Berry's paradox, tautology and evolution naming conventions
backspace
=== Tautology naming conventions ===
* 'Necessary truth', axiom or logical validity '''Tautology<sub>1</
sub>'''.
* Tautological expression '''Tautology<sub>2</sub>'''.
* Rhetorical tautology '''Tautology<sub>3</sub>'''
* Logical tautology '''Tautology<sub>4</sub>'''
* Truthiness-tautology or hidden tautology, combines a truism with
saying the same thing twice '''Tautology<sub>5</sub>'''
* Strawtology '''Tautology<sub>6</sub>'''
* Questology '''Tautology<sub>7</sub>'''
* DoubleTautology '''Tautology<sub>8</sub>'''Tautology used in such a
way that the [[PatternOrDesign]] distinction isn't clear. Many are of
the view that the pattern design distinction is a false dichotomy,
that ''design is subset of pattern'' as [[HoWard1]] put it. Evolution
was the symbol used by [[CharlesKingsley]] in his interpretation of
Darwin(1863) in the "....absolute empire of accident.... sense -
''Evolution<sub>1</sub>''. The sentence "...the engineer evolved the
bridge...." would be in the design sense - ''Evolution2''.
''Evolution<sub>3</sub>'' would be the sense [[HoWard1]], Wilkins and
Dawkins uses it , they reject the [[PatternOrDesign]] dichotomy.
Wilkins uses natural , rarified , ordinary, non-complex and simple
design (http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/
PatternOrDesign#Wilkins_on_rarified_.2C_simple.2C_natural_design),
whether in ''Evolution<sub>1</sub>'' , ''Evolution<sub>2</sub>'' or
''Evolution<sub>No idea what I am trying to say</sub>''isn't clear.
From a theist perspective there is only a pattern(''Evolution<sub>1</
sub>'') or design(''Evolution<sub>2</sub>''). An ''apparent design''
depending on context still resorts under the rubric of pattern.
''Evolution<sub>4</sub>'' would be in the "....it looks designed, but
is only apparent design...". It all depends through which language
wormhole Wilkins and Dawkins are tunneling as they invent their own
reality in [[HumptyDumpty]] space, what particular semantic parallel
universe they are in. It is possible that as their syntactic flux
capacitor was charging up to go back to the future , it had a short
circuit and instead went forward to the past - who knows?
The first four types of tautologies are listed in that order because
most people of conflicting [[world view]]s would agree on their
definitions. From five to eight is wide op for debate and one's
[[world view]] would influence whether the definitions are valid. The
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern entry is really ''design
patterns''. It all depends what the concept is because any word even
"pattern" or "random" can be used in the pattern or design sense. In
one context pattern is a proxy for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness,
while a "selection out of a random pattern" is a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sample. Under [[Naming
Conventions]] is a list of the intended meanings with Evolution,
Tautology, Random, design etc.
== http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Naming_Conventions ==
=== Subscript usage ===
The subscript '''<sub>x</sub>''' is used to denote that a user of the
symbols design, pattern, random , evolve etc. hasn't documented in
what type of [[PatternOrDesign]] sense the words are being used or
that user of these semantic tools don't know what he is trying to say.
== Tautology ==
* 'Necessary truth', axiom or logical validity '''Tautology<sub>1</
sub>'''.
* Tautological expression '''Tautology<sub>2</sub>'''.
* Rhetorical tautology '''Tautology<sub>3</sub>'''
* Logical tautology '''Tautology<sub>4</sub>'''
* Truthiness-tautology or hidden tautology, combines a truism with
saying the same thing twice '''Tautology<sub>5</sub>'''
* Strawtology '''Tautology<sub>6</sub>'''
* Questology '''Tautology<sub>7</sub>'''
* DoubleTautology '''Tautology<sub>8</sub>'''Tautology used in such a
way that the [[PatternOrDesign]] distinction isn't clear.
The first four types of tautologies are listed in that order because
most people of conflicting [[world view]]s would agree on their
definitions. From five to eight is wide op for debate and one's
[[world view]] would influence whether the definitions are valid.
== Evolution ==
* ''Evolution<sub>1</sub>'' Used by [[CharlesKingsley]] in his
interpretation of Darwin(1863) in the "....absolute empire of
accident...." or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness sense.
* ''Evolution<sub>2</sub>''. The sentence "...the engineer evolved the
bridge...." would be in the design sense as theists understand
''design'' from their [[PatternOrDesign]] dichotomy [[world view]].
* ''Evolution<sub>3</sub>'' would be the sense [[HoWard1]], Wilkins
and Dawkins uses it , they reject the [[PatternOrDesign]] dichotomy.
[[HoWard1]] would say "...the engineer evolved the bridge...." but
means by that ".... design<sub>x</sub> is subset of pattern<sub>x</
sub>....." which could mean that all design is just "apparent design"
because the mind is an illusion created by chemical reactions in the
brain.
* ''Evolution<sub>4</sub>'' - Wilkins uses natural , rarified ,
ordinary, non-complex and simple design (http://scratchpad.wikia.com/
wiki/PatternOrDesign#Wilkins_on_rarified_.2C_simple.
2C_natural_design), whether in ''Evolution<sub>1</sub>'' ,
''Evolution<sub>2</sub>'' or ''Evolution<sub>No idea what I am trying
to say</sub>''isn't clear.
* ''Evolution<sub>5</sub>'' Rejects 1 to 4.
* ''Evolution<sub>6a</sub>'' Evolutionist that accepts
''Evolution<sub>3</sub>'' but rejects the multi-universe theory.
[[Nick Keighley]] from the [[Wikipedia selection article]] thread.
* ''Evolution<sub>6b</sub>'' Evolutionist that accepts
''Evolution<sub>3</sub>'' and accepts the multi-universe theory.
[[RichardDawkins]] most probably.
* [[EvolVere]] - Ontology or history of the word must be explored.
From a YEC theist perspective there is only a
pattern(''Evolution<sub>1</sub>'') or design(''Evolution<sub>2</
sub>'') distinction. He believes it like he believes the sun is
shining and can't therefore be expected to "suspend" his religious
metaphysical beliefs and enter [[HumptyDumpty]] space when engaging
with non-theists. The theist and non-theist inhabit separate language
realities, but the non-theist are using symbols such as evolution,
selection which before 1859 was used by theists to project their
[[world view]] in terms of a pattern(''Evolution<sub>1</sub>'') or
design(''Evolution<sub>2</sub>'') dichotomy. With the result that it
has become impossible to determine what YEC, ID and atheist
apollogetics movements are trying to say.
[[DavidBerlinski]], Ken Ham, Dembski and Dawkins are deriving
substantial revenue from books and seminars making it a disincentive
to clarify what they mean with tautology, selection, design and
evolution, since the words themselves have no meaning. A great way to
make money from selling books is to have the YEC, ID and Atheist side
never define their terms so one can't say whether either side was
right or wrong after finishing "The design inference" by Dembski,
resulting in the searching soul buying yet another book such as "The
Devils delusion" by [[DavidBerlinski]] or "The God delusion" by
Dawkins.
