A modest proposal
Tim DeLaney
vast majority of posts bear no resemblance to debate.
There are occasional exceptions, such as the recent
exchange between John Harshman and JTEM, and
when real debate ensues, an onlooker can frequently
learn something of substance.
Of course, usenet really is not a very good venue for
a debate. Non-participants frequently jump in and muddy
the waters; that's the nature of the beast. True, a serious
student (using the word in a broad sense) can glean an
occasional interesting or useful tidbit, but by and large
usenet is the functional equivalent of a barroom brawl.
I'd like to see a genuine debate between the best the
creation side can offer, and the best the evolution side can
offer. The actual debate would be carried out via email with
strict rules regarding timing and word count, with a definite
topic stated in advance. Example:
Topic: The nested hierarchy is strong evidence for ToE
Format: Evolutionist goes first. The debate consists of
three exchanges of no more than 600 words, each of which
is due in 24 hours after the opponent replies. After the three
exchanges, each opponent simultaneously emails a
summation of 300 words or less at an agreed time, and the
end product is posted to T.O in its entirety.
How to choose the participants? I guess just a public challenge
and acceptance. For the creation side, I would guess Ray
Martinez or perhaps Nashton would be the logical choice.
(Tony Pagano has more or eliminated himself with a recent
statement: "While I strive to produce rational arguments, I've
NEVER been interested in back-and-forth discussion.")
For the evolution side, my vote would go to John Harshman,
but I think there are several others who could do a creditable job.
(In case anybody thinks I'm bucking for the job, forget it. I don't
have the qualifications.)
OK, that's my proposal. If adopted, I think it could serve as a
springboard for rational discussion. (But realistically, I expect
the barroom brawl to continue unabated.)
Tim
David Hare-Scott
> I'd like to see a genuine debate between the best the
> creation side can offer, and the best the evolution side can
> offer. The actual debate would be carried out via email with
> strict rules regarding timing and word count, with a definite
> topic stated in advance. Example:
>
I think it is a very interestuing idea. One of the reasons that I stick
around is to learn.
Without attempting to poison the well I wonder if any of the creationists
are capable of remaining focussed and have the discipline to address the
issue, and only the issue, until the end. It will be interesting to see if
any step forward and how they do in this regard.
I think there is a good chance that the speaker for the evolution side to
suit each given topic will be selected by acclamation without too much
trouble. How will the creationist opponent be selected? I wouldn't (for
example) like to see one of the truly incoherent babblers selected as there
would be grounds for accusation that the game was rigged.
David
T Pagano
<delaney...@comcast.net> wrote:
>We here at T.O frequently use the term "debate", but the
>vast majority of posts bear no resemblance to debate.
>There are occasional exceptions, such as the recent
>exchange between John Harshman and JTEM, and
>when real debate ensues, an onlooker can frequently
>learn something of substance.
How was their exchange any different from any other in the forum? Did
their back and forth exchange lead to the objective truth? Did a
referee jump in with special access to the truth make rulings and
award points for the most truthlike statements? Unlikely.
>
>Of course, usenet really is not a very good venue for
>a debate. Non-participants frequently jump in and muddy
>the waters; that's the nature of the beast. True, a serious
>student (using the word in a broad sense) can glean an
>occasional interesting or useful tidbit, but by and large
>usenet is the functional equivalent of a barroom brawl.
The beauty of having no rules in this forum is that we all may offer
our two-cents-worth in our own fashion and in our own time without
censorship. Readers may chose to read or ignore any posts. I've
learned a tremendous amount from a wide variety of people because no
one was censored and "I" get to choose who to read and when.
>I'd like to see a genuine debate between the best the
>creation side can offer, and the best the evolution side can
>offer. The actual debate would be carried out via email with
>strict rules regarding timing and word count, with a definite
>topic stated in advance. Example:
How exactly does anyone benefit from a priviate email exchange? And
again, who is the arbiter of truth? Since the topics at issue mostly
involve unique, non recurring, unobserved, and non experimentally
reproducible events from prehistory there is no arbiter and hence no
way to adjudicate who is closer to the truth.
At least in the normal practice here everyone may review posts of
interest and contribute from their own basis of experience and
knowledge. The more contributors, the more criticism that is brought
to bear on all----to the benefit of all.
>
>Topic: The nested hierarchy is strong evidence for ToE
You misrepresent the issue. Linnaeus-like taxonomic schemes show
ISOLATED nested hierarchies which are prohibited by naturalistic
processes.
>Format: Evolutionist goes first. The debate consists of
>three exchanges of no more than 600 words, each of which
>is due in 24 hours after the opponent replies. After the three
>exchanges, each opponent simultaneously emails a
>summation of 300 words or less at an agreed time, and the
>end product is posted to T.O in its entirety.
>
>How to choose the participants? I guess just a public challenge
>and acceptance. For the creation side, I would guess Ray
>Martinez or perhaps Nashton would be the logical choice.
>(Tony Pagano has more or eliminated himself with a recent
>statement: "While I strive to produce rational arguments, I've
>NEVER been interested in back-and-forth discussion.")
Why would anyone take suggestions from DeLaney? In my recent
challenge for evolutionists to produce unambiguous evidence of
biological transformational change DeLaney produced nothing of value.
All he wished to do was play verbalistic games with definitions.
Because there is no arbiter of truth DeLaney's suggestion is largely a
waste of time and there are other venues for what he desires.
>For the evolution side, my vote would go to John Harshman,
>but I think there are several others who could do a creditable job.
>(In case anybody thinks I'm bucking for the job, forget it. I don't
>have the qualifications.)
Harshman already contributes on a regular basis. He doesn't ask for
endless definitions, he makes a reasonable attempt to understand his
opponent's position and usually offers a substinative position worthy
of criticism. Others can offer rational criticism and can jump in
where ever and whenever they have something to contribute.
No rules gives everyone a chance to jump in when and where they are
able and have time. Perhaps DeLaney could attempt contributing
something substantive for a change.
Regards,
T Pagano
Tim DeLaney
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:51:30 -0800 (PST), Tim DeLaney
>
> >We here at T.O frequently use the term "debate", but the
> >vast majority of posts bear no resemblance to debate.
> >There are occasional exceptions, such as the recent
> >exchange between John Harshman and JTEM, and
> >when real debate ensues, an onlooker can frequently
> >learn something of substance.
>
> How was their exchange any different from any other in the forum? �Did
> their back and forth exchange lead to the objective truth? �Did a
> referee jump in with special access to the truth make rulings and
> award points for the most truthlike statements? �Unlikely.
Unlike Pagano, Harshman and JTEM addressed substantive
issues, and I, for one, learned something from their discussion.
That Pagano was unable to do so speaks to his inability to learn
from others.
>
>
>
> >Of course, usenet really is not a very good venue for
> >a debate. �Non-participants frequently jump in and muddy
> >the waters; that's the nature of the beast. �True, a serious
> >student (using the word in a broad sense) can glean an
> >occasional interesting or useful tidbit, but by and large
> >usenet is the functional equivalent of a barroom brawl.
>
> The beauty of having no rules in this forum is that we all may offer
> our two-cents-worth in our own fashion and in our own time without
> censorship. � Readers may chose to read or ignore any posts. �I've
> learned a tremendous amount from a wide variety of people because no
> one was censored and "I" get to choose who to read and when.
>
> >I'd like to see a genuine debate between the best the
> >creation side can offer, and the best the evolution side can
> >offer. �The actual debate would be carried out via email with
> >strict rules regarding timing and word count, with a definite
> >topic stated in advance. �Example:
>
> How exactly does anyone benefit from a priviate email exchange? �And
> again, who is the arbiter of truth? �Since the topics at issue mostly
> involve unique, non recurring, unobserved, and non experimentally
> reproducible events from prehistory there is no arbiter and hence no
> way to adjudicate who is closer to the truth.
Readers might benefit by seeing the results of such an exchange.
Perhaps yo missed the part where the entire debat is posted?
>
> At least in the normal practice here everyone may review posts of
> interest and contribute from their own basis of experience and
> knowledge. � The more contributors, the more criticism that is brought
> to bear on all----to the benefit of all.
>
>
>
> >Topic: �The nested hierarchy is strong evidence for ToE>
> You misrepresent the issue. �Linnaeus-like taxonomic schemes show
> ISOLATED nested hierarchies which are prohibited by naturalistic
> processes.
The topic was suggested as an example. I represented nothing
beyond that. Since you are not interested in back and forth
discussion by your own testimony, why do you bother to express
an opinion about the potential merits of the proposition?
>
> >Format: �Evolutionist goes first. �The debate consists of
> >three exchanges of no more than 600 words, each of which
> >is due in 24 hours after the opponent replies. �After the three
> >exchanges, each opponent simultaneously emails a
> >summation of 300 words or less at an agreed time, and the
> >end product is posted to T.O in its entirety.
>
> >How to choose the participants? �I guess just a public challenge
> >and acceptance. �For the creation side, I would guess Ray
> >Martinez or perhaps Nashton would be the logical choice.
> >(Tony Pagano has more or eliminated himself with a recent
> >statement: "While I strive to produce rational arguments, I've
> >NEVER been interested in back-and-forth discussion.")
>
> Why would anyone take suggestions from DeLaney?
My modest proposal was not intended to include you as a
participant, as you have, by your own testimony, asserted
that you are not interested in discussion. So what is your
dog in this fight?
> �In my recent
> challenge for evolutionists to produce unambiguous evidence of
> biological transformational change DeLaney produced nothing of value.
> All he wished to do was play verbalistic games with definitions.
If by that you mean that I wished to understand what you meant
by the terms you were using, you are entirely correct. By refusing
to clarify the meaning of the terms you used, you made it clear
that your intention was to change the meaning of those terms at
your whim.
>
> Because there is no arbiter of truth DeLaney's suggestion is largely a
> waste of time and there are other venues for what he desires.
If having an ultimate arbiter of truth is necessary for a discussion
to be useful, then we all should fall silent, for such a thing is not
possible.
>
> >For the evolution side, my vote would go to John Harshman,
> >but I think there are several others who could do a creditable job.
> >(In case anybody thinks I'm bucking for the job, forget it. I don't
> >have the qualifications.)
>
> Harshman already contributes on a regular basis. �He doesn't ask for
> endless definitions, he makes a reasonable attempt to understand his
> opponent's position and usually offers a substinative position worthy
> of criticism. �Others can offer rational criticism and can jump in
> where ever and whenever they have something to contribute.
>
> No rules gives everyone a chance to jump in when and where they are
> able and have time. �Perhaps DeLaney could attempt contributing
> something substantive for a change.
