and what science actually says about it at this poijnt
in time.
<end quote>
-------------------------------------
YES ... I wrote that. Do you have a problem with it? If so what exactly?
I also wrote this ::
> And what scientific evidence can you provide for the independent creation
> of species?
straw man, I don't claim to be a scientist .... ask Darwin .... people
blindly accept his theory and [YET] within his theory he uses the term "laws
impressed on matter by the Creator" and
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having
been
originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that,
whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of
gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most
wonderful have been, and are being evolved. Charles Darwin "
<end quote>
-------------------------------------------
Do you have a problem with what Darwin said, or that I quote him verbatim?
Feel free to check the quotes, and by all means accuse me of lying or
mis-representing him IF that is what I am doing.
That debate was interesting. I never denied the validity of evolution as we
know it today, in fact stated clearly I accepted evolution as scientifically
valid. I quoted Darwin accurately which directly challenged what *some*
atheists were saying he had said OoS.
But they then abused me with endless adhominems because Darwin said
something different than they *believed* he had. They may have read Darwin,
but didn't know what he said.
> """ since darwin evolution precludes any possibility of seeing a
> creator as being involved in the
> universe. """
>
The Quote in CONTEXT:
thx, nice to discuss a topic with someone who;s life didn;t depend on the
outcome. ;-)
> One question is whether the driving feature of biodiversity is going to be
> full-blown hocus pocus or natural process. Another is whether the
> biosphere needed to be set in motion by a supernatural process. It was
> common in Darwin's day to believe in naturalism WRT the first question,
> and supernaturalism WRT the second.
My general point is simple .... some people mainly died in the wool athiests
twend to put darwin up as a poster boy that totally denies any
supernaturalism or potential hocus pocus, that since darwin evolution
precludes any possibility of seeing a creator as being involved in the
universe.
When the facts in Darwins own words do not actually support this view.
Me personally I am not denying evolution, what's odd is that how qucikly
some people assume that I am, and that ANY criticism of darwin, or more
specifically any criticism of "some people's opinions" about Darwin is
automatically seen as hocus pocus.
It pretty well proves my point that peoples opinions are always based at a
levelm of belief, more than factual knowledge and accuracy.
<end quote>
-----------------------------
URL http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/5a184e0f5388b447?hl=en&
> Which just shows that the latter don't base their opinions on
> observations and evidence, but just make up what they need for their
> arguments.
>
If you are referring to me, then the above is completely false. The proof is
above and elsewhere should you care to look. Either you are dyslexic with
reading problems, or you may be suffering from some kind of mental blockage
[ of unknown cause ] which is affecting your reasoning capacities.
> Now who did write those last two ?
>
I did, and I hope you don't mind me flushing out the truth of what I said,
and what I meant so that the anyone can see it for what it is, and not
solely on your own limitied range.
If you had any credibilty or honesty, you would have included the links to
the page or posts where you obtained these quotes. I think that was
extremely disengenuous, and speaks to your character.
Next time you feel like an arm wrestle, at least come armed. <vbg>
Thanks, and have a great day!
Sean
<mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1155939553....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sean wrote:
>> I thought you never make contradictions with reality Michael?
>
> I endevour not to and am always keen to know when I have, so why didn't
> you explain instead of gloat?
>
Good rational question.
1) You hadn't asked me to explain.
2) I was not gloating, that's your assumption of reality. I simply asked a
question.
That is my answer to your question. Do you have another Michael?
rip...@azonic.co.nz
Sean wrote:
> >> but some seem to think
> >> evolution proves there is no God, as just one example of blind believers,
> Science IS neutral. But the facts it uncovers (e.g. evolution)
> contradicts and disproves the claims of the bible.
That is correct. science shows that the Earth is not flat, that it is
billions of years old, that the Earth orbits the Sun and is not the
center of the universe, that there was no flood over all the earth, and
shows that many other stories of the bible, and of many other religious
texts, are just myths. Many reliogious people accept that.
> Science does disprove god, but individuals can ignore the facts, not
> understand the facts, twist the facts, and lie about the facts. It
> still doesn't make the truth any less true. Either humans were created
> or they evolved. There is irrefutable evidence they evolved. Therefore
> the claims of your bible about the creator are false, but that doesn't
> stop millions of people from willfully ignoring these facts.
>
> That's not what is happening. A scientist who sees the results from
> evolution as saying the bible story of creation is wrong, then they may
> conclude they don't believe in god.
Nowhere does this say that science, or evolution, "proves that gods do
not exist". There may well be thousands of gods for all science cares.
It does show that none of the dozens of different creation myths are
any more than myths and legends. That in itself does not prove that
gods do not exist.
> The Quote in CONTEXT:
> My beef is *extremist* athiests who use these facts and demand other people
> bow down to their God of un-created evolution in a petri dish of a universe
Actually I don't see any "demand .. bow down to". In fact it quite
clearly states " but that doesn't stop millions of people from
willfully ignoring these facts."
> and demaand others accept their view that this , and [THAT] the work of
> darwin
> proves without doubt that God and creation has absilutley nothing to do with
> anything..... and then say that THEY have scienctific proof on their side
> that what they say is 100% correct.
You probably believe that Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu has 'nothing to do
with anything'. And that about hundreds of other gods too.
> Well the example I have been using is that Darwin himself, in his OWN words
> does not support such *extremist ideology* from these obbsessive athiests.
> [ note not talking about ***all athiests***, only the outspoken twits who
> frequent
> newsgroups and love arguning with those who follow religious paths]
Well don't argue with them, posting is optional. If I look at the
first message of most of the threads it is religionist kooks who start
them off.
> When really, all they are is as blindly adheriong to a "beleif" of how life
> exists which is no different from that of those they abuse, and ridicule for
> being un-scientific and stupid.
I can see how they may do that.
> I think it's is all kinda funny to me ...... but I understadn that not too
> many people are able to follow what it is I am getting at here. <smile>
I am not surprised, you take a completely normal mild statement and
then complain in hyperbolic terms.
> above and elsewhere should you care to look. Either you are dyslexic with
> reading problems, or you may be suffering from some kind of mental blockage
> [ of unknown cause ] which is affecting your reasoning capacities.
Just as long as you don't resort to the ad hominen attacks that you so
dislike in others then.
The one message you posted did not claim that gods do not exist, only
that your 'god of creation' is disproven, that is the stories of
genesis are myths.
> If you had any credibilty or honesty, you would have included the links to
> the page or posts where you obtained these quotes.
Just as long as you don't resort to the ad hominen attacks that you so
dislike in others then.
They were just a Google search away from anyone who cares. Suddenly,
after refusing to provide content or links and insisting that I have to
do my own search, anything presented that is counter to your claims has
to have full docmentation.
As I said they were ytpical samples of the many I found.
> I think that was
> extremely disengenuous, and speaks to your character.
Just as long as you don't resort to the ad hominen attacks that you so
dislike in others then.
Sean
You are unbelievable. Have another look
>> Science does disprove god
You can spin it anyway you want, there it is in black and white.
Sean
-------------------------------------------------
Either humans were created or they evolved.
There is irrefutable evidence they evolved.
Therefore the claims [of your bible] about the creator are false
Science has NOT proven it is an either or proposition.
Therefore this person cannot claim other claims about *the creator* are
false.
To do so is irrational, the fallacy of non-sequitur. It does not follow.
Sean
------------------------------------
A scientist who sees the results from evolution as saying the bible story of
creation is wrong, then they may conclude they don't believe in god.
------------------------------------------
Irrational the fallacy of non-sequitur, it does not follow.
It would be rational to say ::
" then they may conclude that they do not believe the bible story of
creation"
That is logical
Sean
Simplicity again:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Science may not be put forth as an alternative to religion,
but it becomes one when it contradicts the claims religion makes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Irrational, fallacy of non sequitur, it does not follow
Science is science = true
Religion is religion = true
Science is religion = false
Sean
QUOTE July 26th 2006
Email: "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kel...@hotmail.com>
Groups: alt.religion.christian, alt.talk.creationism, alt.atheism,
alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian/msg/97a4757ec94dd8c2
---------------------------------------------
Science IS neutral. But the facts it uncovers (e.g. evolution)
contradicts and disproves the claims of the bible.
Science does disprove god,
--------------------------------------------
which logically means::
Science IS neutral.
Science uncovers facts like evolution
Science does disprove god,
----------------------------------------------
MY CLAIM
"some seem to think evolution proves there is no God"
YOU SAID PRIOR TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION
> ""it is impossible to prove God does not exist""
>
> ""it does not prove/disprove God"" <<<< LOOK HERE -- WORD FOR WORD !!!!
>
> ""Even Charles Darwin did not think that his theory was a proof or
> indicator of the non-existence of God.""
>
> "" Darwin himself stated clearly severla times, that his theory could
> not possibly prove any such ..""
>
> I grant that there are kooks who persistently claim that they can
> disprove gods with 'logic', but they don't seem to rely on Darwin to
> help them.
YOUR LAST COMMENT IS FALSE
This person DID rely on Darwin & evolution to help.
Undeniable proof of what I claimed has been provided.
MY CLAIM IS TRUE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You may believe what you wish. It is a free world afterall.
This ends our conversation. I enjoyed it.
Thankyou Sean
Matt Silberstein
<relaxing@earth> in <44e5...@news.eftel.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
>Look it;s simple. Initially all I said was that Darwin could NOT know what
>the dog believed, either about the parasol or about the invisible forces. He
>could NOT possibly be certain that the dog was barking at the parasol or a
>bee 3 feet infront of the parasol, or some other 6th sense issue ..........