The evolutionists of today characterize [[CharlesKingsley]],
[[JohnBurroughs]] and [[HenryFairfieldOsborn]] as not being "true
evolutionists" or not understanding the concept, which is the [[No
True Scotsman]] fallacy.
Many scientists have two religious belief systems one on Sunday at
church and the other one on Monday and they tunnel through a semantic
wormhole between the two by invoking the [[HumptyDumpty]] principle.
Trouble with this is that the Lord Jesus Christ will remove their
names from the book of life if they invoke the [[HumptyDumpty]]
principle their religion is futile, God demands that one have
consistent belief system on Sunday and Monday when writing that
journal paper. Your decision is between your immortal soul and
inserting "natural selection" into that paper on transition matrices
in the biophysics journal. The ''Evolution<sub>3</sub>'' adherents
don't care what you believe on Sunday as long you write that the
transition matrix that maps polypeptide space into frog space got
naturaled on Monday. ([[VerbingNouns]]). In the same manner it was
allowed for the early Xtians to worship Christ as long as they also
said "Caesar is Lord".
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>[[DavidBerlinski]], Ken Ham, Dembski and Dawkins are deriving
>substantial revenue from books and seminars making it a disincentive
>to clarify what they mean with tautology, selection, design and
>evolution, since the words themselves have no meaning.
speaking of words having no meanging, these comments, taken out of
context, are without meaning.
certainly science thrives on clear, measureable defintiions. which is
why it's made progress
creationism? 2000 years of failure. saying 'god did it' doesnt tell
you much about anyting
>
>Many scientists have two religious belief systems one on Sunday at
>church and the other one on Monday and they tunnel through a semantic
>wormhole between the two by invoking the [[HumptyDumpty]] principle.
>Trouble with this is that the Lord Jesus Christ will remove their
>names from the book of life if they invoke the [[HumptyDumpty]]
>principle their religion is futile
fine. let god have at his business. you guys have been telling us
about god for thousands of years
so far that's all you've done. talk. you've been WRONG about
creationism, so your views of god are...ahem...without merit
, God demands that one have
>consistent belief system on Sunday and Monday when writing that
>journal paper. Your decision is between your immortal soul and
>inserting "natural selection" into that paper on transition matrices
>in the biophysics journal. The ''Evolution<sub>3</sub>'' adherents
>don't care what you believe on Sunday as long you write that the
>transition matrix that maps polypeptide space into frog space got
>naturaled on Monday. ([[VerbingNouns]]). In the same manner it was
>allowed for the early Xtians to worship Christ as long as they also
>said "Caesar is Lord".
if and only if you believe evolution is in contradiction to religoius
belief
it's not.
Jerry Freedman
David Hare-Scott
Give us the abstract, say less than 100 words, state your main point
concisely leaving out all the asides, references, arguments and details.
David
backspace
It is an attempt at using subscripts to denote what an author means
with "Evolution". The snipped material is in wikia format and reads
propper on the wiki page as given. I lifted the idea from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry%27s_paradox
The Berry paradox as formulated above arises because of systematic
ambiguity in the word "definable". In other formulations of the Berry
paradox, such as one that instead reads: "...not nameable in less..."
the term "nameable" is also one that has this systematic ambiguity.
Terms of this kind give rise to vicious circle fallacies. Other terms
with this type of ambiguity are: satisfiable, true, false, function,
property, class, relation, cardinal, and ordinal.[2] To resolve one
of these paradoxes means to pinpoint exactly where our use of language
went wrong and to provide restrictions on the use of language which
may avoid them.
The argument presented above that "Since there are infinitely many
positive integers, this means that there are positive integers that
cannot be defined by phrases of under eleven words" assumes that
"there must be an integer defined by this expression". This is
counterfactual, as most phrases "under eleven words" are ambiguous to
their defining of an integer, with this ten word paradox being an
example. Assuming one can match word phrases to numbers is a mistaken
assumption.[3]
More rigorously, this family of paradoxes can be resolved by
incorporating stratifications of meaning in language. Terms with
systematic ambiguity may be written with subscripts denoting that one
level of meaning is considered a higher priority than another in their
interpretation. The number not nameable0 in less than eleven words'
may be nameable1 in less than eleven words under this scheme.[4]
backspace
http://bit.ly/99VUSz
Prof. Herrmann at http://www.serve.com/herrmann/omni.htm wrote ".....A
language, as we know it, if improperly applied along with classical
logic can lead to meaningless statements when meaningful phrases are
employed....The fact that there exists millions of meaningless
statements in the sense of classical logic is relevant in that it
shows that the descriptive power of any human language is limited...".
This section is an attempt at showing why "You are adapted to your
environment or condition of existence" , "....measuring
fitness ....." , "....differences in individual genotypes affect
fitness.....", "....fitnesses of individuals depend on the environment
in which the individuals live......" , "....fitness is the height of
the landscape....." , "....fitness measures the quantity genes in the
next generation...." is really just as meaningless as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously.
DavidBerlinski wrote ".... if pigs had wheels mounted on ball bearings
instead of trotters, on what scale of porcine fitness would they
be..?" In other words Berlinski is saying that "fitness" can't be
measured.
backspace
> if and only if you believe evolution is in contradiction to religoius
> belief
You didn't denote a subscript are you referring to Evolution1,
2,3,4,5, 6a or 6b as outlined at
http://bit.ly/bHI3jR
David Hare-Scott
Well you failed to give any hint at all what your point is and also removed
any remaining shred of relevance to TO. But why not let that pass.
Here is a radical thought, instead of another few circuits through the mire
of words games how about we get on topic. Tell us in your own words:
- how did the diversity of life that we see in the world today get there.
Please take all the words you like as long as they address that specific
topic. This is a genuine question, I really want to know.
David
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 16, 12:52�am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> The snipped material wanders so much I have no idea what it is about.
>>
>> Give us the abstract, say less than 100 words, state your main point
>> concisely leaving out all the asides, references, arguments and details.
>>
>> David
>
>http://bit.ly/99VUSz
>Prof. Herrmann at http://www.serve.com/herrmann/omni.htm wrote ".....A
>language, as we know it, if improperly applied along with classical
>logic can lead to meaningless statements when meaningful phrases are
>employed..
yeah. 'god did it' is one such phrase. no meaning at all
...The fact that there exists millions of meaningless
>statements in the sense of classical logic is relevant in that it
>shows that the descriptive power of any human language is limited...".
>
>This section is an attempt at showing why "You are adapted to your
>environment or condition of existence" , "..
looks pretty meaningful to me. of course, scientists speak a language
that 3rd century mentalities, such as creationists, can't understand.
it's pretty hard to understand science when you think angels and magic
are responsible for events in the natural world
...measuring
>fitness ....." , "....differences in individual genotypes affect
>fitness.....", "....fitnesses of individuals depend on the environment
>in which the individuals live......" , "....fitness is the height of
>the landscape....." , "....fitness measures the quantity genes in the
>next generation...." is really just as meaningless as
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously.