If you were the "ultimate arbiter" of that proposition, I would
exit this forum forthwith. Thankfully, you are not.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Tim
Mike Painter
<snip>
> I'd like to see a genuine debate between the best the
> creation side can offer, and the best the evolution side can
> offer. The actual debate would be carried out via email with
> strict rules regarding timing and word count, with a definite
> topic stated in advance. Example:
There are web sites that will handle that kind of thing and it has been done
before.
The end result has always been the YEC repeating the bible, going off-topic
and declaring himself winner no matter what anybody else says.
Cubist
[mucho snippo]
> I'd like to see a genuine debate between the best the
> creation side can offer, and the best the evolution side can
> offer. The actual debate would be carried out via email with
> strict rules regarding timing and word count, with a definite
> topic stated in advance.
at least search TO for "nowhere man lilith debate" to see what
happened when exactly what you're proposing now actually did happen.
Okay, Nowhere Man may not qualify as "the best the creation side
can offer", but you know what I mean.
The question is, where are you going to find a Creationist who is
willing to participate in a *real* debate, as opposed to one of those
pseudo-debate circuses that Creationists are so bleeding fond of?
Burkhard
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:51:30 -0800 (PST), Tim DeLaney
> <delaney...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> We here at T.O frequently use the term "debate", but the
>> vast majority of posts bear no resemblance to debate.
>> There are occasional exceptions, such as the recent
>> exchange between John Harshman and JTEM, and
>> when real debate ensues, an onlooker can frequently
>> learn something of substance.
>
> How was their exchange any different from any other in the forum? Did
> their back and forth exchange lead to the objective truth?
Why should it, and what insane criteria for furthering the acquisition
of knowledge would that be?
d
Did a
> referee jump in with special access to the truth make rulings and
> award points for the most truthlike statements?
Why should it, and what insane criteria for furthering the acquisition
of knowledge would that be?
What it allows was to test the respective strength and weakness of two
theories, make their assumptions more explicitly and thus allow the
observer t make better informed decisions between the two that it may
have been previously possible for them. Similarly to a trial, where the
exchange between the parties helps the jury members to see their
respective strength and weaknesses and reach a decision.
SeppoP
> We here at T.O frequently use the term "debate", but the
> vast majority of posts bear no resemblance to debate.
> There are occasional exceptions, such as the recent
> exchange between John Harshman and JTEM, and
> when real debate ensues, an onlooker can frequently
> learn something of substance.
>
>
>
<snip>
I think that it is somewhat difficult to establish a meaningful debate
with someone who believes in talking snakes.
-- SeppoP
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Creationism is based on ignorance and dishonesty, it breeds from
ignorance and
dishonesty, and it breeds ignorance and dishonesty. Spreading ignorance and
dishonesty is the lifeblood and sustenance of the creationists.
Wallowing in
ignorance and dishonesty is the natural lifestyle of creationists.
bpuharic
wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Topic: The nested hierarchy is strong evidence for ToE
>
>You misrepresent the issue. Linnaeus-like taxonomic schemes show
>ISOLATED nested hierarchies which are prohibited by naturalistic
>processes.
>
this is an oxymoron. how does one have an 'isolated' nested hiearchy?
this is like being slightly pregnant. either a hierarchy is present or
it's not.
and what process in nature is not 'naturalistic'? another meaningless
distinction.
creationists have a unique, personal and eccentric language. it
certainly clouds and obfuscates their beliefs
i'm an objective, outside observer. i'm not a biologist, nor a
creationist, but i am a scientist. i have no dog in this fight
but creationists seem prone to circular arguments, recursive
definitions, and self aggrandizing assertions of their abilities to
construct scientifc ideas.
David Hare-Scott
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:51:30 -0800 (PST), Tim DeLaney
> <delaney...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> We here at T.O frequently use the term "debate", but the
>> vast majority of posts bear no resemblance to debate.
>> There are occasional exceptions, such as the recent
>> exchange between John Harshman and JTEM, and
>> when real debate ensues, an onlooker can frequently
>> learn something of substance.
>
> How was their exchange any different from any other in the forum? Did
> their back and forth exchange lead to the objective truth? Did a
> referee jump in with special access to the truth make rulings and
> award points for the most truthlike statements? Unlikely.
>>
I don't think anybody was suggesting that some sort of judge be appointed to
decide the winner and loser. The aim is to learn something.
>> Of course, usenet really is not a very good venue for
>> a debate. Non-participants frequently jump in and muddy
>> the waters; that's the nature of the beast. True, a serious
>> student (using the word in a broad sense) can glean an
>> occasional interesting or useful tidbit, but by and large
>> usenet is the functional equivalent of a barroom brawl.
>
> The beauty of having no rules in this forum is that we all may offer
> our two-cents-worth in our own fashion and in our own time without
> censorship. Readers may chose to read or ignore any posts. I've
> learned a tremendous amount from a wide variety of people because no
> one was censored and "I" get to choose who to read and when.
>
I cannot see how those who are willing to participate in such a debate
directly or as observers or to comment later would in any way take away your
ability to participate or not as you wish. I didn't see any reference to
censoring the arguments.
>
>> I'd like to see a genuine debate between the best the
>> creation side can offer, and the best the evolution side can
>> offer. The actual debate would be carried out via email with
>> strict rules regarding timing and word count, with a definite
>> topic stated in advance. Example:
>
> How exactly does anyone benefit from a priviate email exchange?
The result is to be public. The reason for doing it by email was to limit
the immediate participation to the selected participants and to structure
and focus the responses. Of course there would be free-for-all comment
available outside the actual debate. That could not be prevented and there
is no reason anybody would try to do so.
And
> again, who is the arbiter of truth?
Everybody.
Since the topics at issue mostly
> involve unique, non recurring, unobserved, and non experimentally
> reproducible events from prehistory there is no arbiter and hence no
> way to adjudicate who is closer to the truth.
>
Well we will all just have to do our best to comprehend and come to our own
decision if one is possible. In what way would that be different?
> At least in the normal practice here everyone may review posts of
> interest and contribute from their own basis of experience and
> knowledge. The more contributors, the more criticism that is brought
> to bear on all----to the benefit of all.
>
This idea might not work but it could be interesting to try. A melee is not
the only way to exchange ideas.
David
Will in New Haven
> We here at T.O frequently use the term "debate", but the
> vast majority of posts bear no resemblance to debate.
This is not debate; this is being hit on the head lessons.
--
Will in New Haven
Tim DeLaney
>
> - Show quoted text -
About 11 years ago I participated in such a debate with
Mark Harpt which was posted to Alt.Atheism. (It can be
found by entering "delaney harpt" in the 'Search this
group' box if you use Google groups.) The topic
was the fine tuning of the universe. For me, it turned
out to be a revelation.
It turned out that at the bottom of all the arguments was
this: I referred to the laws of nature as our attempt to
understand how the universe behaved. Mark maintained
that these laws had an independent existence, and
*controlled* the behavior of the universe. I said:
"In using the word "control", you make a
far-reaching assumption about the universe. Most scientists
would say that physical laws _describe_ the way the universe
works. You say that these laws _control_ the way the universe
works."
Mark replied:
"Your claim that the laws of physics, etc. don't control the way
things react is almost too absurd to answer. "
Even today, 11 years later, Mark's view is mind-boggling to me.
To me, this exchange was worthwhile for what I learned about
the mind of (this particular) theist.
Tim
Steven L.
How about backtracking a bit, and having a debate between an
evolutionist and an ID proponent instead of a YEC?
ID proponents want to be taken seriously as scientific contributors.
Dr. Behe doesn't engage in Bible-thumping.
-- Steven L.
Desertphile
> We here at T.O frequently use the term "debate", but the
> vast majority of posts bear no resemblance to debate.
> There are occasional exceptions, such as the recent
> exchange between John Harshman and JTEM, and
> when real debate ensues, an onlooker can frequently
> learn something of substance.
>
> Of course, usenet really is not a very good venue for
> a debate. Non-participants frequently jump in and muddy
> the waters; that's the nature of the beast. True, a serious
> student (using the word in a broad sense) can glean an
> occasional interesting or useful tidbit, but by and large
> usenet is the functional equivalent of a barroom brawl.
>
> I'd like to see a genuine debate between the best the
> creation side can offer, and the best the evolution side can
> offer.
Perhaps you mean Creationism, not creation.
Creationists will not debate you: they fear debates like a mudder
fears a cop.
> The actual debate would be carried out via email with
> strict rules regarding timing and word count, with a definite
> topic stated in advance. Example:
>
> Topic: The nested hierarchy is strong evidence for ToE
> Format: Evolutionist goes first. The debate consists of
> three exchanges of no more than 600 words, each of which
> is due in 24 hours after the opponent replies. After the three
> exchanges, each opponent simultaneously emails a
> summation of 300 words or less at an agreed time, and the
> end product is posted to T.O in its entirety.
>
> How to choose the participants? I guess just a public challenge
> and acceptance. For the creation side, I would guess Ray
> Martinez or perhaps Nashton would be the logical choice.
> (Tony Pagano has more or eliminated himself with a recent
> statement: "While I strive to produce rational arguments, I've
> NEVER been interested in back-and-forth discussion.")
> For the evolution side, my vote would go to John Harshman,
> but I think there are several others who could do a creditable job.
> (In case anybody thinks I'm bucking for the job, forget it. I don't
> have the qualifications.)
>
> OK, that's my proposal. If adopted, I think it could serve as a
> springboard for rational discussion. (But realistically, I expect
> the barroom brawl to continue unabated.)
>
> Tim
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<xub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tim DeLaney wrote:
> [mucho snippo]
> > I'd like to see a genuine debate between the best the
> > creation side can offer, and the best the evolution side can
> > offer. The actual debate would be carried out via email with
> > strict rules regarding timing and word count, with a definite
> > topic stated in advance.
> Been there, done that. Google Groups has its problems, but you can
> at least search TO for "nowhere man lilith debate" to see what
> happened when exactly what you're proposing now actually did happen.
Yeah, that was damn disappointing. The chief problem with debates
and Creationists is that Creationists don't dare debate anyone.
"Nowhere Man" agreed to the debate but he refused to debate: he
engaged in preaching, ignoring the topic, and then he ran away.
> Okay, Nowhere Man may not qualify as "the best the creation side
> can offer", but you know what I mean.
"Nowhere Man" was the best Creationism has to offer.
> The question is, where are you going to find a Creationist who is
> willing to participate in a *real* debate, as opposed to one of those
> pseudo-debate circuses that Creationists are so bleeding fond of?
They don't exist. Creationists are not only liars, they are also
gutless cowards.