>and underlying that is the obvious point that Darwin could NOT have done any
>real sienctific studies to "prove" to sound science standards in his day
>that what he "believed" about the dog on that occasion was correct or not.
>
>I basically said Darwins *quoted* comments were an assumption, a conclusion
>based solely on his personal obervations and opinions. My point being that
>this apporoach which is replete in his OoS is in fact NOT scientific.
>Whether he was right or wrong about evolution, [ even considereing
>subsequent science] is irrelevant. Individual personal and isolated
>observations, are fundamentally problematic as far as accuracy is concerned.
Could you give examples from OoS that show Darwin's unscientific
approach?
>MY conclusion about such things is that much of what Darwin "concludes" is
>seriously prone to error because of this. Not everything. Evolution, no
>matter what word one uses is obvious today. BUT that does not mean that all
>of Darwins conclusions, say about "natural selection" and how he "concluded"
>it at the time, are necessarily fully accurate.
Drift plays a more important role that Darwin gave credit for. Other
than that what specific complaints to you have regarding his
conclusions?
>Obviously however the overall thrust of his ideas were and are spot on, but
>only relative to the prevailing views of his day. Obviously his observations
>are more authoritive than a chimmney sweeper at the time.
>
>BUT there are huge holes in some of his leaps to conclusions that have
>nothing to support them. Logical fallacies are not that hard to pick. I
>didn;t make up ipso facto or non-sequitur.
Please give some examples of these logical fallacies.
[snip]
>That's obvious and not the point I was making. The "founder" doesn;t matter,
>it is what their blind followers do that causes the creation of the cult of
>personality. Nothing wrong with admiring Darwin, but some seem to think
>evolution proves there is no God, as just one example of blind believers, as
>opposed to fair mindedly separating the wheat fom the chaff of what darwin
>offers.
Actually the claim was that Evolution enabled one to be an
intellectually fulfilled atheists, not that it proved there was no
God. I happen to disagree with Dawkins, but he did not say it proved
there was no God.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
rip...@azonic.co.nz
You do not seem to undersatand the truism: "Absense of proof is not
proof of absense".
This claim is "Science disproves" the myths in the bible. It takes
away what some religionists claim to be 'proof of god'. 'Disproves'
merely nullifiies 'proof'.
It would need to go a lot further to attempt a 'proof of
non-existence".
You seem to so engrossed in your primitive world-view* that you can't
stand anything that may upset it.
* I say 'world', but of course the bible is only about a small part of
the eastern end of the Med. Each other 'world' has its own religious
background, its own myths and legends, its own creation myth. If you
had a wider knowledge of the actual world you may not be so narrow
minded and obsessive.
rip...@azonic.co.nz
Sean wrote:
> I'm keeping it simple
> -------------------------------------------------
> Either humans were created or they evolved.
> There is irrefutable evidence they evolved.
> Therefore the claims [of your bible] about the creator are false
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Science has NOT proven it is an either or proposition.
Science has shown that humans evolved from ancestors a few million
years ago that were also relatives of the Chimpanzee's ancestors.
Many religions have claimed that humans are not related to the other
animals and that they were always in the form we have now.
These two propositions are mutually exclusive.
You may have another proposition but it cannot be compatible with both
of these simultaneously.
> Therefore this person cannot claim other claims about *the creator* are
> false.
> To do so is irrational, the fallacy of non-sequitur. It does not follow.
In the case of a claim of a literal seven days, science does show this
to be false.
rip...@azonic.co.nz
Sean wrote:
> Simplicity again:
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Science may not be put forth as an alternative to religion,
> but it becomes one when it contradicts the claims religion makes
> -----------------------------------------------------------
If you had any credibilty or honesty, you would have included the links
to
the page or posts where you obtained these quotes. I think that was
extremely disengenuous, and speaks to your character.
> Irrational, fallacy of non sequitur, it does not follow
>
> Science is science = true
> Religion is religion = true
> Science is religion = false
I have seen similar quotes to that one. Mostly they are made by
religioists attempting to discredit science.
Sean
I have no real interest in the proposition itself that "Science does
disprove god" or it doesn't??
To me, it is ludicrous. All sane scientists seem to agree with ME, and vice
versa.
Science cannot prove or disprove the existance of God, one way or another.
SIMPLE
On that point I think i am in TOTAL agreement with pretty much the rest of
the world, including yourself.
I will spell it out again.
You know science can't prove or disprove God.
You know the majority of athiests as well as creationists do NOT beleive
that or follow that notion.
BUT you also know that science including evolutionary theory, has most
CERTAINLY proved that the literal interpretation in the Christian bible of
Genesis, is FALSE.
You and I BOTH know that, and yet despite that, there are *some people*,
note that word SOME, who still cling to a false belief that Genesis is still
absolutely litterally true.
YOU seem willing to accept that last fact as a given.
I SURE DO
YOU and I both know that there reallly isn;t much that can be done for such
folks, but it's OK for you and I to point out the obvious and most other
people WILL SEE IT.
YET .... and this is the ONLY point relevant at present in this thread ....
when I claimed there are also SOME PEOPLE who are ATHEISTS that falsely
claim SCIENCE & EVOLUTION PROVES THERE IS NO GOD ........ you said there
were not, you said I was making it up.
You then go searching and can't find any, and again say it does NOT happen,
and again ATTACK MY CREDIBILITY.
However, I go searching and within 10 minutes I EASILY find someone doing
exactly what I have "cliamed" to have observed regularly on newsgroups.
I provide PROOF, that what i claimed IS TRUE, and despite that you still
cannot accept it.
WHY DENY REALITY ??????
I have proved a really quite obvious reality, that despite the majority of
sane and rational people accepting that Science can NOT prove or disprove
God, there are still SOME people who DO SAY THAT IT CAN, AND DOES.
Of course this is ridiculous that any rational person would believe such a
thing, but we cannot legislate stupidity or ignorance out of the population.
Can we?
I would think it is highly likely that YOU would NEVER have imagined that
someone who presented himself as an athiest could EVER SAY such a dumb
stupid thing. I can understand that, because it is mind-blowingly DUMB.
Yes despite this, here is vivid proof of someone doing exactly that.
Go figure, life is full of surprises. <smile>
Being able to focus on a single simple FACT that X does happen in reality,
and then communciate that fact in pixels on a newsgroup is not narrow
minded, nor obsessive.
I made a claim YOU did not accept.
YOU asked for proof
YOU claimed I was making it up
YOU went looking and could not find any evidence to support my claim
I present clear evidential proof of my claim of this ONE simple fact.
YOU now refuse to accept that evidence
If you are unable to accept that this one simple fact exists in reality
after seeing the evidence of it existing in reality, it would be truer to
say that you may be the one who is being narrow minded and obsessive.
Nothing I can do about that. I just accept it. People are what they are. No
big deal to me.
You asked for proof of my claim and I provided it. The rest, as they, is up
to you.
<rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1156019641....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Sean
<rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1156020493.8...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sean wrote:
>> Simplicity again:
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> Science may not be put forth as an alternative to religion,
>> but it becomes one when it contradicts the claims religion makes
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> If you had any credibilty or honesty, you would have included the links
> to
> the page or posts where you obtained these quotes. I think that was
> extremely disengenuous, and speaks to your character.
>
Are you being serious?
Surely you KNOW these "quotes" are from the post I made just before? , in
this very thread, 3 posts back.
A google search is NOT required, simply go back 3 posts in this thread VIEW
my post that included what I will call my UNDENIABLE PROOF.
I'm sorry that you are confused here, but I simply assumed you had read my
post, given that you responded to it.
You can easily find these smaller quotes word for word there, and see that I
have simply COPIED AND PASTED THEM ................... VERBATIM [ that means
exactly word for word btw]
I thought it might help you see exactly what it is in the undeniable proof
post, that was most critical to understanding the idea I am having such
difficulty conveying to you in a way that you can understand it.
Then again, anything is possible if recent history is a guide.
If in fact, you really do not know where these short quotes came from less
than 19 hours before, then no wonder there is a consistent communication
problem here which makes it impossible for me to obtain ANY level of
agreement from you, on ANY simple point.
You pulled up quotes from posts that go back the April .... sheesh, get a
grip.
>> Irrational, fallacy of non sequitur, it does not follow
>>
>> Science is science = true
>> Religion is religion = true
>> Science is religion = false
>
> I have seen similar quotes to that one. Mostly they are made by
> religioists attempting to discredit science.
>
IRRELEVANT
Either the series of 3 statements are logically rational, or they are not.
Either the initial statement, is accurate and logically valid, or it is a
fallacy.
The opportunity being presented to you here, is to decide which is true for
you.
Everything else, is IRRELEVANT, in this present moment.
It's really that simple.
I don't care what you decide, it was simply a service to you that I thought
would assist in your understandings of fallacies, and how to spot them. It
has been the common theme since you chose to respond to me. Whatever! maybe
someone else in cyberspace will get it.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Why you choose to see the contents of my post here as some great ideological
drama with religionists, is beyond me.
Sean
No reply this one?
aha ..... finally *got it* maybe?
I wonder. ;-))
"Sean" <relaxing@earth> wrote in message news:44e6...@news.eftel.com...
Sean
<rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1156020067....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sean wrote:
>> I'm keeping it simple
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> Either humans were created or they evolved.
>> There is irrefutable evidence they evolved.