>DavidBerlinski wrote ".... if pigs had wheels mounted on ball bearings
>instead of trotters, on what scale of porcine fitness would they
>be..?" In other words Berlinski is saying that "fitness" can't be
>measured.
fitness can be measured. see the wikipedia article on fitness. there's
a pretty straightforward measurement by looking at gene frequency
changes over time.
which is one way to define evolution
and how does one measure 'god did it'?
bpuharic
it was referring directly to the paragragh under which i posted my
response.
language...learn how to use it.
backspace
> - how did the diversity of life that we see in the world today get there.
Language.
backspace
> On Sat, 15 May 2010 23:40:23 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>
> >On May 16, 12:52�am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> The snipped material wanders so much I have no idea what it is about.
>
> >> Give us the abstract, say less than 100 words, state your main point
> >> concisely leaving out all the asides, references, arguments and details.
>
> >> David
>
> >http://bit.ly/99VUSz
Darwin and Spencer that Darwin interpreted didn't know about genes,
how did they solve a problem they couldn't define?
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Darwin and Spencer that Darwin interpreted didn't know about genes,
>how did they solve a problem they couldn't define?
because their issue was not genes. they were not trying to MEASURE
fitness. they were trying to define the MECHANISM of DESCENT WITH
MODIFICATION.
so, again, you are confused.
David Hare-Scott
If you don't want to answer the question then say so and we can forget it.
David
Burkhard
I think he meant this quite literally. Figuring out his belief is not
easy, but it seems a christianised version of the idea that we are
just part of the Brahma dreaming - we are part of god talking, which
is why words (by mortals) don't have meaning, or something like this.
Diversity is hence spoken into existence
backspace
John 1: 1 ".... In the beginning was the word and the word was with
God and the Word was God...."
Every single thing that exists first existed in a mind, like a bridge,
computer and transition matrices in biophysics journals, quarks,
leptons and electrons don't exist. They are language math abstractions
not physical particles.
backspace
> On Sun, 16 May 2010 04:29:40 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>
>
> >Darwin and Spencer that Darwin interpreted didn't know about genes,
> >how did they solve a problem they couldn't define?
> because their issue was not genes. they were not trying to MEASURE
> fitness.
fitness has no meaning, it represented the "suitability" idea as in
whites more suitable than blacks.
> they were trying to define the MECHANISM of DESCENT WITH
> MODIFICATION.
Did Darwin use modification in the patter or design sense?
Free Lunch
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On May 16, 4:39�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On 16 May, 14:25, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> > backspace wrote:
>> > > On May 16, 9:27 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> > >> - how did the diversity of life that we see in the world today get
>> > >> there.
>>
>> > > Language.
>>
>> > If you don't want to answer the question then say so and we can forget it.
>>
>> > David
>>
>> I think he meant this quite literally. Figuring out his belief is not
>> easy, but it seems a christianised version of the idea that we are
>> just part of the Brahma dreaming - we are part of god talking, which
>> is why words (by mortals) �don't have meaning, or something like this.
>> Diversity is hence spoken into existence
>
>John 1: 1 ".... In the beginning was the word and the word was with
>God and the Word was God...."
You can quote the Bible. So what?
>Every single thing that exists first existed in a mind, like a bridge,
>computer and transition matrices in biophysics journals, quarks,
>leptons and electrons don't exist. They are language math abstractions
>not physical particles.
You have things backward, but that is not unusual for you.
Free Lunch
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On May 16, 2:10�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 04:29:40 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>>
>> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Darwin and Spencer that Darwin interpreted didn't know about genes,
>> >how did they solve a problem they couldn't define?
>
>> because their issue was not genes. they were not trying to MEASURE
>> fitness.
>
>fitness has no meaning, it represented the "suitability" idea as in
>whites more suitable than blacks.
No, fitness as in "how well does this organism fit into its ecological
niche compared with other competing organisms?"
>> they were trying to define the MECHANISM of DESCENT WITH
>> MODIFICATION.
>
>Did Darwin use modification in the patter or design sense?
I don't recall that he ever assumed teleology.
backspace
> On Sun, 16 May 2010 09:02:52 -0700 (PDT), backspace
Has anybody ever seen an electron , quark or lepton? Some of these
particles don't have mass because they don't exist. A magnetic field
can be "felt" by holding two magnets but nobody knows what is the
actual particles pushing the magnets, they have not been seen.
What is magnetism?
Free Lunch
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Something that existed before it was observed by humans or described by
them.
backspace
> On Sun, 16 May 2010 09:04:20 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>
> >On May 16, 2:10�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 16 May 2010 04:29:40 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>
> >> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Darwin and Spencer that Darwin interpreted didn't know about genes,
> >> >how did they solve a problem they couldn't define?
>
> >> because their issue was not genes. they were not trying to MEASURE
> >> fitness.
>
> >fitness has no meaning, it represented the "suitability" idea as in
> >whites more suitable than blacks.
>
> No, fitness as in "how well does this organism fit into its ecological
> niche compared with other competing organisms?"
Who says and if nobody says so because it is obvious then that is the
problem. No scientific theory is obvious, not one.
Free Lunch
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Fitness is a description as part of the theory.
backspace
> On Sun, 16 May 2010 10:22:42 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>
>
>
> >On May 16, 6:19�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 16 May 2010 09:04:20 -0700 (PDT), backspace
> >> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>
> >> >On May 16, 2:10�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 16 May 2010 04:29:40 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>
> >> >> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >Darwin and Spencer that Darwin interpreted didn't know about genes,
> >> >> >how did they solve a problem they couldn't define?
>
> >> >> because their issue was not genes. they were not trying to MEASURE
> >> >> fitness.
>
> >> >fitness has no meaning, it represented the "suitability" idea as in
> >> >whites more suitable than blacks.
>
> >> No, fitness as in "how well does this organism fit into its ecological
> >> niche compared with other competing organisms?"
>
> >Who says and if nobody says so because it is obvious then that is the
> >problem. No scientific theory is obvious, not one.
>
> Fitness is a description as part of the theory.
You mean Darwin's theory?
David Hare-Scott
> On May 16, 4:39 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On 16 May, 14:25, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> backspace wrote:
>>>> On May 16, 9:27 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>> - how did the diversity of life that we see in the world today get
>>>>> there.
>>
>>>> Language.
>>
>>> If you don't want to answer the question then say so and we can
>>> forget it.
>>
>>> David
>>
>> I think he meant this quite literally. Figuring out his belief is not
>> easy, but it seems a christianised version of the idea that we are
>> just part of the Brahma dreaming - we are part of god talking, which
>> is why words (by mortals) don't have meaning, or something like this.
>> Diversity is hence spoken into existence
>
> John 1: 1 ".... In the beginning was the word and the word was with
> God and the Word was God...."
>
> Every single thing that exists first existed in a mind, like a bridge,
> computer and transition matrices in biophysics journals, quarks,
> leptons and electrons don't exist. They are language math abstractions
> not physical particles.
Ah.... Maya. You and Kalkidas would get on well if you could only agree on
some canons. As for the rest of us I am afraid you are typing nonsense.