John Harshman
> We here at T.O frequently use the term "debate", but the
> vast majority of posts bear no resemblance to debate.
[snip]
> For the evolution side, my vote would go to John Harshman,
> but I think there are several others who could do a creditable job.
> (In case anybody thinks I'm bucking for the job, forget it. I don't
> have the qualifications.)
As mentioned before, there have been several attempts at formal debates.
I see no reason to try again. But if any creationist feels like
debating, I suggest this post as my opening salvo:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr05.html
A number of creationists have responded it, but nobody so far has
confronted it directly, i.e. nobody has proposed an alternative
explanation that fits the data (other than, of course, "goddidit", which
fits any conceivable data).
Frank J
> We here at T.O frequently use the term "debate", but the
> vast majority of posts bear no resemblance to debate.
> There are occasional exceptions, such as the recent
> exchange between John Harshman and JTEM, and
> when real debate ensues, an onlooker can frequently
> learn something of substance.
>
> Of course, usenet really is not a very good venue for
> the waters; that's the nature of the beast. �ｿｽTrue, a serious
> student (using the word in a broad sense) can glean an
> occasional interesting or useful tidbit, but by and large
> usenet is the functional equivalent of a barroom brawl.
>
> I'd like to see a genuine debate between the best the
> creation side can offer, and the best the evolution side can
> strict rules regarding timing and word count, with a definite
>
> Topic: �ｿｽThe nested hierarchy is strong evidence for ToE
> Format: �ｿｽEvolutionist goes first. �ｿｽThe debate consists of
> three exchanges of no more than 600 words, each of which
> exchanges, each opponent simultaneously emails a
> summation of 300 words or less at an agreed time, and the
> end product is posted to T.O in its entirety.
>
> and acceptance. �ｿｽFor the creation side, I would guess Ray
> Martinez or perhaps Nashton would be the logical choice.
> (Tony Pagano has more or eliminated himself with a recent
> statement: "While I strive to produce rational arguments, I've
> NEVER been interested in back-and-forth discussion.")
> For the evolution side, my vote would go to John Harshman,
> but I think there are several others who could do a creditable job.
> (In case anybody thinks I'm bucking for the job, forget it. I don't
> have the qualifications.)
>
> springboard for rational discussion. �ｿｽ(But realistically, I expect
> the barroom brawl to continue unabated.)
>
> Tim
If you want a creationism/evolution debate, I'd pick Martinez vs.
Harshman. Both challenge their own side on occasion, though it's very
common for "evolutionists" and rare for creationists.
One request I have is that the debate include many questions about the
details of one's own theory (or "theory" in Ray's case), including how
many years ago they think key events (first life on Earth, Cambrian, K-
T, Lucy, last neanderthal, etc.) occurred.
Frank J
> On 12/13/2009 1:56 AM, Mike Painter wrote:
>
> > Tim DeLaney wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> I'd like to see a genuine debate between the best the
> >> creation side can offer, and the best the evolution side can
> >> offer. �The actual debate would be carried out via email with
> >> strict rules regarding timing and word count, with a definite
> >> topic stated in advance. �Example:
>
> > There are web sites that will handle that kind of thing and it has been done
> > before.
> > The end result has always been the YEC repeating the bible, going off-topic
> > and declaring himself winner no matter what anybody else says.
>
> How about backtracking a bit, and having a debate between an
> evolutionist and an ID proponent instead of a YEC?
Unless the "evolutionist" keeps hammering the IDer on what his
"theory" concludes regarding "what happened when", the entire debate
will be on what is "weak" or not about evolution. That's exactly what
we want to avoid, because to a casual reader, the misleading anti-
evolution sound bites will "stick" better than the technical
refutations of them.
I'd rather see a request for a YEC and IDer (preferably one who
accepts common descent) to debate *each other.* Some YECs might be
willing, but the IDer would invariably pull a Dembski-at-Dover and
"expel" himself.
ID tries to reach a subset of the public that is not impressed with
YEC. Many of them would not be impressed with ID either, if they see
how the proponents refuse to answer the hard questions.
David Hare-Scott
> Tim DeLaney wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>> Mark replied:
>>
>> "Your claim that the laws of physics, etc. don't control the way
>> things react is almost too absurd to answer. "
>>
>> Even today, 11 years later, Mark's view is mind-boggling to me. To
>> me, this exchange was worthwhile for what I learned about the mind
>> of (this particular) theist.
>
> supposed to do without something higher on the ladder pulling the
> strings. If you believe that, you automatically need a form of
> highest authority (i.e. "God") or your "chain of command" would go on
> indefinitely.
An interesting case of the necessary higher authority comes up in database
modelling of business hierarchies. Each employee must report to somebody.
In database terms each record requires a foreign key for a superior that
points to the primary key of another person. This neatly accounts for
everybody but the bloke at the top who typically reports to nobody (being
the owner) or an external agency (board etc) that is not being modelled. So
as to not break referential integrity the supervisor of The Boss must be
herself.
If you generalise this to the wider world
FK_superior = PK_self_identity
is a definition of god.
David
Richard Clayton
> vast majority of posts bear no resemblance to debate.
> There are occasional exceptions, such as the recent
> exchange between John Harshman and JTEM, and
> when real debate ensues, an onlooker can frequently
> learn something of substance.
>
> Of course, usenet really is not a very good venue for
> the waters; that's the nature of the beast. �ｿｽTrue, a serious
> student (using the word in a broad sense) can glean an
> occasional interesting or useful tidbit, but by and large
> usenet is the functional equivalent of a barroom brawl.
>
> I'd like to see a genuine debate between the best the
> creation side can offer, and the best the evolution side can
> strict rules regarding timing and word count, with a definite
>
> Topic: �ｿｽThe nested hierarchy is strong evidence for ToE
> Format: �ｿｽEvolutionist goes first. �ｿｽThe debate consists of
> three exchanges of no more than 600 words, each of which
> exchanges, each opponent simultaneously emails a
> summation of 300 words or less at an agreed time, and the
> end product is posted to T.O in its entirety.
>
> and acceptance. �ｿｽFor the creation side, I would guess Ray
> Martinez or perhaps Nashton would be the logical choice.
> (Tony Pagano has more or eliminated himself with a recent
> statement: "While I strive to produce rational arguments, I've
> NEVER been interested in back-and-forth discussion.")
> For the evolution side, my vote would go to John Harshman,
> but I think there are several others who could do a creditable job.
> (In case anybody thinks I'm bucking for the job, forget it. I don't
> have the qualifications.)
>
> springboard for rational discussion. �ｿｽ(But realistically, I expect
> the barroom brawl to continue unabated.)
T.O has hosted several formalized debates in the past. As far as I'm
aware, every single one of them ended with the creationist running
away.
TomS
<1b64d782-b3da-4620...@r14g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, Frank J
stated..."
Everybody should know by now that Frank J and Tom S agree about
this.
ISTM that any "debate" which gets into scientific details about
evolution has certain problems. Certainly *not* problems with the
science, but rather:
1. It gives the impression that there is a "controversy" about the
science. It gives the impression that a scientist, when speaking
about science, is a "peer" for a creationist.
2. Most people don't want to hear about the scientific details, at
least beyond a certain point. A creationist can speak in jargon
which has the appearance of being scientific. On the other hand, a
scientist is, after all, enthusiastic about his/her subject, and
doesn't appreciate that the audience can be quickly lost, bored, or
alienated. It takes a special talent for a scientist to communicate
with a lay audience.
Myself, I would like to see a conversation in which a pro-science
person insists on trying to get a *description* of what happens
when a creation/design of a species/kind takes place. What it
would look like, if we were present to observe it. What changed,
from "before" to "after". (Were there pre-vertebrates wandering
around without their vertebrate eyes? Were the newly created/
designed things whole populations, or just a couple of individuals?
Were they created/designed as adults or eggs - which came first,
the chicken or the egg?)
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Mark Isaak
> [...]
> I'd like to see a genuine debate between the best the creation side can
> offer, and the best the evolution side can offer. The actual debate
> would be carried out via email with strict rules regarding timing and
> word count, with a definite topic stated in advance. [...]
I would add one stipulation: The creationist would have to argue for
evolution, and the evolutionist for creation. *That* format would expose
how much or how little the debaters know about the whole topic, and how
objective they can be in presenting evidence.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
el cid
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:51:30 -0800, Tim DeLaney wrote:
> > [...]
> > I'd like to see a genuine debate between the best the creation side can
> > offer, and the best the evolution side can offer. �The actual debate
> > would be carried out via email with strict rules regarding timing and
> > word count, with a definite topic stated in advance. �[...]
>
> I would add one stipulation: The creationist would have to argue for
> evolution, and the evolutionist for creation. �*That* format would expose
> how much or how little the debaters know about the whole topic, and how
> objective they can be in presenting evidence.
Perhaps that's an overlooked aspect of the sociology here but
what good would it do? I think debates are often started with
a statement of what is intended to be resolved. The above
would only resolve how little certain individuals knew.
What I would prefer for any debates is an extreme narrowing
of the subject matter. Pick "evidence for the age of the
Earth" and there's a chance to stay on topic and actually
take a novice through adequate evidence in an hour.
Tim DeLaney
I would agree with this. If the topic is too broad, both sides
are offered the opportunity for the legendary Gish gallop.
Tim
Mark Isaak
> On Dec 14, 12:07�pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:51:30 -0800, Tim DeLaney wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > I'd like to see a genuine debate between the best the creation side
>> > can offer, and the best the evolution side can offer. �The actual
>> > debate would be carried out via email with strict rules regarding
>> > timing and word count, with a definite topic stated in advance.
>> > �[...]
>>
>> I would add one stipulation: The creationist would have to argue for
>> evolution, and the evolutionist for creation. �*That* format would
>> expose how much or how little the debaters know about the whole topic,
>> and how objective they can be in presenting evidence.
>
> Perhaps that's an overlooked aspect of the sociology here but what good
> would it do?
Hopefully, get at least one creationist to think.
> I think debates are often started with a statement of what is
> intended to be resolved. The above would only resolve how little
> certain individuals knew.
>
> What I would prefer for any debates is an extreme narrowing of the
> subject matter. Pick "evidence for the age of the Earth" and there's a
> chance to stay on topic and actually take a novice through adequate
> evidence in an hour.
The problem with such topics is that they don't touch on creationism at
all, but by presenting them as a "creation vs. evolution" debate, you
give the impression that any problem with the scientific evidence is
evidence for creation. You justify reasoning such as, "Dr. Whoseit made
a mistake in one of his papers, therefore God created the world 6000
years ago."