>> Therefore the claims [of your bible] about the creator are false
>> ------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Science has NOT proven it is an either or proposition.
>
> Science has shown that humans evolved from ancestors a few million
> years ago that were also relatives of the Chimpanzee's ancestors.
>
> Many religions have claimed that humans are not related to the other
> animals and that they were always in the form we have now.
>
> These two propositions are mutually exclusive.
>
> You may have another proposition but it cannot be compatible with both
> of these simultaneously.
>
I will *attempt* to clarify, the way I put IT could be taken the wrong way
than intended.
YOUR COMMENTS ABOVE ARE A GIVEN
JUST TAKE IT, I AGREE WITH YOU
BUT
THEY ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE POINT THAT I AM MAKING HERE
So forget it.
I ACCEPT BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ARE IN FACT TRUE ::
The Bible [most religions] CLAIMS there is a Creator/God. [ forget the
details ]
Science CLAIMS evolution of humans IS a reality. [forget the details]
NOW
PLEASE JUST FOCUS ON THE NEXT LOGICAL STATEMENT ::
" Science has NOT proven it is an either or proposition."
BECAUSE LOGICALLY
Both COULD BE TRUE --- [ even if you specifically believe there is no God ]
NOW
forget EVERYTHING ELSE about the broader subject, read it again slowly
.................
" Science has NOT proven it is an either or proposition."
That is all I am saying here. Nothing else, no secret plan, no great
strategy to bring science or religion, or YOU to their knees.
It's all about simple everyday rational arguments and logic. Savvy?
" Science has NOT proven it is an either or proposition."
You can AGREE or DISAGREE ...
Please do not tell me, I really do not need to know AND I do not care either
way.
But good luck with it.
Sean
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:l5dee2dpfl0nkqua1...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 19:11:19 +1000, in alt.atheism , "Sean"
> <relaxing@earth> in <44e5...@news.eftel.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>
>>Look it;s simple. Initially all I said was that Darwin could NOT know what
>>the dog believed, either about the parasol or about the invisible forces.
>>He
>>could NOT possibly be certain that the dog was barking at the parasol or a
>>bee 3 feet infront of the parasol, or some other 6th sense issue
>>..........
>>and underlying that is the obvious point that Darwin could NOT have done
>>any
>>real sienctific studies to "prove" to sound science standards in his day
>>that what he "believed" about the dog on that occasion was correct or not.
>>
>>I basically said Darwins *quoted* comments were an assumption, a
>>conclusion
>>based solely on his personal obervations and opinions. My point being that
>>this apporoach which is replete in his OoS is in fact NOT scientific.
>>Whether he was right or wrong about evolution, [ even considereing
>>subsequent science] is irrelevant. Individual personal and isolated
>>observations, are fundamentally problematic as far as accuracy is
>>concerned.
>
> Could you give examples from OoS that show Darwin's unscientific
> approach?
>
Hi Matt,
You ask some good, but not unexpected questions. Please bear with me while I
explain why I will not answer them directly.
Yes I could give you some examples. Will I? No, I really couldn't be
bothered.
If you cannot see the difference between rational scientific evidentially
based valid commentary and conclusions in OoS, and Darwin shooting the
breeze about what he "thinks is probably true but has no proof to support it
scientifically at THAT time" then I could give a thousand examples and it
would make no difference to you.
You and others can take what I say, look up info like
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies and try to spot them yourself, or
forget what I am saying and label me any thing you like, and jump to any
assumption about my motivations.
I predict, most would be totally wrong on that score.
I am not making a scientific claim here, I am expressing my opinion and it
is MORE about personal psychology and philosophy and the difficulty in
humans spotting what is a truth and what is "spin". It's a public service, I
can;t make people see this, only those that are willing can do this.
I can tell you where to look though. Start at any page in OoS, and keep
going, it won't take long.
The example of Darwin stating that he knows what his Dog "believes", and
most people just accept that, is a simple example of what to look for. His
statement could NOT have been supported by any valid science when he wrote
that commentary/analogy. He may still be right about his beliefs of native
religion but THE WAY he presents THIS argument is SPIN, and not LOGICALLY
RATIONAL.
I posit, he does this all the time throughout OoS. Your mileage may vary.
This style of writing in OoS is NOT science, but I believe because people
today see him as a giant in history, they can often miss those things where
he is completely talking through his hat. It is 2006 today, I am encouraging
people to cast a more critical eye of Darwin's comments and see them for
what they are. Some are quite valid, others are utter crap, imho.
Darwin won't be offended if you can tell the difference. He himself in OoS
several times clearly states that what I am suggesting here is actually
true. He says it very clearly that not everything he says can be relied
upon, but he felt an obligation to at least get his thoughts, ideas and
personal conclusions put down in writing before he died. He says he could be
wrong on many issues. Read it. It's there. That's all I am saying, plus
pointing to how to tell the difference between his conjectures, and those
that were actually supported by his life of obseravtions.
The problem I am addressing here lies in the readers own bias. No matter who
they are, and for everyone, this level of bias they bring to reading Darwin
will be different. You can;t point out an error of understanding that
cinflicts with anothers fixed bias.
You and others can esily see this in others, but you may find it very hard
to see it in yourself. THAT is why it is called bias .... humans have to get
beyond bias to really find the truth of matters.
If an Athiest's BIAS tells them I MUST be another religious kook, then
nothing I say will a shit load of difference. and all they will want to do
is a friggin great argument to prove me wrong. frankly, I am not interested.
Anyone who is in the middle ground, who's world view isn't totally
identified in this pro/con mindset has a better chance to recognise what I
see in SOME of Darwin's OoS, and also other comments that arise from this.
Creationism won't take over the world if once in a while Atheists &
Darwinists on newsgroups actually acknowledged specific points that are
invalid in OoS when they are brought up.
To do so will NOT change the validity of the fundamentals of his Theory of
Evolution, or the subsequent scientific works, so what is there to lose by
occasionally agreeing something in OoS isn't true, or can't be proven one
way or the other, given the knowledge level of today?
To occasionally acknowledge this actually leads to more constructive
dialogue all around. and then everyone learns a little more, and bias is
reduced. It creates a space to open the mind a little more. Be you a
believer in atheism or a believer in God.
>>MY conclusion about such things is that much of what Darwin "concludes" is
>>seriously prone to error because of this. Not everything. Evolution, no
>>matter what word one uses is obvious today. BUT that does not mean that
>>all
>>of Darwins conclusions, say about "natural selection" and how he
>>"concluded"
>>it at the time, are necessarily fully accurate.
>
> Drift plays a more important role that Darwin gave credit for. Other
> than that what specific complaints to you have regarding his
> conclusions?
>
It is the communciation process I am pointing to. His specific errors aren;t
that important to me.
That you don't already see this is THE problem that I am raising here.
>>Obviously however the overall thrust of his ideas were and are spot on,
>>but
>>only relative to the prevailing views of his day. Obviously his
>>observations
>>are more authoritive than a chimmney sweeper at the time.
>>
>>BUT there are huge holes in some of his leaps to conclusions that have
>>nothing to support them. Logical fallacies are not that hard to pick. I
>>didn;t make up ipso facto or non-sequitur.
>
> Please give some examples of these logical fallacies.
>
THE DOG COMMENT
And find your own. Logical fallacies are not that hard to pick.
If you find none you can say I am wrong. I really don't care. See above re
personal bias and how it sstops us from seeing what is right in front of our
eyes.
DO NOT BELIEVE ME
If you have no idea how bias works in human psychology, then do some
reasearch on it. Science has done a lot of good work in this area. Seek the
latest high qulaity info. It;s no secret.
> [snip]
>
>
>>That's obvious and not the point I was making. The "founder" doesn;t
>>matter,
>>it is what their blind followers do that causes the creation of the cult
>>of
>>personality. Nothing wrong with admiring Darwin, but some seem to think
>>evolution proves there is no God, as just one example of blind believers,
>>as
>>opposed to fair mindedly separating the wheat fom the chaff of what darwin
>>offers.
>
> Actually the claim was that Evolution enabled one to be an
> intellectually fulfilled atheists, not that it proved there was no
> God. I happen to disagree with Dawkins, but he did not say it proved
> there was no God.
>
I never said HE said that. [ sorry if that was not clear, or if I screwed up
my expressions, I type fast but I think faster, sometimes that gets out of
sync hehehe ]
But I know SOME people do. Some people DO believe and SAY, that just because
the Christian Bible doesn't match with Science in regards the timeline of
astronomy and evolution .... then a belief in God is therefore worthy of
total intolerance and personal abuse.
SOME people have such a personal investment in this type of thinking than
eventually they become as ridiculous as those they are trying to bring down.
It's the same thing, it is religiousity, it is NOT rational thinking. All
skeptics, atheists, and evolutionists and scientists are NOT immune to this.
I am going to turn this around, and put it back into your lap.
I defy you to prove to me, that both Darwin & Dawkins, as well as many other
Atheists DO NOT IN FACT take the truth of Evolution as being but ONE pillar
of THEIR BELIEF that there is no God, no Creator of the Universe.
I defy you to prove to me that they do not then PUBLICLY use that as a basis
to push their own personal agendas and try to convince as many other people
as they can to their OWN BELIEFS about God.
{ One can;t prove a negative, I know that. I am simply pointing to HOW to
look at it, and then think about it, and observe what you see yourself ----
after a period of time, then come to a conclusion of what I say here, hold
back on judging it as right or wrong, right here, right now. iow reserve
judgement and wait to see what pops up down the track. You may be surprised,
be willing to be open about that. }
I suggest, that this is exactly the very same thing that Religions do when
they do their Missionary work.