But since you don't exist I cannot read it so all is well.
No communication is ever going to be possible between us so I will try to
stop bothering you.
David
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>John 1: 1 ".... In the beginning was the word and the word was with
>God and the Word was God...."
beginning of what? who was the 1st person to say this? what were his
pragmatics?
john 1:1 is meaningless and tautological
>
>Every single thing that exists first existed in a mind,
what is a 'mind'?
that's a tautology
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> You can quote the Bible. So what?
>>
>> >Every single thing that exists first existed in a mind, like a bridge,
>> >computer and transition matrices in biophysics journals, quarks,
>> >leptons and electrons don't exist. They are language math abstractions
>> >not physical particles.
>>
>> You have things backward, but that is not unusual for you.
>
>Has anybody ever seen an electron , quark or lepton
?? what does this have to do with anything? we didnt even see atoms
until the 50's yet we knew they existed.
? Some of these
>particles don't have mass because they don't exist
hey genius...some particles dont have mass BECAUSE they exist. photons
have no mass, but if you've ever seen an item lighted by light you've
used photons.
.. A magnetic field
>can be "felt" by holding two magnets but nobody knows what is the
>actual particles pushing the magnets
really? care to prove that?
, they have not been seen.
>
>What is magnetism?
it's the exchange of photons. ever hear of light?
radio waves?
don't they have light in south africa?
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 16, 2:10�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 04:29:40 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>>
>> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Darwin and Spencer that Darwin interpreted didn't know about genes,
>> >how did they solve a problem they couldn't define?
>
>> because their issue was not genes. they were not trying to MEASURE
>> fitness.
>
>fitness has no meaning, it represented the "suitability" idea as in
>whites more suitable than blacks.
which type of fitness are you referring to? differential reproduction
is a consequence of fitness. we can test the idea
an idea that is testable is, by definition, meaningful
i can't help it that your language skills are medieval, due to your
religious fanaticism
>
>
>> they were trying to define the MECHANISM of DESCENT WITH
>> MODIFICATION.
>
>Did Darwin use modification in the patter or design sense?
it's useless to give you an answer. it's like explaining bacteria to
a witchdoctor. you can not understand it.
bpuharic
well in a sense that's true. that's why science wasnt discovered until
about 400 years ago
and it's why you dont understand it. your religious views have caused
a collapse of your language skills.
William Morse
"God demands that one have
consistent belief system on Sunday and Monday when writing that
journal paper."
that God has created a mountain of evidence (fossils and DNA) that are
inconsistent with a belief in religion. There are two simple ways to
reconcile this. Either evolution is not in contradiction with religious
belief, or God has created a huge body of evidence designed to mislead
people. Are you seriously arguing the latter?
backspace
At least we agree on something: At some point in time the debate
between theists and non-theist must come to a closure because of their
fundamental different metaphysical belief systems.
backspace
> On Sun, 16 May 2010 09:04:20 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>
> >On May 16, 2:10�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 16 May 2010 04:29:40 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>
> >> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Darwin and Spencer that Darwin interpreted didn't know about genes,
> >> >how did they solve a problem they couldn't define?
>
> >> because their issue was not genes. they were not trying to MEASURE
> >> fitness.
>
> >fitness has no meaning, it represented the "suitability" idea as in
> >whites more suitable than blacks.
>
> which type of fitness are you referring to? differential reproduction
> is a consequence of fitness. we can test the idea
Which idea is testable, because Darwin never said differential
reproduction. The person that said DR - who is he and what technical
concept does it represent ? Note that if such a concept like "what
happens happens" is obvious then it isn't a scientific theory.
backspace
Show me a single fossil that you know had a baby. IF Tiktaalik had no
kids, how could he be the ancestor of anybody? Thus you are begging
the question, reasoning in a circle. Your premise that we descended
from a CA is contained in your conclusion. The dead bones isn't a
fossil "record", they don't come with name tags on them saying this T-
rex bone is 70mil years old. All you have is dead bones, not a single
one of which you know had any kids.
Burkhard
I know each generation thinks it has invented sex, but that is really
just the conceit of youth. Animals, including human animals, had sex
and reproduced always - the fossil record shows they had the necessary
equipment, too. and of course , we also have fossilised eggs.
Erwin Moller
> On May 17, 4:54 am, William Morse <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> backspace wrote:
>>> On May 15, 6:10 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> if and only if you believe evolution is in contradiction to religoius
>>>> belief
>>> You didn't denote a subscript are you referring to Evolution1,
>>> 2,3,4,5, 6a or 6b as outlined at
>>> http://bit.ly/bHI3jR
>> I am sorry,sir, but you seem to be claiming :
>>
>> "God demands that one have
>> consistent belief system on Sunday and Monday when writing that
>> journal paper."
>>
>> that God has created a mountain of evidence (fossils and DNA) that are
>> inconsistent with a belief in religion. There are two simple ways to
>> reconcile this. Either evolution is not in contradiction with religious
>> belief, or God has created a huge body of evidence designed to mislead
>> people. Are you seriously arguing the latter?
>
> Show me a single fossil that you know had a baby.
Are eggs going to convince you?
No, I think not.
They were planted there by God too to mislead us. Of course.
I wonder: What kind of evidence do you EXCACTLY expect that fossils had
children (before they fossilized)?
A diary?
Some grocery notes that include kidsfood?
Seriously: Answer that: What would convince you?
> IF Tiktaalik had no
> kids, how could he be the ancestor of anybody? Thus you are begging
> the question, reasoning in a circle.
The irony....
> Your premise that we descended
> from a CA is contained in your conclusion. The dead bones isn't a
> fossil "record", they don't come with name tags on them saying this T-
> rex bone is 70mil years old. All you have is dead bones, not a single
> one of which you know had any kids.
>
If you see a car wreck, without the abovementioned tags saying what is
what and how it happened, you probably conclude that God planted the car
there to test your faith.
You insist in your twisted worldview.
You have no evidence, only scriptures and your own interpretation of it.
You think that is better somehow than scientific evidence.
Some forms of insanity can be cured. But not all.
On a sidenote: Attacking evolution won't make your God any more real
than he is today....
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
backspace
> i can't help it that your language skills are medieval, due to your
> religious fanaticism
You've said this now about 300 times, we all heard you the first time.
J. J. Lodder
This one good enough for you?
<http://www.lucasbrouwers.nl/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/ichthyosaur
-giving-birth.jpg>
Jan
Ernest Major
<5b5cd26c-46d6-4559...@y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
backspace <steph...@gmail.com> writes
Your whole oeuvre consists of arguing from your pragmatic incompetence,
real or feigned, in the English language, that common descent with
modification through the agency of natural selection and other processes
is not factual.
We were impressed with the silliness of this argument the first time.
Now, it's just boring.