When are creationist going to start debating creationism? How about a
topic on: "Is creationism morally bankrupt because creationists never
condemm quote-mining?" Or: "Is reliance on god-of-the-gaps a heresy?"
Kalkidas
"Tim DeLaney" <delaney...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6c97bee1-7746-4eb6...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> We here at T.O frequently use the term "debate", but the
> vast majority of posts bear no resemblance to debate.
> There are occasional exceptions, such as the recent
> exchange between John Harshman and JTEM, and
> when real debate ensues, an onlooker can frequently
> learn something of substance.
>
> Of course, usenet really is not a very good venue for
> the waters; that's the nature of the beast. True, a serious
> student (using the word in a broad sense) can glean an
> occasional interesting or useful tidbit, but by and large
> usenet is the functional equivalent of a barroom brawl.
>
> creation side can offer, and the best the evolution side can
> offer. The actual debate would be carried out via email with
> strict rules regarding timing and word count, with a definite
>
> Topic: The nested hierarchy is strong evidence for ToE
> Format: Evolutionist goes first. The debate consists of
> three exchanges of no more than 600 words, each of which
> exchanges, each opponent simultaneously emails a
> summation of 300 words or less at an agreed time, and the
> end product is posted to T.O in its entirety.
>
> and acceptance. For the creation side, I would guess Ray
> Martinez or perhaps Nashton would be the logical choice.
> (Tony Pagano has more or eliminated himself with a recent
> statement: "While I strive to produce rational arguments, I've
> NEVER been interested in back-and-forth discussion.")
> For the evolution side, my vote would go to John Harshman,
> but I think there are several others who could do a creditable job.
> (In case anybody thinks I'm bucking for the job, forget it. I don't
> have the qualifications.)
>
> springboard for rational discussion. (But realistically, I expect
> the barroom brawl to continue unabated.)
The philosophical premises should be stated and agreed upon first. What
ontological categories do both parties accept? What epistemology? A debate
where the creationist is forced to accept materialism, or the evolutionist
is forced to accept spiritualism, will go nowhere.
If you say that the debate will be strictly on a "scientific" basis, then
which definition of "science" will be forced on the parties? And this
definition must itself be justified.
Tim DeLaney
> "Tim DeLaney" <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:6c97bee1-7746-4eb6...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > We here at T.O frequently use the term "debate", but the
> > vast majority of posts bear no resemblance to debate.
> > There are occasional exceptions, such as the recent
> > exchange between John Harshman and JTEM, and
> > when real debate ensues, an onlooker can frequently
> > learn something of substance.
>
> > Of course, usenet really is not a very good venue for
> > the waters; that's the nature of the beast. �ｿｽTrue, a serious
> > student (using the word in a broad sense) can glean an
> > occasional interesting or useful tidbit, but by and large
> > usenet is the functional equivalent of a barroom brawl.
>
> > I'd like to see a genuine debate between the best the
> > creation side can offer, and the best the evolution side can
> > strict rules regarding timing and word count, with a definite
>
> > Topic: �ｿｽThe nested hierarchy is strong evidence for ToE
> > Format: �ｿｽEvolutionist goes first. �ｿｽThe debate consists of
> > three exchanges of no more than 600 words, each of which
> > exchanges, each opponent simultaneously emails a
> > summation of 300 words or less at an agreed time, and the
> > end product is posted to T.O in its entirety.
>
> > and acceptance. �ｿｽFor the creation side, I would guess Ray
> > Martinez or perhaps Nashton would be the logical choice.
> > (Tony Pagano has more or eliminated himself with a recent
> > statement: "While I strive to produce rational arguments, I've
> > NEVER been interested in back-and-forth discussion.")
> > For the evolution side, my vote would go to John Harshman,
> > but I think there are several others who could do a creditable job.
> > (In case anybody thinks I'm bucking for the job, forget it. I don't
> > have the qualifications.)
>
> > springboard for rational discussion. �ｿｽ(But realistically, I expect
> > the barroom brawl to continue unabated.)
>
> The philosophical premises should be stated and agreed upon first. What
> ontological categories do both parties accept? What epistemology? A debate
> where the creationist is forced to accept materialism, or the evolutionist
> is forced to accept spiritualism, will go nowhere.
>
> If you say that the debate will be strictly on a "scientific" basis, then
> which definition of "science" will be forced on the parties? And this
>
> - Show quoted text -
Any debate would have conditions agreed to by both parties.
Nothing would be "forced upon" anybody. This should be
obvious since neither party would be under any compulsion
to participate. If you don't agree with the conditions, then just
walk away. (Or in the case of Pagano, run away. :-))
Tim
John Harshman
> On Dec 14, 5:53 pm, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> "Tim DeLaney" <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:6c97bee1-7746-4eb6...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> We here at T.O frequently use the term "debate", but the
>>> vast majority of posts bear no resemblance to debate.
>>> There are occasional exceptions, such as the recent
>>> exchange between John Harshman and JTEM, and
>>> when real debate ensues, an onlooker can frequently
>>> learn something of substance.
>>> Of course, usenet really is not a very good venue for
>>> the waters; that's the nature of the beast. True, a serious
>>> student (using the word in a broad sense) can glean an
>>> occasional interesting or useful tidbit, but by and large
>>> usenet is the functional equivalent of a barroom brawl.
>>> I'd like to see a genuine debate between the best the
>>> creation side can offer, and the best the evolution side can
>>> strict rules regarding timing and word count, with a definite
>>> Topic: The nested hierarchy is strong evidence for ToE
>>> Format: Evolutionist goes first. The debate consists of
>>> three exchanges of no more than 600 words, each of which
>>> exchanges, each opponent simultaneously emails a
>>> summation of 300 words or less at an agreed time, and the
>>> end product is posted to T.O in its entirety.
>>> and acceptance. For the creation side, I would guess Ray
>>> Martinez or perhaps Nashton would be the logical choice.
>>> (Tony Pagano has more or eliminated himself with a recent
>>> statement: "While I strive to produce rational arguments, I've
>>> NEVER been interested in back-and-forth discussion.")
>>> For the evolution side, my vote would go to John Harshman,
>>> but I think there are several others who could do a creditable job.
>>> (In case anybody thinks I'm bucking for the job, forget it. I don't
>>> have the qualifications.)
>>> springboard for rational discussion. (But realistically, I expect
>>> the barroom brawl to continue unabated.)
>> The philosophical premises should be stated and agreed upon first. What
>> ontological categories do both parties accept? What epistemology? A debate
>> where the creationist is forced to accept materialism, or the evolutionist
>> is forced to accept spiritualism, will go nowhere.
>>
>> If you say that the debate will be strictly on a "scientific" basis, then
>> which definition of "science" will be forced on the parties? And this
>> definition must itself be justified.
> Any debate would have conditions agreed to by both parties.
> Nothing would be "forced upon" anybody. This should be
> obvious since neither party would be under any compulsion
> to participate. If you don't agree with the conditions, then just
> walk away. (Or in the case of Pagano, run away. :-))
It sounds to me as if a debate should be on the subjects Kalkidas
raised. Before we argue about evidence, we would have to agree on what
counts as evidence. That could even be interesting. I've never found a
creationist who was consistent on the subject. Perhaps Kalkidas is the
first?
Kalkidas: quite aside from any formal debate, what is your opinion on
each of the questions you raise?
Kalkidas
news:tOadndkBB6g...@giganews.com...
My view is that the scientific method applies to all phenomena whatsoever
for which hypotheses can be proposed and experiments can be performed to
test them. I do not regard the subject of science to be restricted to
material phenomena alone, nor its experimental methods restricted to using
measuring devices constructed out of matter.
Obviously, then, I accept the reality of non-material, or "spiritual"
entities. I regard their existence to be experimentally verified beyond any
reasonable doubt.
I of course don't deny the predictive power of material science within its
narrow area.
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
Then show us how we can experiment with these entities?
>I of course don't deny the predictive power of material science within its
>narrow area.
Really? I thought you had spent some time defending the lies and
foolishness of anti-science creationists.
John Harshman
Agreed, in principle. In actuality, I find that most supposed spiritual
phenomena can't be defined well enough to render them testable, or at
least those who propose them are unwilling to define them so.
> Obviously, then, I accept the reality of non-material, or "spiritual"
> entities. I regard their existence to be experimentally verified beyond any
> reasonable doubt.
What experimental verification are you referring to here, and of what
entities?
> I of course don't deny the predictive power of material science within its
> narrow area.
Apropos of this group, is evolution within that narrow area?
Christopher Denney
> "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
How, then, do you go about performing objective repeatable experiments
on spiritual phenomena?
Can you give us an example?
You do realize you need to provide the experimental framework and
procedure, but not the expected results, so that foreknowledge of your
expectations do not color the result set.
Kalkidas
For thousands (at least) of years, people have been following various
spiritual disciplines (i.e. performing experimental procedures). If you
study the records left by them (i.e. scriptures and sacred writings), taking
cultural differences into account, you find that the results of their
practices are uniform: experience of the spirit, or the Kingdom of God, or
the supernatural, whatever you want to call it.
Moreover, you find in the same records that those who did not rigorously
practice the disciplines (i.e. used flawed or careless experimental
procedures) received no results, or perverted results.
I do not see how this paradigm differs in the slightest from that of
material science. The subject matter is different, but that is only because
the subject matter of modern science has been artificially narrowed to
include only material entities and material test equipment. I see no reason
for this other than prejudice, which is certainly not a scientific value.
>> I of course don't deny the predictive power of material science within
>> its narrow area.
>
> Apropos of this group, is evolution within that narrow area?
Any science which purports to rely only on what can be known through the
material senses and their material extensions (in the form of measurement
apparatus constructed of matter) fits within this narrow field. Darwinism,
or Darwin-inspired evolutionary scenarios, are all attempting to restrict
themselves to this fragment of a much more vast total reality. They more or
less refuse to consider that there is any reality outside of matter and
material influences.
But as I said, I regard the existence of non-material reality as
experimentally verified. Even without experimental verification, however, I
regard it as self-evident. After all, the experience of one's own
consciousness, or spirit, is the most immediate experience, more fundamental
than anything the senses present.
Dan Listermann
"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message news:hg89lf$sq5$1...@aioe.org...
> Any science which purports to rely only on what can be known through the
> material senses and their material extensions (in the form of measurement
> apparatus constructed of matter) fits within this narrow field.
> Darwinism, or Darwin-inspired evolutionary scenarios, are all attempting
> to restrict themselves to this fragment of a much more vast total reality.
> They more or less refuse to consider that there is any reality outside of
> matter and material influences.
>
Mostly because there is zero evidence for things that are not material at
their root. It believe otherwise, is chaos.