I am NOT saying everyone does this, and I have no doubt that Dawkins and
others WILL deny what I say here is true in a flash.
But, I have NEVER seen an Athiest online ask another Atheist to please stop
trying to push their beliefs onto other people, or to stop trying to prove
them completely wrong AND using Darwin's work on Evolution and other aspects
of science to do so.
I do not doubt that it HAS occurred, only that it does not happen at times
when that would be the most rational and logical thing to say in the moment.
Yet Athiests never hold back in telling a Creationist to STF up.
Now do you see the point I was making? In a very subtle way, Darwin & OoS is
put up as a poster boy for Atheism, just as Jesus & the Bible is for
Creationism. As such, any criticism of Darwin or some of his thinking and
work is regularly defended, as emotionally as a Christian defends their
belief that Jesus was God.
fwiw, I do NOT agree with Christians on this.
But you will NOT ask me to show you some evidence or prove to you why I
think that!!!
You only want to ask me why I have an opinion about Darwin
Now, ask yourself WHY IS THAT SO ???
When you work out the answer, you will see that all that I have said, is
pretty damn close to the mark, if not perfectly so, for all people.
Think about it. Really, stop and think about it.
Thanks Matt, I hope my ideas are accepted in the spirit in which they are
given.
rip...@azonic.co.nz
Sean wrote:
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Science may not be put forth as an alternative to religion,
> >> but it becomes one when it contradicts the claims religion makes
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > If you had any credibilty or honesty, you would have included the links
> > to
> > the page or posts where you obtained these quotes. I think that was
> > extremely disengenuous, and speaks to your character.
> >
>
> Are you being serious?
Of course not. I was pulling your tit. I cut and pasted that from your
disengenuous post to me.
Sean
<rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1156052325.2...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
I realised you cut and pasted .......... a smilie wouldn;t hurt to convey
the context, but that's ok.
OK no worries. cheers
rip...@azonic.co.nz
Sean wrote:
<huge rambling rant snipped>
> YET .... and this is the ONLY point relevant at present in this thread ....
> when I claimed there are also SOME PEOPLE who are ATHEISTS that falsely
> claim SCIENCE & EVOLUTION PROVES THERE IS NO GOD ........ you said there
> were not, you said I was making it up.
Well, you do make stuff up, such as claiming that I said "there were
not".
I did say that I did a Google search and found people saying exactly
the opposite, I never claimed that yours could not be found, only that
I had not found any such and that you had not provided any and in fact
had refused to.
You have this serious deficincy where you make up your own mind what
has been said independently of the words being used.
You also have binary logic: If it isn't white it must be black.
> You then go searching and can't find any, and again say it does NOT happen,
> and again ATTACK MY CREDIBILITY.
Please indicate where I said "it does not happen".
> However, I go searching and within 10 minutes I EASILY find someone doing
> exactly what I have "cliamed" to have observed regularly on newsgroups.
>
> I provide PROOF, that what i claimed IS TRUE, and despite that you still
> cannot accept it.
>
> WHY DENY REALITY ??????
Actually what you found (and I had found that too) was a 'disprove'.
It is only in your simplistic binary logic that 'absense of proof' is
'proof of absense'.
Disproving some sort of 'proof of god' is not 'proof of non-existence
of god'.
> I made a claim YOU did not accept.
Actually what I said was:
-----------------------------------------------------
SEAN> but some seem to think evolution proves there is no God,
ME> Then you should address that. Instead you attack Darwin and show
yourself to be obsessed with a single analogy. You lose credability,
well actually you never started with any, by dismissing the need for
evidence from you while persuing some purported lack of evidence of
normal behaviour in a throw away line.
-----------------------------------------------------
Where exactly did I say that "some don't think that' ?
> YOU asked for proof
Whare exactly did I actually *ask* for proof ?
I did point out that you dismissed the need for you to do it whaile
demanding it from others.
I also said that "you are welcome to present it" which not asking or
demanding.
> YOU claimed I was making it up
You make up a lot of stuff, see above.
> YOU went looking and could not find any evidence to support my claim
Correct.
> I present clear evidential proof of my claim of this ONE simple fact.
>
> YOU now refuse to accept that evidence
It does not match the claim that you made.
rip...@azonic.co.nz
Sean wrote:
> I ACCEPT BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ARE IN FACT TRUE ::
>
> The Bible [most religions] CLAIMS there is a Creator/God. [ forget the
> details ]
Well if you 'forget the details' then you can contrive any conclusion.
> Science CLAIMS evolution of humans IS a reality. [forget the details]
> PLEASE JUST FOCUS ON THE NEXT LOGICAL STATEMENT ::
>
> " Science has NOT proven it is an either or proposition."
Science neither knows nor cares about what religionists claim and has
never tried to prove that this is an either-or proposition. So your
statement is meaningless.
It is first of all the religionists that attempt to make it 'either-or'
by resenting that they are 'descended from monkeys'. There is
incompatability between humans being 'created' in the form they are now
and the observations of science which shows step by step evolution.
So a more rational statement might be: [some] religions have proven it
to be an either or proposition.
> BECAUSE LOGICALLY
>
> Both COULD BE TRUE --- [ even if you specifically believe there is no God ]
It _could_ also be true that your god didn't do it because Brahma had
already done so, or that UFOs from Alpha Centuri did it, or we migrated
from Venus or ...
Science would only care about that if there was actually some evidence
that indicated it.
But science does observe that humans did not arrive fully formed (as
claimed by some religions) as we are now. There was a progression from
ancestral forms, which in turn evolved from other mammal forms which
...
> " Science has NOT proven it is an either or proposition."
Science has never tried to. It is (some) religions that make it
either-or.
> It's all about simple everyday rational arguments and logic. Savvy?
Which you suffer deficiencies in. You attempt to make any argument
into black-white. You hyperbolate, you make stuff up, you argue that if
x is not true then y must be.
> Please do not tell me, I really do not need to know AND I do not care either
> way.
Then why do you bother replying ?
Actually, not only that, but you complained when I didn't reply:
> "No reply this one?"
rip...@azonic.co.nz
Sean wrote:
> The example of Darwin stating that he knows what his Dog "believes",
This is so weird. You finally agreed with me that you failed to notice
the word 'apparently' in there, and now you revert to ignoring it.
Your primitive binary white-black 'logic' fails to let you accept that
this means that he is not claiming to _know_ that his dog believes,
only that is appears to be as if the dog believed that.
<rest of rant ignored>
Sean
<rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1156058359.7...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sean wrote:
>
>> I ACCEPT BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ARE IN FACT TRUE ::
>>
>> The Bible [most religions] CLAIMS there is a Creator/God. [ forget the
>> details ]
>
> Well if you 'forget the details' then you can contrive any conclusion.
>
>> Science CLAIMS evolution of humans IS a reality. [forget the details]
>
>> PLEASE JUST FOCUS ON THE NEXT LOGICAL STATEMENT ::
>>
>> " Science has NOT proven it is an either or proposition."
>
> Science neither knows nor cares about what religionists claim and has
> never tried to prove that this is an either-or proposition. So your
> statement is meaningless.
>
Then so is this statement in your view. [ it;s part of this mini thread btw]
-------------------------------------------------
Either humans were created or they evolved.
There is irrefutable evidence they evolved.
Therefore the claims [of your bible] about the creator are false
------------------------------------------------
That the above is meaningless [ or illogical ] is basically my point.
That's all I;m saying. You seemed to be wanting to deny that this occurs on
the "atheist" side of the fence. You aksed for evidence, I provided it.
Simple really.
I'm not complaining it, I simply said it happens, and you said I was making
it up. Well, I wasn't.
> It is first of all the religionists that attempt to make it 'either-or'
> by resenting that they are 'descended from monkeys'. There is
> incompatability between humans being 'created' in the form they are now
> and the observations of science which shows step by step evolution.
>
> So a more rational statement might be: [some] religions have proven it
> to be an either or proposition.
>
Irrelevant. I was very specific about what I claimed. and it had nothing to
do with religionists.
What you say may or may not be true, I have NO reason to reject it. You will
get no argument from me on this score. So, score as many points as you like.
I don;t believe the Bible either. But the Golden rule is pretty good. There
are versions of that all around the world.
That too, is irrelevant to the main point I was making in my claim, which
appears to have now been proved with physical evidence. See, I love science
and logic too. ;-)
>> BECAUSE LOGICALLY
>>
>> Both COULD BE TRUE --- [ even if you specifically believe there is no
>> God ]
>
> It _could_ also be true that your god didn't do it because Brahma had
> already done so, or that UFOs from Alpha Centuri did it, or we migrated
> from Venus or ...
>
Well lot's of things could be true, including the above. Except that I do
not have a "your god". Again, all of this is irrelevant to the basic point
I;m making about being rational, and recognising fallacies when we see.
NO matter who makes them!! See?
> Science would only care about that if there was actually some evidence
> that indicated it.
>
> But science does observe that humans did not arrive fully formed (as
> claimed by some religions) as we are now. There was a progression from
> ancestral forms, which in turn evolved from other mammal forms which
> ...
I totally agree. No argument there.
>
>> " Science has NOT proven it is an either or proposition."
>
> Science has never tried to. It is (some) religions that make it
> either-or.
>
I never said science had tried to.