--
alias Ernest Major
Burkhard
> On May 17, 4:54�am, William Morse <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > backspace wrote:
> > > On May 15, 6:10 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> if and only if you believe evolution is in contradiction to religoius
> > >> belief
>
> > > You didn't denote a subscript are you referring to Evolution1,
> > > 2,3,4,5, 6a or 6b as outlined at
> > >http://bit.ly/bHI3jR
>
> > I am sorry,sir, but you seem to be claiming :
>
> > "God demands that one have
> > consistent belief system on Sunday and Monday when writing that
> > journal paper."
>
> > that God has created a mountain of evidence (fossils and DNA) that are
> > inconsistent with a belief in religion. There are two simple ways to
> > reconcile this. Either evolution is not in contradiction with religious
> > belief, or God has created a huge body of evidence designed to mislead
> > people. Are you seriously arguing the latter?
>
> Show me a single fossil that you know had a baby.
Here is a rather interesting one:
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=114086
Kermit
At last! A comprehensible, if somewhat silly, question about actual
evidence.
1. We can be pretty sure that if we see a fossil tiktaalik that its
parents were having babies. Moreover, there would have been more than
the three that we can infer from a single individual. One individual
requires a population.
2. Somewhere there are the remains of your great-great grandfather. Is
this were found, why do you think that it would be evidence either for
or against that individual having children?
3. The vast majority of species have gone extinct, most of them
without evolving into something else. Why do you think that this is
in any way evidence which is a problem for evolutionary science? What
would you expect to be *different if evolution were true? (And of
course it is, but why do *you think this is a problem?)
Kermit
Kermit
> On May 16, 12:52�am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > The snipped material wanders so much I have no idea what it is about.
>
> > Give us the abstract, say less than 100 words, state your main point
> > concisely leaving out all the asides, references, arguments and details.
>
> > David
>
> It is an attempt at using subscripts to denote what an author means
> with "Evolution". The snipped material is in wikia format and reads
> propper on the wiki page as given. I lifted the idea fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry%27s_paradox
>
> The Berry paradox as formulated above arises because of systematic
> ambiguity �in the word "definable". In other formulations of the Berry
> paradox, such as one that instead reads: "...not nameable in less..."
> the term "nameable" is also one that has this systematic ambiguity.
> Terms of this kind give rise to vicious circle fallacies.
*All definitions are circular in the end. This is neither vicious, nor
fallacious.
<snip>
Kermit
Kermit
However, your profound misunderstanding of language usage implies that
your metaphysics is also confused. If you can't speak clearly, can you
think clearly?
Kermit
Kermit
> On May 16, 2:10�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 16 May 2010 04:29:40 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>
> > <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >Darwin and Spencer that Darwin interpreted didn't know about genes,
> > >how did they solve a problem they couldn't define?
> > because their issue was not genes. they were not trying to MEASURE
> > fitness.
>
> fitness has no meaning, it represented the "suitability" idea as in
> whites more suitable than blacks.
Whites *are more suitable, if you are talking about absorbing vitamin
D from weaker sunlight on a chronic basis. Dark skinned folks, e.g.
sub-Shaharan Africans and Australian aborigines, are more resistent to
*damage from strong sunlight. Other minor physical differences in
various ethnic groups, such as long and thin body builds, or larger
noses, are adaptations to other conditions (such as cold or dry air,
heat dissipation, etc.) Most ethnic physical differences seem to be
merely a result of genetic drift, and are trivial.
There are no discernible other significant differences.
>
> > they were trying to define the MECHANISM of DESCENT WITH
> > MODIFICATION.
>
> Did Darwin use modification in the patter or design sense?
Yes.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
********************************************************
Design, NOUN:
1. a. A drawing or sketch.
b. A graphic representation, especially a detailed plan for
construction or manufacture.
2. The purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details: the
aerodynamic design of an automobile; furniture of simple but elegant
design.
3. The art or practice of designing or making designs.
4. Something designed, especially a decorative or an artistic work.
5. An ornamental pattern. See Synonyms at figure.
6. A basic scheme or pattern that affects and controls function or
development: the overall design of an epic poem.
7. A plan; a project. See Synonyms at plan.
8.
a. A reasoned purpose; an intent: It was her design to set up
practice on her own as soon as she was qualified.
b. Deliberate intention: He became a photographer more by
accident than by design.
9. A secretive plot or scheme. Often used in the plural: He has
designs on my job.
******************************************************************************
Note especially definition 6. You can babble about this all you like;
dictionaries reflect word usage. Design does not require anybody's
intent. It's irrelevant anyway; semantic arguments do not make the
evidence go away.
Kermit
Kermit
Many people have said so, and you have been provided links. Your
incompetence with language is not a problem for science.
Kermit
Kermit
Sorry, but Jesus never spoke English. I suppose that means that
nothing you say in English in meaningful, and therefore has no
possibility of being true.
Perhaps if you recorded and then transcribed one of your glossolaliac
seizures you might present a more persuasive argument.
Kermit
Kermit
But you usually seem to be arguing that evolutionary science can't be
right because you can't use language in a meaningful way. If you
present the same wrong argument over and over, then how else are we to
respond, except in the usual way?
As far as I can tell, you have only addressed the evidence in one
somewhat ambiguous way. When you say "tiktaalik", do you mean the
species, or each of the three individuals which left fossilized
remains which were found about 6 years ago?
In other words, when you ask "How do we know tiktaalik had babies?"
are you asking:
1. How do we know each of those three individuals had descendants,
because evolutionary theory predicts we are tiktaalik descendants? (It
doesn't, and if it did, it wouldn't have to be those particular
individuals.)
2. How do we know that the species which produced those three
individuals had babies? (I can't even imagine what this would mean.)
3. Something else.
Kermit
backspace
p.56
"...fitness is not concerned as an end in itself, but rather with
survival as a means to reproduction..."
First fallacy is that Mr.Fitness has no concerns he doesn't exist.
What the author meant is that Uncle Herby who'm Darwin called "....
one of the greatest thinkers in the history of mankind...." has
something to say about survival.
Whatever Uncle Herby had to say , what possible relevance could
Spencer with his ".... blacks respond to their white masters like tail
wagging Cocker Spanials...." have to do with explaining the
topological math theory of embryos turning into a object symbolically
representing the higher layer abstraction of IPC - inverted pendulum
control?
backspace
> On May 17, 1:53锟絘m, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 17, 4:54锟絘m, William Morse <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > backspace wrote:
> > > > On May 15, 6:10 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >> if and only if you believe evolution is in contradiction to religoius
> > > >> belief
>
> > > > You didn't denote a subscript are you referring to Evolution1,
> > > > 2,3,4,5, 6a or 6b as outlined at
> > > >http://bit.ly/bHI3jR
>
> > > I am sorry,sir, but you seem to be claiming :
>
> > > "God demands that one have
> > > consistent belief system on Sunday and Monday when writing that
> > > journal paper."
>
> > > that God has created a mountain of evidence (fossils and DNA) that are
> > > inconsistent with a belief in religion. There are two simple ways to
> > > reconcile this. Either evolution is not in contradiction with religious
> > > belief, or God has created a huge body of evidence designed to mislead
> > > people. Are you seriously arguing the latter?