.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>
> news:27WdnYOSU-X...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kalkidas wrote:
> >> "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
Nope. "Spiritual disciplines" are not experimental proceedures.
>If you
> study the records left by them (i.e. scriptures and sacred writings), taking
> cultural differences into account, you find that the results of their
> practices are uniform: experience of the spirit, or the Kingdom of God, or
> the supernatural, whatever you want to call it.
Nope. You'll find that there are huge differences in their accounts of
the spiritual realm, and that they are largely explained the cultural
differences of the people experiencing them.
>
> Moreover, you find in the same records that those who did not rigorously
> practice the disciplines (i.e. used flawed or careless experimental
> procedures) received no results, or perverted results.
Nope. You'll find that those who "receive no results" were told that
they weren't sufficiently committed to the spiritual pursuit - i.e.
that there's something wrong with them, not that the spiritual
"experiment" is invalid.
>
> I do not see how this paradigm differs in the slightest from that of
> material science.
Then you are rather dogmatically ignorant. "Material science" operates
on the assumption of naturalism - i.e. that we can repeat an
experiment over and over again, and provided the parameters are the
same it will have the same outcome regardless of who operates it.
> The subject matter is different, but that is only because
> the subject matter of modern science has been artificially narrowed to
> include only material entities and material test equipment.
Nope. The "subject matter " of science has been "narrowed" to allow
only phenomena which can be observed and measured because if something
can't be observed and measured, it cannot be investigated using the
tools of science. It's a description of the nature of science, not of
an artificial restriction of science.
> I see no reason
> for this other than prejudice, which is certainly not a scientific value.
Then I can only suggest a need to educate yourself in the history of
science.
>
> >> I of course don't deny the predictive power of material science within
> >> its narrow area.
>
> > Apropos of this group, is evolution within that narrow area?
>
> Any science which purports to rely only on what can be known through the
> material senses and their material extensions (in the form of measurement
> apparatus constructed of �matter) fits within this narrow field.
That's all science, in every field.
> Darwinism,
> or Darwin-inspired evolutionary scenarios, are all attempting to restrict
> themselves to this fragment of a much more vast total reality.
All science in every field "restricts itself" to what can be observed
and measured. Evolutionary biology is no different from any other
field of science in this respect.
> They more or
> less refuse to consider that there is any reality outside of matter and
> material influences.
No, they say that anything which cannot be observed or measured cannot
be investigated using the tools of science.
>
> But as I said, I regard the existence of non-material reality as
> experimentally verified.
Well bully for you. How can one verify the existence of something
which cannot be observed and measured?
> Even without experimental verification, however, I
> regard it as self-evident.
How nice for you. Nothing to do with science, however.
> After all, the experience of one's own
> consciousness, or spirit, is the most immediate experience, more fundamental
> than anything the senses present.
It is?
What do you think that the fact that people can experience visual and
auditory hallucinations tells us about the reliability of the
subjective impressions we gain through our senses? Those who hear
voices think that they are real. How do you know that your subjective
impressions are any more reliable than those of people suffering from
psychoses?
RF
John Harshman
We can agree that people have had spiritual experiences. But these
experiences are subjective; they're feelings. What evidence is there
that these feelings require the existence of gods? In fact, such
experiences can be produced by electrically stimulating certain areas of
the brain. The feelings exist, but are not evidence for the imputed cause.
>>> I of course don't deny the predictive power of material science within
>>> its narrow area.
>> Apropos of this group, is evolution within that narrow area?
>
> Any science which purports to rely only on what can be known through the
> material senses and their material extensions (in the form of measurement
> apparatus constructed of matter) fits within this narrow field. Darwinism,
> or Darwin-inspired evolutionary scenarios, are all attempting to restrict
> themselves to this fragment of a much more vast total reality. They more or
> less refuse to consider that there is any reality outside of matter and
> material influences.
Was that a yes or a no? Do you deny the predictive power of evolutionary
biology within its narrow area? (Which I take to be the history of life.)
> But as I said, I regard the existence of non-material reality as
> experimentally verified.
You have presented no evidence that would justify that belief. There are
simple, alternative explanations for spiritual experiences.
> Even without experimental verification, however, I
> regard it as self-evident. After all, the experience of one's own
> consciousness, or spirit, is the most immediate experience, more fundamental
> than anything the senses present.
Whenever anyone tells me something is self-evident, it seems to me it
should then be easy to offer real evidence. You asume what you want to
prove. I experience my own consciousness. But calling that a spirit is
problematic. I see no evidence that consciousness is not an effect of
material processes in my brain.
It seems to me that all your arguments boil down to "Use the Force,
Luke. Trust your feelings." And I have to say that such an appeal isn't
science, or anything like science. Not because science can't handle the
putatively supernatural, but because science demands actual evidence,
not just feelings.
Rodjk #613
That is an excellent post. It should be nominated for a POTM...
:)
Rodjk #613
Kalkidas
news:8153d931-78e5-4a1c...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 14, 4:03 pm, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:tOadndkBB6g...@giganews.com...
>>
>> > Tim DeLaney wrote:
>> >> On Dec 14, 5:53 pm, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> >>> "Tim DeLaney" <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> >>>news:6c97bee1-7746-4eb6...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
The various scriptures are full of "if you do x then y will follow"
statements. Find a bona-fide spiritual master who is himself following the
principles of scripture, follow his instructions, and see the result.
> You do realize you need to provide the experimental framework and
> procedure, but not the expected results, so that foreknowledge of your
> expectations do not color the result set.
Spiritual science is deductive, not inductive. The "expected results" are
the only motivation for performing the experiments. People do not undergo
penances and austerities "just to see what happens".
Kalkidas
Can you justify the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence?
I propose that there is no empirical test whatsoever which will show that
"all men are created equal".
The meaning of "self-evident" is that it reveals itself. It is its own
evidence. If you cannot perceive a self-evident truth, then you are not
looking at it. It is not that it is not revealing itself.
More than that, I have cited the scriptures, which are the records left by
people who perceived the self-evident God, and who left detailed
instructions on the procedures they underwent to achieve that percetion. If
you are not willing to repeat their experiments, I suggest that you ought
not claim they did not work.
> It seems to me that all your arguments boil down to "Use the Force, Luke.
> Trust your feelings." And I have to say that such an appeal isn't science,
> or anything like science. Not because science can't handle the putatively
> supernatural, but because science demands actual evidence, not just
> feelings.
That is your feeling. I suspect that if I ask you what constitutes "actual
evidence", your answer will be some version of "material evidence". As I
said, I do not accept that "material evidence" is the only legitimate form
of evidence. Therefore, there can be no real debate or even rational
discussion between us. I certainly will not narrow my perception of reality,
and it appears as if you will not expand yours.
Dan Listermann
"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message news:hg8k8o$els$2...@aioe.org...
> More than that, I have cited the scriptures, which are the records left by
> people who perceived the self-evident God, and who left detailed
> instructions on the procedures they underwent to achieve that percetion.
> If you are not willing to repeat their experiments, I suggest that you
> ought not claim they did not work.
Cool! An experiment. Care to go over the procedure, or will you just babble
something about "look it up?"
.
Dan Listermann
"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
> "Christopher Denney" <christoph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8153d931-78e5-4a1c...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>
> statements. Find a bona-fide spiritual master who is himself following the
> principles of scripture, follow his instructions, and see the result.
>
LOL! PUNT!
.
Burkhard
> >news:27WdnYOSU-X...@giganews.com...
> >> Kalkidas wrote:
> >>> "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
including visual illusions. Isn't your argument in danger of resulting
into nihilism, or maybe solipsism?
John Stockwell
> "Christopher Denney" <christopher.den...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Well, there you go. There is no investigation. There is no theory.
There
may be a "practice" but there are lots of "practices" that have
nothing
to do with science. So, basically Madman, you have a lot to learn
about science.
-John
Richard Clayton
> On Dec 12, 10:51�pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > We here at T.O frequently use the term "debate", but the
> > vast majority of posts bear no resemblance to debate.
> > There are occasional exceptions, such as the recent
> > exchange between John Harshman and JTEM, and
> > when real debate ensues, an onlooker can frequently
> > learn something of substance.
>
> > Of course, usenet really is not a very good venue for
> > the waters; that's the nature of the beast. �True, a serious
> > student (using the word in a broad sense) can glean an
> > occasional interesting or useful tidbit, but by and large
> > usenet is the functional equivalent of a barroom brawl.
>
> > I'd like to see a genuine debate between the best the
> > creation side can offer, and the best the evolution side can
> > strict rules regarding timing and word count, with a definite
>
> > Topic: �The nested hierarchy is strong evidence for ToE
> > Format: �Evolutionist goes first. �The debate consists of
> > three exchanges of no more than 600 words, each of which
> > exchanges, each opponent simultaneously emails a
> > summation of 300 words or less at an agreed time, and the
> > end product is posted to T.O in its entirety.
>
> > and acceptance. �For the creation side, I would guess Ray
> > Martinez or perhaps Nashton would be the logical choice.
> > (Tony Pagano has more or eliminated himself with a recent
> > statement: "While I strive to produce rational arguments, I've
> > NEVER been interested in back-and-forth discussion.")
> > For the evolution side, my vote would go to John Harshman,
> > but I think there are several others who could do a creditable job.
> > (In case anybody thinks I'm bucking for the job, forget it. I don't
> > have the qualifications.)
>
> > springboard for rational discussion. �(But realistically, I expect
> > the barroom brawl to continue unabated.)
>
> T.O has hosted several formalized debates in the past. As far as I'm
> aware, every single one of them ended with the creationist running
> away.
Data point: Pagano's recent flight from Macaddicted. Not a formalized
debate, to be sure, but Pagano leveled a challenge, Macaddicted met
and mastered it... and Pagano ran away so fast he left skid marks on
the floor and a few white feathers drifting through the air. Of
course, he did take a few seconds to declare victory before he ran,
and I'm sure he'll crow about how he pasted Macaddicted on the
question of Catholic doctrine, so we can add dishonesty (or perhaps
just delusion?) to his craven cowardice.
Christopher Denney
> "Christopher Denney" <christopher.den...@gmail.com> wrote in message
So, that's a 'no' then.
> > You do realize you need to provide the experimental framework and
> > procedure, but not the expected results, so that foreknowledge of your
> > expectations do not color the result set.
>
> Spiritual science is deductive, not inductive. The "expected results" are
> the only motivation for performing the experiments. People do not undergo
> penances and austerities "just to see what happens".