What I said was ... that SOME people think, and some people DO SAY, that it
has. Oddly enough, they usual athiests and darwinists, and not real
scientists at all.
Any chance you'll agree with this simple point before the year 5006? I'm
curious.
> > It's all about simple everyday rational arguments and logic. Savvy?
>
> Which you suffer deficiencies in. You attempt to make any argument
> into black-white. You hyperbolate, you make stuff up, you argue that if
> x is not true then y must be.
>
No I don't.
Oh ok, I do use hyperbole. Mea culpa! But I didn't use it first, check the
record! ;-))
>
>> Please do not tell me, I really do not need to know AND I do not care
>> either
>> way.
>
> Then why do you bother replying ?
>
Hyperbole? ;-))
> Actually, not only that, but you complained when I didn't reply:
>
>> "No reply this one?"
>
There you go making assumptions again, and judging me way too hastily.
That was NOT a complaint, it was simply a question.
If I was complaining I would have said something like this ..... HEY you
f..ing wanker you haven;t repsonded to this post, get ass into gear and give
me a friggin answer NOW.
I didn't do that, I simply asked. I was curious.
Thanks for THIS reply though. <VBG>
cheers
rip...@azonic.co.nz
Sean wrote:
> Then so is this statement in your view. [ it;s part of this mini thread btw]
> -------------------------------------------------
> Either humans were created or they evolved.
> There is irrefutable evidence they evolved.
> Therefore the claims [of your bible] about the creator are false
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> That the above is meaningless [ or illogical ] is basically my point.
Your claim was that some said "this proves that god does not exist"
The statement makes no such. Is it merely saying that the claims of
the bible, such as 'your god created man' is false. That is not saying
'god does not exist'.
> That's all I;m saying. You seemed to be wanting to deny that this occurs on
> the "atheist" side of the fence.
Show me where I made such a denial. You just made that up.
> You aksed for evidence,
Show me where I asked for evidence, you just made that up.
I did state that you were welcome to provide it.
> I provided it.
Not here you didn't.
> I'm not complaining it, I simply said it happens, and you said I was making
> it up. Well, I wasn't.
You do make up many things. Show me where I stated that you made up
that particular item.
The problem is that you don't keep track of what was actually said, it
all gets mixed up.
> Irrelevant. I was very specific about what I claimed. and it had nothing to
> do with religionists.
Whatever.
> That too, is irrelevant to the main point I was making in my claim, which
> appears to have now been proved with physical evidence. See, I love science
> and logic too. ;-)
Pity that you don't practice it.
> What I said was ... that SOME people think, and some people DO SAY, that it
> has. Oddly enough, they usual athiests and darwinists, and not real
> scientists at all.
Oddly enough the only ones that I found were where some religionist was
misrepresenting what they thought atheists might say.
> Oh ok, I do use hyperbole. Mea culpa! But I didn't use it first, check the
> record! ;-))
Do you think that I use hyperbole ? Show me.
> I didn't do that, I simply asked. I was curious.
So, you _do_ care if I replay.
Matt Silberstein
LOL.
>Yes I could give you some examples. Will I? No, I really couldn't be
>bothered.
Is it because you would rather make unsupported claims that make you
look like a liar than present a well-supported argument? Or because
you have no support and you are a liar? Gee, I wonder which?
>If you cannot see the difference between rational scientific evidentially
>based valid commentary and conclusions in OoS, and Darwin shooting the
>breeze about what he "thinks is probably true but has no proof to support it
>scientifically at THAT time" then I could give a thousand examples and it
>would make no difference to you.
If I have found something that no one else has found in the last 150
years I would be very happy to explain it to you. Right now all I have
is your word that somewhere in OoS is something that you, from a
perspective 150 after, with no apparent experience in the field, find
unscientific. Since I have read Darwin I am not just going to take
your word for this. But if you are unwilling to provide you evidence
then there is no point to continuing, is there? You will just make
unsupported (and likely unsupportable) statements.
>You and others can take what I say, look up info like
>http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies and try to spot them yourself, or
>forget what I am saying and label me any thing you like, and jump to any
>assumption about my motivations.
I think I will. I have evidence of your actions and you refuse to
provide evidence of Darwin's supposed errors. Somehow you are able to
provide a reference to a list of fallacies, but not to the supposed
errors in OoS. I will make it easy for you, here is a link to the
book:
The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html
>I predict, most would be totally wrong on that score.
Then again, you won't provide evidence or argument so your prediction
is not worth much.
>I am not making a scientific claim here, I am expressing my opinion and it
>is MORE about personal psychology and philosophy and the difficulty in
>humans spotting what is a truth and what is "spin". It's a public service, I
>can;t make people see this, only those that are willing can do this.
So you want us to learn to detect truth from "spin", but you won't
give us examples to look at. Right now the only thing you offer is
that we just believe you when you say it. Somehow that does not say
much about your views of spotting truth.
>I can tell you where to look though. Start at any page in OoS, and keep
>going, it won't take long.
Do you mean that there is a fallacy in the first chapter? Can you pin
it down a bit further?
>The example of Darwin stating that he knows what his Dog "believes", and
>most people just accept that, is a simple example of what to look for. His
>statement could NOT have been supported by any valid science when he wrote
>that commentary/analogy. He may still be right about his beliefs of native
>religion but THE WAY he presents THIS argument is SPIN, and not LOGICALLY
>RATIONAL.
Perhaps he made an error, he did not have the benefit of our
subsequent research, but it is not spin or "LOGICAL ERROR". You are
engaging in whiggism. If your list of fallacies does not have that I
can explain it to you or you can look it up.
>I posit, he does this all the time throughout OoS. Your mileage may vary.
If he does it "all the time" then you should be able to find three
examples to show us.
>This style of writing in OoS is NOT science,
More whiggism.
>but I believe because people
>today see him as a giant in history, they can often miss those things where
>he is completely talking through his hat.
Was he "talking through is hat" about Common Descent? About Descent
with Modification? About Natural Selection? If not, then he is a
giant.
>It is 2006 today, I am encouraging
>people to cast a more critical eye of Darwin's comments and see them for
>what they are. Some are quite valid, others are utter crap, imho.
Why cast that kind of critical eye one a book that is 150 years old?
Of course there are claims that have not stood up and errors. Of
course he does not follow the current best accepted practices. Do you
have a clue on the state of statistics and statistical thinking in
1850?
>Darwin won't be offended if you can tell the difference. He himself in OoS
>several times clearly states that what I am suggesting here is actually
>true. He says it very clearly that not everything he says can be relied
>upon, but he felt an obligation to at least get his thoughts, ideas and
>personal conclusions put down in writing before he died. He says he could be
>wrong on many issues. Read it. It's there. That's all I am saying, plus
>pointing to how to tell the difference between his conjectures, and those
>that were actually supported by his life of obseravtions.
No, what you are saying is spin and misdirection. You are implying big
problems and won't show them. Yes, Darwin wrote in a different style
than people do today. That is not an error, it is a change in style.
And he speculated. Speculation is not spin, it is speculation.
Matt Silberstein
<1156058789.5...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Is that what this is about? He found some place where Darwin
speculated and didn't/won't notice that Darwin marks the speculation?
rip...@azonic.co.nz
Sean wrote:
> YET .... and this is the ONLY point relevant at present in this thread ....
> when I claimed there are also SOME PEOPLE who are ATHEISTS that falsely
> claim SCIENCE & EVOLUTION PROVES THERE IS NO GOD ........ you said there
> were not, you said I was making it up.
> You then go searching and can't find any, and again say it does NOT happen,
> and again ATTACK MY CREDIBILITY.
I did say that you had not provided any evidence for such.
I did say that I did not find any that were as you claimed.
I did say that I found many that said exactly the opposite.
I did say that I found religionists misrepresenting what atheists may
say.
I did _not_ say they did not exist. That would be hyperbole.
I did not say that you made up that particular item.
Though you have made up many things, including above where you claim
that I said you made up that messages may exist. You don't seem to be
able to keep track of what I have said you made up and where I haven't
said that.
> However, I go searching and within 10 minutes I EASILY find someone doing
> exactly what I have "cliamed" to have observed regularly on newsgroups.
There you argument fails. It is not a 'two state system. There are 3
possible states, let us call the A, -A and 0 (zero). In state A
proposion X proves that A exists. In -A proposition Y proves that A
does not exist. In state 0 no proposition proves either A or -A.
The action of moving from 0 to A or -A is called 'prove'.
The action of moving from state A or -A to state 0 is called
'disprove'.
Your claim was, as you state correctly above:
some say (X proves -A)
the example you found was:
(X disproves A)
> I provide PROOF, that what i claimed IS TRUE, and despite that you still
> cannot accept it.
I do not accept that (disproves A) means (proves -A).
The word 'disprove' cannot be used to construct 'prove' it can only
nullify a proof.
The second 'example' wasn't even about 'existence' it was about
stories.
If you claim to have climbed to the top of Cheop's pyramid and I find
that you have never left your villiage then this would prove your story
is untrue. It would not prove that you didn't exist, nor that the
pyramid didn't exist.
> WHY DENY REALITY ??????
I don't deny reality, only your arguments (which aren't reality).
> I have proved a really quite obvious reality, that despite the majority of
> sane and rational people accepting that Science can NOT prove or disprove
> God, there are still SOME people who DO SAY THAT IT CAN, AND DOES.
There might be, I am not sure how relevant that actually is and in any
case you should take it up with them.