>
> > Show me a single fossil that you know had a baby. IF Tiktaalik had no
> > kids, how could he be the ancestor of anybody? Thus you are begging
> > the question, reasoning in a circle. Your premise that we descended
> > fossil "record", they don't come with name tags on them saying this T-
> > rex bone is 70mil years old. All you have is dead bones, not a single
> > one of which you know had any kids.
>
> At last! A comprehensible, if somewhat silly, question about actual
> evidence.
> 1. We can be pretty sure that if we see a fossil tiktaalik that its
> parents were having babies. Moreover, there would have been more than
> the three that we can infer from a single individual. One individual
> requires a population.
What if they all died in a local or regional or global flood?
> 3. The vast majority of species have gone extinct, most of them
> without evolving into something else.
begging the question again, you can't assume your premise in your
conclusion
backspace
> In message
> <5b5cd26c-46d6-4559-ba53-847ecc3c2...@y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> writes>On May 17, 2:12�am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> i can't help it that your language skills are medieval, due to your
> >> religious fanaticism
>
> >You've said this now about 300 times, we all heard you the first time.
>
> It's rather hypocritical of you to criticise others for repetitiveness.
> Your whole oeuvre consists of arguing from your pragmatic incompetence,
> real or feigned, in the English language, that common descent with
> modification through the agency of natural selection and other processes
> is not factual.
Is "agency" being used in the pattern or design sense?
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/PatternOrDesign
backspace
Agreed because the symbol design has no meaning, it all depends what
you are trying to say. Design the symbol would then be used to
represent such a concept in the either pattern or design sense because
in my religious metaphysical belief system there is only this
dichotomy.
backspace
> But you usually seem to be arguing that evolutionary science can't be
> right because you can't use language in a meaningful way.
by evolutionary science you mean ToE?
My position has been stated clearly at
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology#Darwin.27s_.27Theory_of_Evolution.27_-_what_theory.3F
Darwin used the term ToE twice but the actual passages were rhetorical
tautologies, propositions which can't be disputed. Because the symbol
ToE has no meaning, it only represented an idea by Darwin within his
context. What is meant today with ToE is undefined.
Like Neo-Darwinism is also undefined, nowhere on the wikipedia is
stated what is in actual reality the modern synthesis. Note Neo-
Darwinism and Modern synthesis are two separate symbols for the same
ideas as used in journals from 1940 onwards.
Ernest Major
<f8c8d15f-62ec-4e92...@t14g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
backspace <steph...@gmail.com> writes
Turing Test.) But, anyway, thank you for demonstrating your hypocrisy
again.
--
alias Ernest Major
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://books.google.co.za/books?id=uBu0pWK4rzIC&pg=PA55&dq=darwin+tautology&hl=en&ei=ZzXwS6b8L5KC_AbfgYn_CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=darwin%20tautology&f=false
>
>p.56
>"...fitness is not concerned as an end in itself, but rather with
>survival as a means to reproduction..."
>
>First fallacy is that Mr.Fitness has no concerns he doesn't exist.
really? seems he does. the author you quote mentions how he behaves
bpuharic
you've asked this now about 300 times. we all heard you the first time
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 17, 4:55�pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> But you usually seem to be arguing that evolutionary science can't be
>> right because you can't use language in a meaningful way.
>
>by evolutionary science you mean ToE?
>
>My position has been stated clearly at
>http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology#Darwin.27s_.27Theory_of_Evolution.27_-_what_theory.3F
>
>Darwin used the term ToE twice but the actual passages were rhetorical
>tautologies,
in your opinion. you have failed to demonstrate this. what you HAVE
shown is that your 4th century view of language is unable to handle
modern ideas in science
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 17, 2:12�am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 May 2010 09:04:20 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>>
>>
>> which type of fitness are you referring to? differential reproduction
>> is a consequence of fitness. we can test the idea
>
>Which idea is testable, because Darwin never said differential
>reproduction.
now you're mixing metaphors. darwin didnt have to mention it. you
mentioned fitness and it's measureable in a way darwin did not know.
this is 2010. things have changed since 1859. i realize that, as a
creationist, you refuse to acknowledge any event that happened after
the year 400....
but that's your problem
The person that said DR - who is he and what technical
>concept does it represent ? Note that if such a concept like "what
>happens happens" is obvious then it isn't a scientific theory.
it's useless to explain it to you. you're a creationist and your
language skills can not handle scientific concepts
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>At least we agree on something: At some point in time the debate
>between theists and non-theist must come to a closure because of their
>fundamental different metaphysical belief systems.
i've been telling you that for awhile. your langauge skills are 1500
years out of date.
bpuharic
hey genius. your perverted use of lanaguage has been beaten to
death...e.g.
if you didn't use the word 'tautology'...you would have no posts at
all
David Hare-Scott
It was for those two reasons that further exchange would be a waste of time
not the "metaphysical differences".
David
David Hare-Scott
We don't really agree on this at all. I can communicate just fine with
people who hold wildly different world views and faiths but to do that we
have to use words. And there will be no closure because, amongst other
things, creationists insist that their faith changes the world, even
determines the world, in demonstable ways that they cannot actually
demonstrate. This is very much like your claims that reality is illusion
(yea yea we are all manifestations of Brahma's dreaming) and that words have
no meaning (but clearly you still type them in the expectation that they
will be understood). It's not that your metaphysics is so different it's
that it is no confused and illogical. Combine that with your erratic
stream-of-consciousness writing style and exchange becomes impossible.
David
backspace
Never said reality is an illusion. Gould stated that his mind was an
illusion created by the brain, which means that the very sentence
itself was an illusion because it was created by his brain , did he
know about Godel?
Another variation is:"... I refuse to believe in God because he can't
be absolutely proven..."
Problem is that the statement is therefore absolutely false because
the statement itself can't be absolutely proven.
Kermit
> On May 17, 4:21�pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 17, 1:53�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 17, 4:54�am, William Morse <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > backspace wrote:
> > > > > On May 15, 6:10 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > >> if and only if you believe evolution is in contradiction to religoius
> > > > >> belief
>
> > > > > You didn't denote a subscript are you referring to Evolution1,
> > > > > 2,3,4,5, 6a or 6b as outlined at
> > > > >http://bit.ly/bHI3jR
>
> > > > I am sorry,sir, but you seem to be claiming :
>
> > > > "God demands that one have
> > > > consistent belief system on Sunday and Monday when writing that
> > > > journal paper."
>
> > > > that God has created a mountain of evidence (fossils and DNA) that are
> > > > inconsistent with a belief in religion. There are two simple ways to
> > > > reconcile this. Either evolution is not in contradiction with religious
> > > > belief, or God has created a huge body of evidence designed to mislead
> > > > people. Are you seriously arguing the latter?
>
> > > Show me a single fossil that you know had a baby. IF Tiktaalik had no
> > > kids, how could he be the ancestor of anybody? Thus you are begging
> > > the question, reasoning in a circle. Your premise that we descended
> > > fossil "record", they don't come with name tags on them saying this T-
> > > rex bone is 70mil years old. All you have is dead bones, not a single
> > > one of which you know had any kids.