Ah, so if you don't tell them exactly what to expect they can't give
the expected answers. I see.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Creationists have no reason or motive to run away. What actually
happened, in the past, was the evolutionist getting exposed as a big
mouth ignoramus. The Creationist then made the best of it for a
while.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
>> T.O has hosted several formalized debates in the past. As far as I'm
>> aware, every single one of them ended with the creationist running
>> away.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Creationists have no reason or motive to run away.
Yet that's exactly what happens when anyone trys to discuss the evidence
with you. Remember how you ran away from the discussion over KNM WT 15000?
> What actually
> happened, in the past, was the evolutionist getting exposed as a big
> mouth ignoramus.
When has this happened, Ray? Care to cite any actual examples?
> The Creationist then made the best of it for a
> while.
Running away is "making the best of it"? How odd.
I'm still waiting for you to stop running away from the fossil KNM WT 15000.
DJT
John Harshman
As far as I know, Kalkidas isn't Madman. Do you know something different?
John Harshman
I agree. But you claim to be doing science here, right? It in fact isn't
self-evident that all men are created equal; I'm not even sure what
that's supposed to mean, except that society works better if everyone is
equal before the law.
> The meaning of "self-evident" is that it reveals itself. It is its own
> evidence. If you cannot perceive a self-evident truth, then you are not
> looking at it. It is not that it is not revealing itself.
Or, perhaps, it isn't really self-evident. How do you tell the difference?
> More than that, I have cited the scriptures, which are the records left by
> people who perceived the self-evident God, and who left detailed
> instructions on the procedures they underwent to achieve that percetion. If
> you are not willing to repeat their experiments, I suggest that you ought
> not claim they did not work.
Which scriptures? If you refer to the bible, there are no such
procedures. God talks to people when and if he feels like it. And if
your sole evidence of god is that he's self-evident, then you have no
evidence.
>> It seems to me that all your arguments boil down to "Use the Force, Luke.
>> Trust your feelings." And I have to say that such an appeal isn't science,
>> or anything like science. Not because science can't handle the putatively
>> supernatural, but because science demands actual evidence, not just
>> feelings.
>
> That is your feeling. I suspect that if I ask you what constitutes "actual
> evidence", your answer will be some version of "material evidence". As I
> said, I do not accept that "material evidence" is the only legitimate form
> of evidence. Therefore, there can be no real debate or even rational
> discussion between us. I certainly will not narrow my perception of reality,
> and it appears as if you will not expand yours.
I'm not sure what you mean by "material evidence". But evidence for X
would be anything we would expect to see if X, but not see if not-X. In
this case your feeling that god exists could be experienced if god
exists, or equally if god didn't exist, and so is not evidence. Nothing
material about it. Now if you're claiming that science should expand to
encompass your feelings about what's true, and accept those feelings as
evidence, then you aren't thinking it through. The result would be
chaos, as all manner of people have their own mutually contradictory
feelings about what's true.
Kalkidas
If you're just looking to scoff at something, why not post somewhere else?
Kalkidas
news:8a25d0cf-848c-4379...@x20g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
1) I am not "Madman".
2) "you have a lot to learn about science" is not a scientific statement.
3) Stop wasting the adults' bandwidth with contentless posts.
chris thompson
> "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>
> news:27WdnYOSU-X...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> > Kalkidas wrote:
> >> "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
What you're really saying here is that you have to believe in the
results ahead of time in order to experience them.
That's not science. One of the most important features of modern
science is its repeatability. It should never matter what you believe
the results will be when you do an experiment- you should get the
exact same results if you perform the experiment identically.
So if one person is granted the ability to see angels after performing
a ritual, anyone who performs the same ritual should also see them- if
you want to consider the ritual science, that is.
Chris
bpuharic
>
>
>For thousands (at least) of years, people have been following various
>spiritual disciplines (i.e. performing experimental procedures). If you
>study the records left by them (i.e. scriptures and sacred writings), taking
>cultural differences into account, you find that the results of their
>practices are uniform: experience of the spirit, or the Kingdom of God, or
>the supernatural, whatever you want to call it.\
or gods. or demons. or werewolves. or vampires. or ghosts. or sacred
mountains. or ancestor worship, or, or or, ....thousands of
differences
>
>Moreover, you find in the same records that those who did not rigorously
>practice the disciplines (i.e. used flawed or careless experimental
>procedures) received no results, or perverted results.
gee. he's discovered people talk to each other. today such people are
called 'converts'. he pretends they don't exist
>
>I do not see how this paradigm differs in the slightest from that of
>material science.
?? you just committed suicide. because the difference is stark.
THE DIFFERENCE IS THE EXPERIMENTAL METHOD.
science has to test its ideas. it has to define them in such a way
that non-testable ideas...such as god...are excluded
if YOU CAN TEST GOD, then, by all means, you're right
but the fact you can make such a banal and wrong headed statement,
after thousands of years of failure, tells us much about your
RELIGIOUS beliefs.
The subject matter is different, but that is only because
>the subject matter of modern science has been artificially narrowed to
>include only material entities and material test equipment. I see no reason
>for this other than prejudice, which is certainly not a scientific value.
meaningless. it is, BY DEFINITION, scientific. science BY DEFINITION
studies nature USING TESTABLE CONCEPTS
god is not testable. purpose is not testable. ghosts, demons,
vampires, etc. are not testable.
yes, science is a prejudice.
and it works. in 300 years science explained more of the universe than
your religion did in 3000 years.
do you deny that?
>>> I of course don't deny the predictive power of material science within
>>> its narrow area.
>>
>> Apropos of this group, is evolution within that narrow area?
>
>Any science which purports to rely only on what can be known through the
>material senses and their material extensions (in the form of measurement
>apparatus constructed of matter) fits within this narrow field. Darwinism,
>or Darwin-inspired evolutionary scenarios, are all attempting to restrict
>themselves to this fragment of a much more vast total reality.
what a collection of word salad. science has succeeded because it IS
narrow and limited
it is not metaphysical. it is not romantic or emotional. nature exists
apart from us and its laws exist apart from us.
for 3000 years your sorry, failed religion tried to understand nature.
it could not.
now science has destroyed your view of nature. no wonder you hate
it....
They more or
>less refuse to consider that there is any reality outside of matter and
>material influences.
for 3000 years you said this reality exists
where's the proof? you bitch about science. and that's all you have
left. your bitching
>
>But as I said, I regard the existence of non-material reality as
>experimentally verified. Even without experimental verification, however, I
>regard it as self-evident. After all, the experience of one's own
>consciousness, or spirit, is the most immediate experience, more fundamental
>than anything the senses present.
and in 20 years science has explained more of consciousness than your
sorry failed religion has in 3000.
your religion relegates whole classes of humans to subhuman
categories. do you REALLY think you have a proper view of nature?
>
bpuharic
>"Christopher Denney" <christoph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8153d931-78e5-4a1c...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 14, 4:03 pm, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>> "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>
>>> I of course don't deny the predictive power of material science within
>>> its
>>> narrow area.
>>
>> How, then, do you go about performing objective repeatable experiments
>> on spiritual phenomena?
>> Can you give us an example?
>
>The various scriptures are full of "if you do x then y will follow"
>statements. Find a bona-fide spiritual master who is himself following the
>principles of scripture, follow his instructions, and see the result.
like bin laden, for example? he's considered a spiritual master.
>
>> You do realize you need to provide the experimental framework and
>> procedure, but not the expected results, so that foreknowledge of your
>> expectations do not color the result set.
>
>Spiritual science is deductive, not inductive. The "expected results" are
>the only motivation for performing the experiments. People do not undergo
>penances and austerities "just to see what happens".
AH...a NEOLOGISM. 'spiritual science'
the camel's nose under the tent as he tries to slide a truckload of
bullshit....
>
>
>
bpuharic
>
>"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:ScSdnV5tX_v...@giganews.com...
>>
>> Whenever anyone tells me something is self-evident, it seems to me it
>> should then be easy to offer real evidence. You asume what you want to
>> prove. I experience my own consciousness. But calling that a spirit is
>> problematic. I see no evidence that consciousness is not an effect of
>> material processes in my brain.
>
>Can you justify the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence?
>I propose that there is no empirical test whatsoever which will show that
>"all men are created equal".
that is true. it is a metaphysical construct.
>
>The meaning of "self-evident" is that it reveals itself. It is its own
>evidence. If you cannot perceive a self-evident truth, then you are not
>looking at it. It is not that it is not revealing itself.
but your view is that your failed ideas are 'self evident'. if they
are so self evident, why have they proven useless for 3000 years?
>
>More than that, I have cited the scriptures, which are the records left by
>people who perceived the self-evident God, and who left detailed
>instructions on the procedures they underwent to achieve that percetion. If
>you are not willing to repeat their experiments, I suggest that you ought
>not claim they did not work.
you mean like the existence of 'untouchables' in your religion? whole
groups of people considered subhuman? that your view of an
experiment?
>
>> It seems to me that all your arguments boil down to "Use the Force, Luke.
>> Trust your feelings." And I have to say that such an appeal isn't science,
>> or anything like science. Not because science can't handle the putatively
>> supernatural, but because science demands actual evidence, not just
>> feelings.
>
>That is your feeling. I suspect that if I ask you what constitutes "actual
>evidence", your answer will be some version of "material evidence". As I
>said, I do not accept that "material evidence" is the only legitimate form
>of evidence.
it's the ONLY FORM FOR NATURE. YOUR view is wrong
Therefore, there can be no real debate or even rational
>discussion between us. I certainly will not narrow my perception of reality,
>and it appears as if you will not expand yours.
great. then to back to your werewolves, your ouija boards and tarot
cards...which for 3000 years explained NOTHING
and let explaining nature to the scientists.
>
Ray Martinez
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Dec 13, 3:12 pm, Richard Clayton <rich.e.clay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >> T.O has hosted several formalized debates in the past. As far as I'm
> >> aware, every single one of them ended with the creationist running
> >> away.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Creationists have no reason or motive to run away.
>
> Yet that's exactly what happens when anyone trys to discuss the evidence
> with you. � Remember how you ran away from the discussion over KNM WT 15000?
>
I remember repeatedly telling the Group that I will not discuss
alleged human evolution until my book is finished.
> > What actually
> > happened, in the past, was the evolutionist getting exposed as a big
> > mouth ignoramus.
>
> When has this happened, Ray? � Care to cite any actual examples?
>
Most recently in a thread that I authored and titled: "For Howard:
Natural causation & selection." Howard Hershey could not compete
intellectually. I actually thought he could----that's why I started
the topic. I wanted to test some of my ideas concerning the falsity of
selectionism. I was shocked to discover that Howard did not even know
that selection is a phenomenom of natural causation. After letting
this go, I promptly tested my main idea about natural selection,
presenting it to Howard, only to be misrepresented then ignored. Based
on this behavior, I have concluded that my idea is difficult to
refute.