But what this does show is that cannot distinguish between different
types of arguments, that you ignore the actual words used and just make
up what any particular thing means to suit your own preferences.
For example in the passage about his dog you ignored the word
'apparently' and substituted a word 'know' because it was easier to
argue against.
This is disengenuous and illustrates why you have no credability.
> Of course this is ridiculous that any rational person would believe such a
> thing, but we cannot legislate stupidity or ignorance out of the population.
> Can we?
Not even yours.
> I would think it is highly likely that YOU would NEVER have imagined that
> someone who presented himself as an athiest could EVER SAY such a dumb
> stupid thing. I can understand that, because it is mind-blowingly DUMB.
I can see people making dumb statements all the time. For example that
"disproves A means proves -A".
> Being able to focus on a single simple FACT that X does happen in reality,
> and then communciate that fact in pixels on a newsgroup is not narrow
> minded, nor obsessive.
Yes it is.
> I made a claim YOU did not accept.
>
> YOU asked for proof
>
> YOU claimed I was making it up
>
> YOU went looking and could not find any evidence to support my claim
>
> I present clear evidential proof of my claim of this ONE simple fact.
>
> YOU now refuse to accept that evidence
I refuse to accept illogic in anyone,. no matter narrow-minded and
obsessive they are.
I can quite see why people eventually resort to ad hominem attacks on
you.
Sean
<rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1156058789.5...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sean wrote:
>
>> The example of Darwin stating that he knows what his Dog "believes",
>
> This is so weird. You finally agreed with me that you failed to notice
> the word 'apparently' in there, and now you revert to ignoring it.
>
I could be wrong, but I think you believe that that word "apparently" is
saying that *to Darwin* it was apparant or appeared to him that the dog was
doing xyz.
If this is the case, then I think you have it wrong here.
If not, then I am completely befuddled about why you think it is such an
issue. and I;m not complaining either, I recognise that sematics and
language, and recalling things correctly is damn hard for all of us.
> Your primitive binary white-black 'logic' fails to let you accept that
> this means that he is not claiming to _know_ that his dog believes,
> only that is appears to be as if the dog believed that.
>
AHA, I just read this bit now. The problem is that you and I are reading
this passage completely differently. No wonder you are SO pissed with me
and never agreed with what I said.
We are talking about two different things entirely. You may indeed be
correct, and I have got totally screwed up. Either way, I unreservedly
apologise for this confusion etc.
But I think it is a grammar, language thing, and not necessarily my own b/w
thinking, though it may well be.
so help me clarify this if you can ..
(2) Yet the tendency of primitives to
imagine that natural objects were
animated by spirits seemed, Darwin
observed, little different from that
exhibited by his own dog, which barked
and growled at a parasol blown by the
wind, apparently believing that its
flight indicated the presence of
some invisible agent.
This is how I understood the above, Try it this way: .... then have another
read of the above passage again.
----------------------------
.......................xyz.., Darwin observed, little different from that
exhibited by his own dog, apparently believing that the flight of a parasol
blown by the wind indicated the presence of some invisible agent, as the
dog barked and growled at the parasol.
------------------------------
IMHO, Darwin isn't saying that anything was apparent, or appeared to
himself, he is making a statement that he observed the dog, and that it WAS
"apparently believing" there was some invisible agent present.
I know this discussion has gone all over the place, but bear with me for at
a moment longer.
Darwin said that the dog was barking at the parasol. That is a physical
thing. That to me makes total logical sense.
But in this situation, I still can't see why Darwin could possibly think
that this appeared to him to mean that the dog was also "apparently
believing" there was some invisible agent???
Or do you think he is saying it like "as if" senario, and Darwin really
didn''t mean that the dog would be believing anything at all about invisible
aganets?
This is what I am confused about, still. [ and no wonder you were of me
before ]
I can understand his comments about the natives believing that some spirit
may be behind things like wind that make objects move ..... but why the
analogy with the dog in this manner?
Is he trying to say that even a dog wouldn;t believe invisible agents,
therefore native relirions are dumber than dogs, or what??
Either way, as was said in the original post, it sure looks like malice or
at least ridicule, but why be so callous about? Even he himself at one time
belived in the Creation story. Seems terribly callous, but thsi is another
story I guess.
sheesh, language and semantics .... aaarrrggghhhhhh
Is there a 19th Century linguist in the house????
Sean
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:22:58 +1000, in alt.atheism , "Sean"
> <relaxing@earth> in <44e7...@news.eftel.com> wrote:
>
You asked some questions, I answered, but you don't like my answers. Get
over it.
As I said in my reply, if one looks at OoS and doesn't find any fallacies,
they hey, you can say I'm wrong!! And you did. woohoo Of course I said a lot
more than just that. Some other people may see something that clicks with
them. But spin?
You're no head master, please don't bother telling me what to do, or how to
do it.
If you can't understand the rest of what I said, well, I can't explain it
any better than I already have. Feel free to stick it in a pipe and smoke
it, for all I care. But have nice day Matt. ;-)
Sean
Sean
Sean
departments. Enjoy your life.
Sean
> On 20 Aug 2006 00:26:29 -0700, in alt.atheism , rip...@Azonic.co.nz in
> <1156058789.5...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Sean wrote:
>>
>>> The example of Darwin stating that he knows what his Dog "believes",
>>
>>This is so weird. You finally agreed with me that you failed to notice
>>the word 'apparently' in there, and now you revert to ignoring it.
>>
>>Your primitive binary white-black 'logic' fails to let you accept that
>>this means that he is not claiming to _know_ that his dog believes,
>>only that is appears to be as if the dog believed that.
>>
>><rest of rant ignored>
>
> Is that what this is about? He found some place where Darwin
> speculated and didn't/won't notice that Darwin marks the speculation?
>
of course that isn't what "it" is about at all, so will I explain it for
you ......
I thought maybe white space would maybe make more sense? Pixels don't seem
to help in this instance, so guess what - i give up - you can all send up a
resounding cheer and break open the beer. Woo Hoo
rip...@azonic.co.nz
Sean wrote:
> AHA, I just read this bit now. The problem is that you and I are reading
> this passage completely differently. No wonder you are SO pissed with me
> and never agreed with what I said.
That was something that I noticed, frequently.
> "apparently believing" there was some invisible agent present.
Seemingly believing, acting as if he believed.
Apparently:
2. Seemingly; in appearance; as, a man may be apparently friendly, yet
malicious in heart.
The actions of the dog appeared to be because he believed ...
as distinct from:
The actions of the dog are because he believed ...
That is: the dog only gave the _appearance_ of believing ...
Sean
<rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1156126690....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
OK I can follow that very clearly .... the explanation of the terms, and
what that means.
In fact that is exactly how I was always reading it ....... so doh!
I assume here that you do accept that the dog was in fact chasing the
parasol being blown by the wind.
NOW, if you can, PLEASE
Tell me EXACTLY HOW, that dog may have, could have, would have, given the
"appearance" that it was believing an invisible agent was present?
On what basis could Darwin possibly conclude such a thing from ANY
observation, unless the WIND, itself, is the invisible agent to which he
refers?
THX
Matt Silberstein
<relaxing@earth> in <44e9...@news.eftel.com> wrote:
>
>"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>message news:muige2h2g0ef9sgeg...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:22:58 +1000, in alt.atheism , "Sean"
>> <relaxing@earth> in <44e7...@news.eftel.com> wrote:
>>
>
>You asked some questions, I answered, but you don't like my answers. Get
>over it.
I am over it. You are unable or unwilling to point out actual
problems. You have gotten boring.
rip...@azonic.co.nz
Sean wrote:
> OK I can follow that very clearly .... the explanation of the terms, and
> what that means.
>
> In fact that is exactly how I was always reading it ....... so doh!
That seems doubtfull. You stated:
""" The example of Darwin stating that he knows what his Dog "believes"
"""
That shows that you did not understand, or ignored, the word
'apparently'.
> I assume here that you do accept that the dog was in fact chasing the
> parasol being blown by the wind.
It was only you that went off into fantasies about bees and kites.
But I think that you focussed on the 'chase' and missed the important
part of the event which was the barking and growling.
> NOW, if you can, PLEASE
>
> Tell me EXACTLY HOW, that dog may have, could have, would have, given the
> "appearance" that it was believing an invisible agent was present?
That is something that you will have to ask Darwin when you next see
him. I can only relate my observations of how my daughter's dog
behaves, and that of other dogs on the beach.
Dogs bark at and chase seagulls, which are animate, and they chase and
bark at papers blown by the wind _as_if_ they too were animate or
animated by an unseen hand.
They mostly ignore stuff just lying around and don't bark or growl at
it. When chasing a ball that they know is not animate they do not bark
and growl.
On can conclude that dogs bark and growl at things they think can hear
them, or will at least react to the bark, and will chase to keep within
range. They may well be barking to drive the 'animal' away. Or perhaps
it may be a call to the rest of the pack to chase this potential food.
If I saw you talking to a parasol I may conclude that you thought it
was worth talking to, was animate or was being held by an invisible
being. You would certainly be acting *as if* you thought it was some
invisble being.
I suggest that you spend some time observing. Just watch how, for
example, dogs interact with others and with objects, then you may see
how they appear to act. You may also realise what observing behaviour
is all about: noticing such things as the bark and growl.
It seems that you cannot realte to watching such events, perhaps you
have never done so.
> On what basis could Darwin possibly conclude such a thing from ANY
> observation, unless the WIND, itself, is the invisible agent to which he
> refers?