>
> > At last! A comprehensible, if somewhat silly, question about actual
> > evidence.
> > 1. We can be pretty sure that if we see a fossil tiktaalik that its
> > parents were having babies. Moreover, there would have been more than
> > the three that we can infer from a single individual. One individual
> > requires a population.
>
> What if they all died in a local or regional or global flood?
Then you would have the same results as far as descent goes. A few
individuals have babies, a few of which have babies, etc. Most do not
have descendants alive today.
*Your problem is that not only is there no evidence that there was
ever a global flood, but that there is positive evidence that there
was *not. Regional floods of course happen. Many fossils that we find
are clearly victims of regional floods. Again, if that were so, how
is that a problem for evolutionary science? Surely you are not
suggesting that if evolutionary theory were correct, that no
individuals would ever die by drowning!
>
> > 3. The vast majority of species have gone extinct, most of them
> > without evolving into something else.
>
> begging the question again, you can't assume your premise in your
> conclusion
I wonder if you see the irony inherent in this remark of yours.
No, we don't assume the premise; we conclude the premiss from the
evidence. Common ancestry, diversified descent by modification,
diversity produced by several factors, the most important of which is
natural selection. The nested hierarchy and the fossil record together
show us that most past lineages are extinct without descendants.
*You assume your scriptures are true, *and you assume that your
interpretation of them is infallible. Can you support either of these
claims?
Kermit
Kermit
> On May 17, 4:55�pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But you usually seem to be arguing that evolutionary science can't be
> > right because you can't use language in a meaningful way.
>
> by evolutionary science you mean ToE?
>
>
That is true, your position is clearly stated here. But it is not the
position you think you are stating. What you are saying is that you
are incapable of using language normally, and you have no reason to
either dispute the evidence nor fault the theory (model) which
explains it.
Claiming that we are using language incorrectly (even if that were a
valid and coherent claim, which it isn't) does not address either of
these matters. The evidence is still there, and the theory still
works.
> Darwin used the term ToE twice but the actual passages were rhetorical
> tautologies,
No, they weren't. It has been explained to you why they are not.
For example, if we take a large number of lab rats, measure a number
of characteristics, then expose them to cold temperatures so severe
that a significant number (say, half) were to die from exposure over
time, I could predict not only some of the characteristics of the ones
that survived, but the *inherited traits of their progeny. They would
be larger, they would have thicker fur, they would have a higher mass-
to-surface area ration, and if they had access to food, a faster
metabolism.
How the hell is this a tautology? This is differential reproductive
success of adaptive inheritable traits in a population.
> propositions which can't be disputed. Because the symbol
> ToE has no meaning,
Yet it has meaning to others. Your lack of understanding language is
not a problem for science.
And sane people understand that "science" in the above context refers
to the scientific community - their social behavior, the methodology,
and their accumulated and collective knowledge.
> it only represented an idea by Darwin within his
> context.
As are all ideas only held by a person in context. The theory - which
is what the idea is in this case - has been modified but is
recognizably derived from Darwin's. Note that typically only
Creationists fixate on Darwin. Most biologists ignore him most of the
time. Many have never read him. Why should they?
> What is meant today with ToE is undefined.
No, it's quite well understood. You seem to want to pretend to
yourself that if you can define it away, it will go away. Rather like
those medieval philosophers who thought that if you could define God
as necessarily existing, he would exist.
>
> Like Neo-Darwinism is also undefined,
No it's not. Any biological dictionary, or Wikipedia, or an
introductory biology text book, describes it.
> nowhere on the wikipedia is
> stated what is in actual reality the modern synthesis. Note Neo-
> Darwinism and Modern synthesis are two separate symbols for the same
> ideas as used in journals from 1940 onwards.
Oh, look! Here's the Wikpedia article on that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis
Are you also saying that the atomic theory is non-existent? Or is it
just when you think science threatens your eternal salvation that you
have linguistic complaints?
Kermit
backspace
> On May 17, 10:20�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 17, 4:55�pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > But you usually seem to be arguing that evolutionary science can't be
> > > right because you can't use language in a meaningful way.
>
> > by evolutionary science you mean ToE?
>
> > My position has been stated clearly athttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology#Darwin.27s_.27Theory_of_Ev...
>
> That is true, your position is clearly stated here. But it is not the
> position you think you are stating. What you are saying is that you
> are incapable of using language normally, and you have no reason to
> either dispute the evidence nor fault the theory (model) which
> explains it.
>
> Claiming that we are using language incorrectly (even if that were a
> valid and coherent claim, which it isn't) does not address either of
> these matters. The evidence is still there, and the theory still
> works.
What theory, by whom, who is this person?
> > Darwin used the term ToE twice but the actual passages were rhetorical
> > tautologies,
> No, they weren't. It has been explained to you why they are not.
> For example, if we take a large number of lab rats, measure a number
> of characteristics, then expose them to cold temperatures so severe
> that a significant number (say, half) were to die from exposure over
> time, I could predict not only some of the characteristics of the ones
> that survived, but the *inherited traits of their progeny. They would
> be larger, they would have thicker fur, they would have a higher mass-
> to-surface area ration, and if they had access to food, a faster
> metabolism.
> How the hell is this a tautology? This is differential reproductive
> success of adaptive inheritable traits in a population.
Who says differential reproductive success?
> And sane people understand that "science" in the above context refers
> to the scientific community - �their social behavior, the methodology,
> and their accumulated and collective knowledge.
> > it only represented an idea by Darwin within his
> > context.
> As are all ideas only held by a person in context. The theory - which
> is what the idea is in this case - has been modified but is
> recognizably derived from Darwin's.
who derived what, spell it out, show me the wikipedia page with this
theory - it doesn't exist.
> > �What is meant today with ToE is undefined.
> No, it's quite well understood. You seem to want to pretend to
> yourself that if you can define it away, it will go away.
What exactly will go away?
> > Like Neo-Darwinism is also undefined,
> No it's not. Any biological dictionary, or Wikipedia, or an
> introductory biology text book, describes it.
In your own words what is it?
> > nowhere on the wikipedia is
> > stated what is in actual reality the modern synthesis. Note Neo-
> > Darwinism and Modern synthesis are two separate symbols for the same
> > ideas as used in journals from 1940 onwards.
> Here's the Wikpedia article on that:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis
Yes, and it doesn't say what the theory is read it and show me the
actual journal papers. the citations they reference are from 1940.
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>What theory, by whom, who is this person?
who said 'i am the way the truth and the life'?
not jesus. he never spoke. others wrote about him but they never met
him
if you have problems with science, then you should over the top about
the stupidity of religion
>
>Yes, and it doesn't say what the theory is read it and show me the
>actual journal papers. the citations they reference are from 1940.
>
again and again you prove your language skills just arent up to
understanding science
creationism does that to you. it wrecks your language skills
William Morse
in any case you have answered my original question. You _are_ seriously
arguing that your god has created a huge body of evidence designed to
mislead people. This god you believe in apparently is Loki.
backspace
How do you know the babies had babies, who had babies in turn for
hundreds of thousands of years before that first monkey gazed up into
her mommy's big brown chocolate eyes and asked: Mommy why are teeth so
long and your tail so big?
backspace
> On May 16, 12:52锟絘m, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > The snipped material wanders so much I have no idea what it is about.