Ray
SNIP....
Burkhard
> On Dec 15, 3:11 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Dec 13, 3:12 pm, Richard Clayton <rich.e.clay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > >> T.O has hosted several formalized debates in the past. As far as I'm
> > >> aware, every single one of them ended with the creationist running
> > >> away.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Creationists have no reason or motive to run away.
>
> > Yet that's exactly what happens when anyone trys to discuss the evidence
> > with you. Remember how you ran away from the discussion over KNM WT 15000?
>
> I remember repeatedly telling the Group that I will not discuss
> alleged human evolution until my book is finished.
>
Evolution in action? Last time you talked about it, it was still of
the "article kind"
Ray Martinez
> On 16 Dec, 01:24, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 3:11 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > On Dec 13, 3:12 pm, Richard Clayton <rich.e.clay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > snip
>
> > > >> T.O has hosted several formalized debates in the past. As far as I'm
> > > >> aware, every single one of them ended with the creationist running
> > > >> away.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Creationists have no reason or motive to run away.
>
> > > Yet that's exactly what happens when anyone trys to discuss the evidence
> > > with you. Remember how you ran away from the discussion over KNM WT 15000?
>
> > I remember repeatedly telling the Group that I will not discuss
> > alleged human evolution until my book is finished.
>
> Evolution in action? Last time you talked about it, it was still of
> the "article kind"
>
Since intelligence is involved, we cannot describe said actions
"evolutionary."
My work is now book-length. When finished it will still appear on the
Internet for everyone to read instantly.
Ray
Caranx latus
Your wish is granted! Kalkidas used to post as Chris Devol. The
following procedure, which I think is what he referred to, is quoted from:
<http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/0b6368c8f27d080f?hl=en>
--- begin quote ---
1. Chant the following mantra 1728 times a day:
Hare Krishna Hare Krishna,
Krishna Krishna Hare Hare,
Hare Rama Hare Rama,
Rama Rama Hare Hare
2. Do not eat meat, fish, or eggs.
3. Do not use any intoxicants
4. Do not engage in illicit sex
5. Do not gamble.
6. Read and study "Bhagavad Gita As It Is" by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
Prabhupada.
--- end quote ---
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Dec 15, 3:11�pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > On Dec 13, 3:12 pm, Richard Clayton <rich.e.clay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>> >> T.O has hosted several formalized debates in the past. As far as I'm
>> >> aware, every single one of them ended with the creationist running
>> >> away.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Creationists have no reason or motive to run away.
>>
>> Yet that's exactly what happens when anyone trys to discuss the evidence
>> with you. � Remember how you ran away from the discussion over KNM WT 15000?
>>
>
>I remember repeatedly telling the Group that I will not discuss
>alleged human evolution until my book is finished.
>
>> > What actually
>> > happened, in the past, was the evolutionist getting exposed as a big
>> > mouth ignoramus.
>>
>> When has this happened, Ray? � Care to cite any actual examples?
>>
>
>Most recently in a thread that I authored and titled: "For Howard:
>Natural causation & selection." Howard Hershey could not compete
>intellectually.
Only in your dreams Dishonest Ray.
> I actually thought he could----that's why I started
>the topic. I wanted to test some of my ideas concerning the falsity of
>selectionism. I was shocked to discover that Howard did not even know
>that selection is a phenomenom of natural causation. After letting
>this go, I promptly tested my main idea about natural selection,
>presenting it to Howard, only to be misrepresented then ignored. Based
>on this behavior, I have concluded that my idea is difficult to
>refute.
Hohohohoho! You really are daft if you think that.
>
>Ray
>
>SNIP....
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
>
Richard Clayton
Hi, Ray. I suspect most people reviewing our debate would reach a
different conclusion than the one you put forward.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4860db9f56264e15?hl=en
You ran away (several times), threatened to quit the debate unless you
could appoint a creationist arbiter, tried to move the debate to a new
forum, and ultimately ran away again and then claimed victory.
Most interestingly, the Mysterious Post Deleter has since removed
several of your most embarrassing posts.
Still, I don't really hold your behavior against you. I've since come
to the realization that you're probably mentally ill to some degree,
and not wholly responsible for your own actions.
Jack Dominey
>"Christopher Denney" <christoph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8153d931-78e5-4a1c...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
>> How, then, do you go about performing objective repeatable experiments
>> on spiritual phenomena?
>> Can you give us an example?
>
>The various scriptures are full of "if you do x then y will follow"
>statements.
Really? The various scriptures, you say? Do these various scriptures
have names? Chapter headings? Verses? Page numbers?
One might think that someone with an interest in actually establishing
his argument might, when asked for an example, actually provide an
example.
>Find a bona-fide spiritual master who is himself following the
>principles of scripture, follow his instructions, and see the result.
And how is one to establish that a 'spiritual master' is indeed
bona-fide and following the principles of scripture?
<snip>
--
Usenet: http://xkcd.com/386/
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
Christopher Denney
You made an assertion that science could be used to test spiritual
matter, I asked for examples, you failed to even understand that you
are wrong.
I'm not scoffing, I'm laughing. :)
Devils Advocaat
So when someone asks you a question in connection with your various
claims, such as your notion on "creation ex materia (from a clay-like
ground)" being the cause of the emergence of new species, you haven't
run away, you are choosing not to answer because you consider that
person to be a big mouth ignoramus, and not because you don't have any
way of defending the claim.
>
> Ray
Mike Painter
>> alleged human evolution until my book is finished.
The book will be finished as soon as Godot gets here.
johnetho...@yahoo.com
> � >> I remember repeatedly telling the Group that I will not discuss
>
> >> alleged human evolution until my book is finished.
>
> The book will be finished as soon as Godot gets here.
Or perhaps Ray is waiting for Godot to deliver him the proofs from the
printer? It would be a more plausible than most of what he posts.
Mike Painter
It could be, in that case it will be finished when John W. (who has
disappeared completely from the group he invited me to) comes up with the
copy of the Book of Mormon with "Jerusalem" changed to "Bethlehem".
At first it was all copies prior to the 1990's, then it became just one
edition, then John became silent.
John Wilkins
<f0c34724-1d7b-4cf4...@u1g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
<"johnetho...@yahoo.com"> wrote:
Waiting for FedExDeus...
Kalkidas
news:rudii5d1fpg4dmvvm...@4ax.com...
I've been posting to t.o. since 1992, and I remember you well. You never had
any interest in spiritual matters except to scoff at them. So take it
somewhere else. My interest is in reaching the innocent and sincere, not
cynical nabobs.
SeppoP
So, you're just another "flying in the night" pig-ignorant, drooling
street preacher who wants to spread his 1400's pig-ignorance to others
like you?
Figures.
-- Seppo P.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Creationism is based on ignorance and dishonesty, it breeds from
ignorance and
dishonesty, and it breeds ignorance and dishonesty. Spreading ignorance and
dishonesty is the lifeblood and sustenance of the creationists.
Wallowing in
ignorance and dishonesty is the natural lifestyle of creationists.
Dan Listermann
"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message news:hgdj67$goe$1...@aioe.org...
Perhaps you should try to hang around the gullible.
.
Kalkidas
news:2114d$4b2a58b8$4a53bf9f$12...@FUSE.NET...
Very sad that you equate "innocent and sincere" with "gullible".
Dan Listermann
"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
It is your use of the word "reaching" that requires the reached to be
gullible. We all know about what you are trying to peddle and the gullible
are your customer base, if you can admit it.
.
John Stockwell
> "JohnStockwell" <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Well, good for you, but you don't seem to be an improvement.
>
> 2) "you have a lot to learn about science" is not a scientific statement.
It is an expert opinion.
>
> 3) Stop wasting the adults' bandwidth with contentless posts.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
-John
John Stockwell
> "Jack Dominey" <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:rudii5d1fpg4dmvvm...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > In <hg8kdc$2g5...@news.ett.com.ua>, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> >>"Christopher Denney" <christopher.den...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:8153d931-78e5-4a1c...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> > <snip>
>
> >>> How, then, do you go about performing objective repeatable experiments
> >>> on spiritual phenomena?
> >>> Can you give us an example?
>
> >>The various scriptures are full of "if you do x then y will follow"
> >>statements.
>
> > Really? The various scriptures, you say? Do these various scriptures
> > have names? Chapter headings? Verses? Page numbers?
>
> > One might think that someone with an interest in actually establishing
> > his argument might, when asked for an example, actually provide an
> > example.
>
> >>Find a bona-fide spiritual master who is himself following the
> >>principles of scripture, follow his instructions, and see the result.
>
> > And how is one to establish that a 'spiritual master' is indeed
> > bona-fide and following the principles of scripture?
>
> I've been posting to t.o. since 1992, and I remember you well. You never had
> any interest in spiritual matters except to scoff at them. So take it
> somewhere else. My interest is in reaching the innocent and sincere, not
> cynical nabobs.
So, what pseudonym were you hiding behind then?
Will in New Haven
> "Jack Dominey" <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:rudii5d1fpg4dmvvm...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In <hg8kdc$2g5...@news.ett.com.ua>, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> >>"Christopher Denney" <christopher.den...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:8153d931-78e5-4a1c...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> > <snip>
>
> >>> How, then, do you go about performing objective repeatable experiments
> >>> on spiritual phenomena?
> >>> Can you give us an example?
>
> >>The various scriptures are full of "if you do x then y will follow"
> >>statements.
>
> > Really? �The various scriptures, you say? �Do these various scriptures
> > have names? �Chapter headings? �Verses? Page numbers?
>
> > One might think that someone with an interest in actually establishing
> > his argument might, when asked for an example, actually provide an
> > example.
>
> >>Find a bona-fide spiritual master who is himself following the
> >>principles of scripture, follow his instructions, and see the result.
>
> > And how is one to establish that a 'spiritual master' is indeed
> > bona-fide and following the principles of scripture?
>
> I've been posting to t.o. since 1992, and I remember you well. You never had
> any interest in spiritual matters except to scoff at them. So take it
> somewhere else. My interest is in reaching the innocent and sincere, not
> cynical nabobs.
Translation: "My interest is in the gullible and the stupid, not the
90% who are too smart for my line of dogshit."
--
Will in New Haven
All-seeing-I
> "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2114d$4b2a58b8$4a53bf9f$12...@FUSE.NET...
>
>
>
> > "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in messagenews:hgdj67$goe$1...@aioe.org...
> >>news:rudii5d1fpg4dmvvm...@4ax.com...