No, he is referring to things like the spirits that primitives think
animate the natural objects.
But I also think that you misunderstand the statement in another way.
""" ---------------------------
(2) Yet the tendency of primitives to
imagine that natural objects were
animated by spirits seemed, Darwin
observed, little different from that
exhibited by his own dog, which barked
and growled at a parasol blown by the
wind, apparently believing that its
flight indicated the presence of
some invisible agent.
---------------- """
The 'Darwin observed' is parenthetic, it refers to "the tendancy to
imagine that ..."
An 'observation' in the sense of relating a conclusion, not of watching
something.
That is:
Darwin made an observation that: the tendency of primitives to
imagine that natural objects were animated by spirits seemed
Sean
<rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1156143013....@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, ok, thanks. now i understand the perspective, and yes i
misunderstood it. Thanks very much
Matt Silberstein
So, after all that bluster, after all that arrogance, after all that
notion that you found all these fallacies that we would see if we read
any part of the book, we have, in the end, your own misunderstanding
of a secondary text. I am impressed.
Sean
Matt,
Glad to see you are feeling impressed. One of the best things about science,
reason, and logic, is the ability to recogonise errors and learn from them.
If I picked up something and declared it a stick because of some confusion
in it's appearance, doesn't automatically mean that every other stick I
picked up is not a stick. To suggest that is the case would be another
non-sequitur. Of course you may feel free to pick up such a 'stick' and turn
it into a club to beat someone into submission, if you so choose. It's your
life. I have no interest in trying to control that. You have your opinions
and so do I. I'm under no obligation to do anything about that.
rip...@azonic.co.nz
Sean wrote:
> One of the best things about science,
The point about _science_ is that it is based on observation and
experiment. It is not done by 'researching your keyboard'. Prior to you
pontificating about how one may observe his dog, how much actual
observation and experiment had you done on dog behaviour ? If it was
zero then it ain't science. If it wasn't zero then it wasn't enough.
> reason, and logic,
'Reason and logic' need to be based on experience and not simply on
what you want the outcome to be.
> is the ability to recogonise errors and learn from them.
Which, with science, should be done _before_ claims are made.
> If I picked up something and declared it a stick because of some confusion
> in it's appearance, doesn't automatically mean that every other stick I
> picked up is not a stick.
No, but it may be that you continue to have the same confusion and call
everything a stick.
> To suggest that is the case would be another
> non-sequitur.
No, it would just be that we wouldn't trust your judgement as to
whether something is a stick or not.
> Of course you may feel free to pick up such a 'stick' and turn
> it into a club to beat someone into submission, if you so choose.
It gets very tiresome having to beat you into submission everytime you
claim a stick.
Which is probably why others resort to what you think are ad-hominem
attacks, when they are actually just fair comment. You probably think
that you 'win' with your 'logic and reason' when you caps-lock shout
your claims repeatedly until others just give up or tell you that you
are a fuckwit.
You substitute obsession, aggression and caps-locks for experience and
observation and think that is 'logic and reason'.
> It's your
> life. I have no interest in trying to control that. You have your opinions
> and so do I. I'm under no obligation to do anything about that.
Unfortunately.
Sean
<rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1156274656.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sean wrote:
>
>> One of the best things about science,
>
> The point about _science_ is that it is based on observation and
> experiment. It is not done by 'researching your keyboard'. Prior to you
> pontificating about how one may observe his dog, how much actual
> observation and experiment had you done on dog behaviour ? If it was
> zero then it ain't science. If it wasn't zero then it wasn't enough.
>
>> reason, and logic,
>
> 'Reason and logic' need to be based on experience and not simply on
> what you want the outcome to be.
>
Please list below what you KNOW about my expereince and knowledge >>>>
....... and then compare that with what YOU want the outcome to be.
Pot-kettle-black
*Apparently*, and I use that word purposely, your greatest interest is in
re-inforcing and defending your own beliefs and not on actually seeking the
truth of matters as they are, especially when they conflict with your world
view.
Are you now going to demand a scientific proof for my comment? To do so is
irrational. Try stopping to apply irrelevant processes and M.O.'s that do
not apply.
IOW, you're no scientist either. You can't turn a newsgroup into some kind
of scientific reality when it can't be that. It's about opinions and
discussions and various points of view. Anybodies comments can be challenged
by demanding a scientific proof for those opinions.
This is philosophy group I am writing to, not a science group. I replied to
post, not a scientific analysis, and I didn't set the cross-posts either.
Science neither creates nor destroys philosophical viewpoints. If you
imagine that science can answer or adequately address all issues that arise
from science and other activities, I;d suggest that is irrational, and
bordering on delusional. But that's just my opinion, and am not about to
proffer up some research to prove it. Wisdom is not science. When you work
out the difference you will understand that better.
>> is the ability to recogonise errors and learn from them.
>
> Which, with science, should be done _before_ claims are made.
>
If you believe so, that's your issue, not mine.
I never claimed to be a scientist, or presenting a scientific view.
and if you had any reasonable level of self awareness, you'd immediately
recognise the fallacy of your statement here. Darwin's OoS is one classic
example where claims and theories were articualted without the detailed
science yet being done to support them.
Darwin knew that, and he said that clearly several times. Why would you
continue to deny this?
>> If I picked up something and declared it a stick because of some
>> confusion
>> in it's appearance, doesn't automatically mean that every other stick I
>> picked up is not a stick.
>
> No, but it may be that you continue to have the same confusion and call
> everything a stick.
>
"but it may be........." You call this a scientific rational thought? You
can now predict the future based on one example of confusion over the
semantics of a passage written in 1859? You prefer to ignore the
self-evident fact that within 48 hours I have acknowledged my mistake and
yet continue to present a such a fallacy?
Where is your evidence of my future behaviour?
Or do you now disaree that evidence gathering should be done _before_ claims
are made?
Apparently you have no interest in truth, or in supporting your own beliefs,
but in making wild claims that have absolutely nothing to support them.
>> To suggest that is the case would be another
>> non-sequitur.
>
> No, it would just be that we wouldn't trust your judgement as to
> whether something is a stick or not.
>
NO one asked you to trust my judgement. The point was one of logic vs
fallacy. You have since taken the fallacy route, and yet feel qualified to
preach to others?
>> Of course you may feel free to pick up such a 'stick' and turn
>> it into a club to beat someone into submission, if you so choose.
>
> It gets very tiresome having to beat you into submission everytime you
> claim a stick.
>
I admitted my example wasn;t a stick. Why are you now persiting with this
line of thought?
what is this "everytime" business ........ I speak to one specific example,
and now that has grwon into everytime I make a claim about something?? YOu
call this logical? I call it emotionally based beliefs.
What are you trying to prove to yourself? That you musy be smarter and wiser
than myself based on a confusion over semantics of one quotation?
> Which is probably why others resort to what you think are ad-hominem
> attacks, when they are actually just fair comment.
Either they are fair comment or ad hominen, it;s not up to me to decide. I
don;t recall at any time slating anyone for making an ad hominen, but I also
can;t recall perfectly every detail about what I have read or written. Lucky
you if you have a photographic memory.
> You probably think
> that you 'win' with your 'logic and reason' when you caps-lock shout
> your claims repeatedly until others just give up or tell you that you
> are a fuckwit.
>
another irrational comment. If you want to KNOW my reasoning for using CAPS
LOCK, then then fucking ask, and stop behaving like a mystic know it all.
Who said I was a fuckwit? just more unsubstanciated claims on your part by
the sounds of it.
If I or anyone esle said you were a fuckwit, does that make it true?
> You substitute obsession, aggression and caps-locks for experience and
> observation and think that is 'logic and reason'.
>
Just more projection on your part. another wild unsubstanciated claim of
things you do not know. And yet you feel yourself well qualified to
criticise everything I say, and everything I do, make claims about unknown
future behaviour, whilst *apparently believing* you yourself are an
omnisient God.
Odd behaviour for an athiest don't you think? You appear totally unaware of
your own limititations and lack of knowledge.
>> It's your
>> life. I have no interest in trying to control that. You have your
>> opinions
>> and so do I. I'm under no obligation to do anything about that.
>
> Unfortunately.
>
No unfortunately about it, from my pov. Again you are projecting your very
own behaviour onto myself. imho.
btw do you often respond to posts that were not directed at you, but answer
them as if they were? What is it that you are trying to control?
rip...@azonic.co.nz
Sean wrote:
>> Prior to you
> > pontificating about how one may observe his dog, how much actual
> > observation and experiment had you done on dog behaviour ?
> Please list below what you KNOW about my expereince and knowledge >>>>
None, that is why I asked.
However, I can form opinions based on what you say.
> ....... and then compare that with what YOU want the outcome to be.
There is no particular outcome that I want, except if you are to
criticise it should be on what was actually said rather than on a
misunderstanding.
> *Apparently*, and I use that word purposely, your greatest interest is in
> re-inforcing and defending your own beliefs and not on actually seeking the
> truth of matters as they are, especially when they conflict with your world
> view.
Did I not get to 'the truth of the matter' ? Did you not agree that
"(disprove A) is not (prove -A)" and that it is possible to tell when a
dog thinks something is animate rather than just an object ?
> Are you now going to demand a scientific proof for my comment?
Which particular comment are you referring to, and how long did you
hold down the caps lock while making it ?
> To do so is
> irrational. Try stopping to apply irrelevant processes and M.O.'s that do
> not apply.
Which ones are irrelevant ?
> IOW, you're no scientist either. You can't turn a newsgroup into some kind
> of scientific reality when it can't be that. It's about opinions and
> discussions and various points of view. Anybodies comments can be challenged
> by demanding a scientific proof for those opinions.
Excuse me, but where did I "demand a scientific proof" ? You just made
that up.
It was, in fact, you that kept banging on demanding that Darwin had to
prove everything and was not allowed to just make an 'observation'.
> This is philosophy group I am writing to, not a science group.
Then discuss philosophy and clip the cross post to sci groups.
> Science neither creates nor destroys philosophical viewpoints.
Nor vice versa, yet you attempted to argue with science.
> I never claimed to be a scientist, or presenting a scientific view.
Just as well. But you did attempt (badly) to criticise a scientific
view.
> > No, but it may be that you continue to have the same confusion and call
> > everything a stick.
> "but it may be........." You call this a scientific rational thought? You
> can now predict the future based on
What part of 'it _may_ be' did you fail to understand ? Did you think
that I said 'it will be' ?
> one example of confusion over the
> semantics of a passage written in 1859? You prefer to ignore the
> self-evident fact that within 48 hours I have acknowledged my mistake and
> yet continue to present a such a fallacy?
You continue to present _similar_ fallacies, such as speculation being
'predicting the future'.
> Where is your evidence of my future behaviour?
> Or do you now disaree that evidence gathering should be done _before_ claims
> are made?
>
> Apparently you have no interest in truth, or in supporting your own beliefs,
> but in making wild claims that have absolutely nothing to support them.
> NO one asked you to trust my judgement.
Yes you have.
> what is this "everytime" business ........ I speak to one specific example,
What about the "(dispoves A) means (proves -A)" stick ?
> and now that has grwon into everytime I make a claim about something??
No, only the times you claim a 'stick' that isn't.
> btw do you often respond to posts that were not directed at you, but answer
> them as if they were?
Interestingly you also respond to posts that were not directed at you.
<shrug> That's what happens.
Sean
<rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1156311312.8...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sean wrote:
>
>>> Prior to you
>> > pontificating about how one may observe his dog, how much actual
>> > observation and experiment had you done on dog behaviour ?
>
>> Please list below what you KNOW about my expereince and knowledge >>>>
>
> None, that is why I asked.
>
> However, I can form opinions based on what you say.
>
Yes, nothing wrong in that.
>
>> ....... and then compare that with what YOU want the outcome to be.
>
> There is no particular outcome that I want, except if you are to
> criticise it should be on what was actually said rather than on a
> misunderstanding.
>
Pot kettle black, couldn;t be bothered repeating myself again.
>> *Apparently*, and I use that word purposely, your greatest interest is in
>> re-inforcing and defending your own beliefs and not on actually seeking
>> the
>> truth of matters as they are, especially when they conflict with your
>> world
>> view.
>
> Did I not get to 'the truth of the matter' ? Did you not agree that
> "(disprove A) is not (prove -A)" and that it is possible to tell when a
> dog thinks something is animate rather than just an object ?
>
Yes. One point out of many other things. well done, nevertheless
>> Are you now going to demand a scientific proof for my comment?
>
> Which particular comment are you referring to, and how long did you
> hold down the caps lock while making it ?
>
The immediately before I asked the question. no caps lock either.
>> To do so is
>> irrational. Try stopping to apply irrelevant processes and M.O.'s that do
>> not apply.
>
> Which ones are irrelevant ?
>
I can;t add more than i have already.
>> IOW, you're no scientist either. You can't turn a newsgroup into some
>> kind
>> of scientific reality when it can't be that. It's about opinions and
>> discussions and various points of view. Anybodies comments can be
>> challenged
>> by demanding a scientific proof for those opinions.
>
> Excuse me, but where did I "demand a scientific proof" ? You just made
> that up.
>
You just made up the notion yourself.
> It was, in fact, you that kept banging on demanding that Darwin had to
> prove everything and was not allowed to just make an 'observation'.
>
Not so, never happened. I stated a number of times that not everything that
Darwin said in OoS was based upon science, and that he himself had stated
such himself. I further stated that there were some people who despite this
very obvious truth, think and behave otherwise. I'm unsure why such a simple
opinion like that causes others to react so strongly and defensively. You
denied that some people use darwin and evolution to support their view that
god doesn;t exist, i post one example that they do, and you refuse to accept
that still. Even when evidence is provided, you seem unable to accept
anothers simple observation, or give them the benefit of the doubt.
I have seen hundreds of atheists state quite clearly that science cannot
prove the existance or non existance of God. As well as clearly state this
is because it is outside of the scope of science to tackle such a notion.
Science may well indicate conclusively that many details as recorded in
Genesis of the judaeo/christian bible texts. That is ALL a given, by me, and
doesn;t cause any dissonance whatsoever.
Yet when I suggest that *some* go much further than that, and mis-represent
science, and provide such an example you seem to be reacting quite out of
proportion and cast all sorts of ad hom towards me for daring to even
suggest such a thing. What exactly do you think you were defending, by
attacking me in expressing my own observations that you may not have ever
seen before? because you weren't defending scientific M.O., I was!!!!
>> This is philosophy group I am writing to, not a science group.
>
> Then discuss philosophy and clip the cross post to sci groups.
>
Hey, you replied to a post I made. I responded. What this means seems
self-evident to me. If you don;t want to discuss my perspectives, don't
reply. I have no idea what group you were reading. How can I reply to you,
if I cull the sci groups, if that is what you were reading?
Any idea why you insist on denying the obvious?
>> Science neither creates nor destroys philosophical viewpoints.
>
> Nor vice versa, yet you attempted to argue with science.
>
Did I? Your name is "science" is it?
>> I never claimed to be a scientist, or presenting a scientific view.
>
> Just as well. But you did attempt (badly) to criticise a scientific
> view.
>
No i didn't. Darwin's comments about dogs isn;t science, imho. Nor were
your's.
>> > No, but it may be that you continue to have the same confusion and call
>> > everything a stick.
>
>> "but it may be........." You call this a scientific rational thought? You
>> can now predict the future based on
>
> What part of 'it _may_ be' did you fail to understand ? Did you think
> that I said 'it will be' ?
>
No, but is hyperbole and worthless rhetoric trying to make a point that
can't hit the mark. Venus may collide with mars one day too.
>> one example of confusion over the
>> semantics of a passage written in 1859? You prefer to ignore the
>> self-evident fact that within 48 hours I have acknowledged my mistake and
>> yet continue to present a such a fallacy?
>
> You continue to present _similar_ fallacies, such as speculation being
> 'predicting the future'.
>
what's the difference? call it speculation if u like, but both are bullshit.
>> Where is your evidence of my future behaviour?
>
>
>
>> Or do you now disaree that evidence gathering should be done _before_
>> claims
>> are made?
>>
>> Apparently you have no interest in truth, or in supporting your own
>> beliefs,
>> but in making wild claims that have absolutely nothing to support them.
>
>> NO one asked you to trust my judgement.
>
> Yes you have.
>
Bullshit
>> what is this "everytime" business ........ I speak to one specific
>> example,
>
> What about the "(dispoves A) means (proves -A)" stick ?
>
>> and now that has grwon into everytime I make a claim about something??
>
> No, only the times you claim a 'stick' that isn't.
>
Bullshit ... you're comments are way beyond the stick in question. You are
using the stick and applying that to apply to all my comments and the
validity of me being able to make any comment at all. This approach is
unjustified, and I;m simply pointing it out. Your choice if you accept or
reject it.
>
>> btw do you often respond to posts that were not directed at you, but
>> answer
>> them as if they were?
>
> Interestingly you also respond to posts that were not directed at you.
> <shrug> That's what happens.
>
Indeed <shrug>
Sean
small correction ... see in [ ]
> I have seen hundreds of atheists state quite clearly that science cannot
> prove the existance or non existance of God. As well as clearly state this
> is because it is outside of the scope of science to tackle such a notion.
> Science may well indicate conclusively that many details as recorded in
> Genesis of the judaeo/christian bible texts [are not accurate according to
> the scientific evidence]. That is ALL a given, by me, and doesn;t cause
> any dissonance whatsoever [ in myself ].
>
caps on ALL for emphasis sake. It appears such things need to be explained
to some folks, whenever they occur. <shrug>
Sean
tran-scen'-dent 1 a: exceeding usual limits: SURPASSING b: extending or
lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience... 3: transcending the
universe of material existence.
[from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, MA: G. & C.
Merriam Co., 1980. P. 1230]
TASTE is an online journal devoted to transcendent experiences that
scientists have reported. It lets scientists express these experiences in a
psychologically (and professionally) safe space.
Science is a wonderful profession: I've worked at it for almost 40 years,
and love it. As a process for gathering and refining knowledge, it is so
useful! But the process is practiced by people, not machines, and we are
each affected by the conscious and unconscious hopes, habits and fears of
our individual histories and cultural heritages. As Aldous Huxley so nicely
put it, each of us is simultaneously the beneficiary and the victim of our
culture.
Science and Scientism
As scientists, we have discovered a body of precisely observed factual data
about the world, created a lot of good theories that make sense of much of
that data - and we are part of a cultural heritage of scientism.
Sociologists coined the term "scientism" back in the 1940s, when they
realized that many scientists unthinkingly accepted many scientific theories
as simple, unquestioned Truths, just like believers in any "ism," and thus
we often acted like any prejudiced "believer," especially outside our
immediate areas of expertise.
http://www.issc-taste.org/main/introduction.shtml