> >>> In <hg8kdc$2g5...@news.ett.com.ua>, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> I've been posting to t.o. since 1992, and I remember you well. You never
> >> had any interest in spiritual matters except to scoff at them. So take it
> >> somewhere else. My interest is in reaching the innocent and sincere, not
> >> cynical nabobs.
>
> > Perhaps you should try to hang around the gullible.
>
> Very sad that you equate "innocent and sincere" with "gullible".
They equate men and apes too.
It's brain damage i tell ya, brain damage. It has to be. Nothing else
fits the observation.
They all have to have brain damage in order to think as they do.
Boikat
Is that a fact, Mr. Cambrian Mammal = Trilobite? BTW, what school did
you go to that offered "Astrology" as an elective? I do trust that
was not offered from the Science department.
Boikat
Kalkidas
news:016ae655-55f9-4e84...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
Agreed. Bhagavad Gita 16.7-12 says:
Those who are demoniac do not know what is to be done and what is not to be
done. Neither cleanliness nor proper behavior nor truth is found in them.
They say that this world is unreal, with no foundation, no God in control.
They say it is produced of sex desire and has no cause other than lust.
Following such conclusions, the demoniac, who are lost to themselves and who
have no intelligence, engage in unbeneficial, horrible works meant to
destroy the world. Taking shelter of insatiable lust and absorbed in the
conceit of pride and false prestige, the demoniac, thus illusioned, are
always sworn to unclean work, attracted by the impermanent. They believe
that to gratify the senses is the prime necessity of human civilization.
Thus until the end of life their anxiety is immeasurable. Bound by a network
of hundreds of thousands of desires and absorbed in lust and anger, they
secure money by illegal means for sense gratification.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Dec 17, 10:40�am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:2114d$4b2a58b8$4a53bf9f$12...@FUSE.NET...
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in messagenews:hgdj67$goe$1...@aioe.org...
>> >> "Jack Dominey" <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid> wrote in message
>> >>news:rudii5d1fpg4dmvvm...@4ax.com...
>> >>> In <hg8kdc$2g5...@news.ett.com.ua>, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> >> I've been posting to t.o. since 1992, and I remember you well. You never
>> >> had any interest in spiritual matters except to scoff at them. So take it
>> >> somewhere else. My interest is in reaching the innocent and sincere, not
>> >> cynical nabobs.
>>
>> > Perhaps you should try to hang around the gullible.
>>
>> Very sad that you equate "innocent and sincere" with "gullible".
>
>They equate men and apes too.
Because man is an ape.
>
>It's brain damage i tell ya, brain damage.
So that is why you are so stupid. Figures.
>It has to be. Nothing else
>fits the observation.
>
>They all have to have brain damage in order to think as they do.
>
Here are just some of your stupid comments from the past - the ones
you keep trying to run away from.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
The [Dropa] stone is real, the troglodytes exist, the graves are
there, many books have been written on the subject...
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Dana Tweedy
> On Dec 17, 10:40 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote in message
>>> Perhaps you should try to hang around the gullible.
>>
>> Very sad that you equate "innocent and sincere" with "gullible".
>
> They equate men and apes too.
Not really. Humans are a species of ape. Not all apes are humans, but all
humans are apes.
>
> It's brain damage i tell ya, brain damage. It has to be. Nothing else
> fits the observation.
How about the possibility that humans are apes?
>
> They all have to have brain damage in order to think as they do.
Or, maybe you simply don't understand how a non damaged brain works.
DJT
bpuharic
>>
>> It's brain damage i tell ya, brain damage. It has to be. Nothing else
>> fits the observation.
>>
>> They all have to have brain damage in order to think as they do.
>
>Agreed. Bhagavad Gita 16.7-12 says:
>
>Those who are demoniac do not know what is to be done and what is not to be
>done.
tell us about the part that makes innocent human beings
'untouchables', m'kay?
your religion has led to suffering for millions.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub>:
They're not mutually exclusive, and are frequently observed
to inhabit the same body. Google "Jonestown" for an example.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Kalkidas
news:g5hli5dgpca9rhll7...@4ax.com...
They are mutually exclusive, and you didn't dig deep enough into the
psychology of the followers of Jim Jones. They were not at all innocent and
sincere.
Dan Listermann
"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message news:hgg2kr$qki$2...@aioe.org...
Perhaps you would like to expand on this statement as it seems inobvious to
me.
.
Kalkidas
"You can't cheat an honest man" Ring a bell?
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
Well, if we're trading aphorisms "There's a sucker born every minute."
Will in New Haven
> "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a32a7$4b2b96da$4a53bf9f$57...@FUSE.NET...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> "Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
> >>news:g5hli5dgpca9rhll7...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 09:40:17 -0700, the following appeared
> >>> in talk.origins, posted by "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub>:
>
> >>>>"Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:2114d$4b2a58b8$4a53bf9f$12...@FUSE.NET...
>
> >>>>> "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:hgdj67$goe$1...@aioe.org...
> >>>>>>news:rudii5d1fpg4dmvvm...@4ax.com...
> >>>>>>> In <hg8kdc$2g5...@news.ett.com.ua>, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >>>>>> I've been posting to t.o. since 1992, and I remember you well. You
> >>>>>> never
> >>>>>> had any interest in spiritual matters except to scoff at them. So
> >>>>>> take it
> >>>>>> somewhere else. My interest is in reaching the innocent and sincere,
> >>>>>> not
> >>>>>> cynical nabobs.
>
> >>>>> Perhaps you should try to hang around the gullible.
>
> >>>>Very sad that you equate "innocent and sincere" with "gullible".
>
> >>> They're not mutually exclusive, and are frequently observed
> >>> to inhabit the same body. Google "Jonestown" for an example.
>
> >> They are mutually exclusive, and you didn't dig deep enough into the
> >> psychology of the followers of Jim Jones. They were not at all innocent
> >> and sincere.
>
> > Perhaps you would like to expand on this statement as it seems inobvious
> > to me.
>
> "You can't cheat an honest man" Ring a bell?
Clearly, some of his followers were trying to get the best of it, as
con men put it. I can buy "not all innocent and sincere" but "not at
all innocent and sincere?" Even the kids. That's hard to believe.
Dan Listermann
"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
.
Kermit
> "Jack Dominey" <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:rudii5d1fpg4dmvvm...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > In <hg8kdc$2g5...@news.ett.com.ua>, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> >>"Christopher Denney" <christopher.den...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:8153d931-78e5-4a1c...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> > <snip>
>
> >>> How, then, do you go about performing objective repeatable experiments
> >>> on spiritual phenomena?
> >>> Can you give us an example?
>
> >>The various scriptures are full of "if you do x then y will follow"
> >>statements.
>
> > Really? �The various scriptures, you say? �Do these various scriptures
> > have names? �Chapter headings? �Verses? Page numbers?
>
> > One might think that someone with an interest in actually establishing
> > his argument might, when asked for an example, actually provide an
> > example.
>
> >>Find a bona-fide spiritual master who is himself following the
> >>principles of scripture, follow his instructions, and see the result.
>
> > And how is one to establish that a 'spiritual master' is indeed
> > bona-fide and following the principles of scripture?
>
> I've been posting to t.o. since 1992, and I remember you well. You never had
> any interest in spiritual matters except to scoff at them. So take it
> somewhere else. My interest is in reaching the innocent and sincere, not
> cynical nabobs.
Perhaps he was simply scoffing at *you. It appears as though your
interest in in showing how righteous you are, and how you are smarter
than the eggheads. Pretty much the same dynamic as the Christian
Creationists. I am not surprised.
Kermit
Jack Dominey
>"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
>news:016ae655-55f9-4e84...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
>> They all have to have brain damage in order to think as they do.
>
>Agreed. Bhagavad Gita 16.7-12 says:
>
<snip quotation>
It is interesting that you quote scripture when you wish to excoriate
your perceived opponents, but will not do so when asked to support
your assertions about the scripture itself.
--
Usenet: http://xkcd.com/386/
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
Jack Dominey
I don't think I'll "take it somewhere else" since talk.origins is a
fine forum for some discussions I enjoy following and sometimes
participating in.
And you are of course free to ignore or killfile me if you find my
posts unworthy of your attention, but if you really wish to reach the
innocent and sincere, it seems to me that the surest way to do so is
to engage openly, honestly, and fully even with those who are
critical.
Kalkidas
Uh huh. That sounds so open-minded and egalitarian. However, "critical"
doesn't really describe your position.
Will in New Haven
> "Jack Dominey" <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:88hni5tvtdun5s19i...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In <hgdj67$go...@aioe.org>, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> >>"Jack Dominey" <jack.dominey+...@gmail.invalid> wrote in message
> >>news:rudii5d1fpg4dmvvm...@4ax.com...
> >>> In <hg8kdc$2g5...@news.ett.com.ua>, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> >>>>"Christopher Denney" <christopher.den...@gmail.com> wrote in message
<with impunity from his alleged killfile> I wave my private parts at
your auntie.
And back to back is probably _your_ position.
heekster
An imbecilic platitude, and a false statement.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub>:
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:g5hli5dgpca9rhll7...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 09:40:17 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub>:
>>
>>>"Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote in message
>>>news:2114d$4b2a58b8$4a53bf9f$12...@FUSE.NET...
>>>>
>>>> "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message news:hgdj67$goe$1...@aioe.org...
>>>>> "Jack Dominey" <jack.dom...@gmail.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:rudii5d1fpg4dmvvm...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> In <hg8kdc$2g51$1...@news.ett.com.ua>, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>>> I've been posting to t.o. since 1992, and I remember you well. You
>>>>> never
>>>>> had any interest in spiritual matters except to scoff at them. So take
>>>>> it
>>>>> somewhere else. My interest is in reaching the innocent and sincere,
>>>>> not
>>>>> cynical nabobs.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you should try to hang around the gullible.
>>>
>>>Very sad that you equate "innocent and sincere" with "gullible".
>>
>> They're not mutually exclusive, and are frequently observed
>> to inhabit the same body. Google "Jonestown" for an example.
>
>They are mutually exclusive,
Nope; sorry. To be mutually exclusive there can be *no one*
who is both; majority doesn't rule in the definition.
> and you didn't dig deep enough into the
>psychology of the followers of Jim Jones. They were not at all innocent and
>sincere.
"They were not all" does not equal "None were"; all it takes
is one who is both to refute your assertion. You seem to
have a problem dealing with concepts involving other than
strict dichotomies; you need to work on that.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Dan Listermann"
<d...@listermann.com>:
He doesn't know the meaning of "mutually exclusive".
Bob Casanova
Sure. It's also irrelevant, and not really true; one need
not be greedy to be cheated.