>
> > Give us the abstract, say less than 100 words, state your main point
> > concisely leaving out all the asides, references, arguments and details.
>
> > David
>
> It is an attempt at using subscripts to denote what an author means
> with "Evolution". The snipped material is in wikia format and reads
> propper on the wiki page as given. I lifted the idea fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry%27s_paradox
>
> The Berry paradox as formulated above arises because of systematic
> ambiguity 锟絠n the word "definable". In other formulations of the Berry
> paradox, such as one that instead reads: "...not nameable in less..."
> the term "nameable" is also one that has this systematic ambiguity.
> Terms of this kind give rise to vicious circle fallacies. Other terms
> with this type of ambiguity are: satisfiable, true, false, function,
> property, class, relation, cardinal, and ordinal.[2] 锟絋o resolve one
> of these paradoxes means to pinpoint exactly where our use of language
> went wrong and to provide restrictions on the use of language which
> may avoid them.
>
> The argument presented above that "Since there are infinitely many
> positive integers, this means that there are positive integers that
> cannot be defined by phrases of under eleven words" assumes that
> "there must be an integer defined by this expression". This is
> counterfactual, as most phrases "under eleven words" are ambiguous to
> their defining of an integer, with this ten word paradox being an
> example. Assuming one can match word phrases to numbers is a mistaken
> assumption.[3]
>
> More rigorously, this family of paradoxes can be resolved by
> incorporating stratifications of meaning in language. Terms with
> systematic ambiguity may be written with subscripts denoting that one
> level of meaning is considered a higher priority than another in their
> interpretation. The number not nameable0 in less than eleven words'
> may be nameable1 in less than eleven words under this scheme.[4]
After reading Berry's paradox , Godel's theorem,
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ruse-on-dawkins-delusion/
and http://www.serve.com/herrmann/omni.htm , Allan H. Orr, and Ruse
take on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion by Dawkins
arguments
1) If God made us who made God?
2) Can God make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it himself?
Are these questions a display of impeccable intellectual fortitude or
an example of lacking it a bit in the upstairs department.
backspace
What is the actual meaning of common ancestor? Does it have inherent
meaning or is it only a symbolic representation of an idea in a given
context.
1) CA between human brother and sister is their mother a human.
2) CA between monkey and man is what? A monkey or a CA , or a CA that
only looked like a monkey.
Note that Wilkins and Harshman stated that calling the CA monkey a
simian replaces one vernacular with another.
So again I ask what does CA mean? It obviously means nothing.
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>How do you know the babies had babies, who had babies in turn for
>hundreds of thousands of years before that first monkey gazed up into
>her mommy's big brown chocolate eyes and asked: Mommy why are teeth so
>long and your tail so big?
'backspace' of course, is the creationist who, when i asked him if he
was genetically different than either of his parents
shrieked that this was only a 'theory' and wanted to know who invented
it...
god these people are idiots
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>After reading Berry's paradox , Godel's theorem,
>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ruse-on-dawkins-delusion/
>and http://www.serve.com/herrmann/omni.htm , Allan H. Orr, and Ruse
>take on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion by Dawkins
>arguments
>1) If God made us who made God?
>2) Can God make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it himself?
>
>Are these questions a display of impeccable intellectual fortitude or
>an example of lacking it a bit in the upstairs department.
one can only wonder at a creationist who asks questions about parodies
all the while grasping at reason like a drowning man struggling for
air
he argues himself into circles...all the while trying to understand
how science works...
not realizing that, with his language skills fatally crippled by
creationism, he will NEVER understand science no matter HOW MUCH TIME
is spent explaining it to him.
he sees through a window darkly...
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>What is the actual meaning of common ancestor? Does it have inherent
>meaning or is it only a symbolic representation of an idea in a given
>context.
one can see before your very eyes the collapse of language skills, and
reasoning, caused by creationism
sad. very sad
Burkhard
A CA. The most recent one, to be precise. They have many more - their
grandfather for instance.
> 2) CA between monkey and man is what? A monkey or a CA , or a CA that
> only looked like a monkey.
> Note that Wilkins and Harshman stated that calling the CA monkey a
> simian replaces one vernacular with another.
Since you know this, why don't you make your question more precise
then? "Monkeys" are paraphyletic, not a single coherent group, which
makes a precise answer of your question difficult. Old World monkeys
are more closely related to the apes than they are to the New World
monkeys.
To use your 1) example, your second question is a bit like asking:
who is the CA between me and the two chaps I met in a pub? Reasonably
easy to answer once we know who the two chaps in the pub are,
impossible to answer otherwise.
> So again I ask what does CA mean? It obviously means nothing.
If you mean, as I assume, the latest or most recent CA, it simply
means the most recent possible shared ancestor between two
individuals, species, or groups of life. Who that CA is depends of
course on who the two individuals etc are. Ancestors are always
ancestors _of_ someone.
In general terms though, the latest common ancestor of any two species
will be a species that is different from either, while having a
pattern of commonality with both.
M_P
> On Tue, 18 May 2010 12:53:14 -0700 (PDT), backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > who said 'i am the way the truth and the life'?
>
> not jesus. he never spoke.
He was a mute?
> others wrote about him but they never met him
John did.
backspace
> > What is the actual meaning of common ancestor? Does it have inherent
> > meaning or is it only a symbolic representation of an idea in a given
> > context.
> > 1) CA between human brother and sister is their mother a human.
> A CA. The most recent one, to be precise. They have many more - their
> grandfather for instance.
> > 2) CA between monkey and man is what? A monkey or a CA , or a CA that
> > only looked like a monkey.
> > Note that Wilkins and Harshman stated that calling the CA monkey a
> > simian replaces one vernacular with another.
> Since you know this, why don't you make your question more precise
> then? "Monkeys" are paraphyletic, not a single coherent group, which
> makes a precise answer of your question difficult. �Old World monkeys
> are �more closely related to the apes than they are to the New World
> monkeys.
In this thread (http://bit.ly/cCgy9m)
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3b7d9b411887c7b5/ec81c846c43a2ae7#ec81c846c43a2ae7
which ran for over 6months on TO , had 3000 posts, Wilkins explained
that if you call a flea-scratching baboon an old world monkey you
merely replaced one vernacular for another.
bpuharic
wrote:
>On May 18, 4:28�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 12:53:14 -0700 (PDT), backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > who said 'i am the way the truth and the life'?
>>
>> not jesus. he never spoke.
>
>He was a mute?
could be. we just dont know.
>
>> others wrote about him but they never met him
>
>John did.
john wrote long after jesus was dead. he never met him.
mark was the earliest gospel and mark never met jesus either
William Morse
This is the full text of what I wrote, which you snipped. You did not
respond to my actual question, again apparently because you think the
god you believe in is Loki.
"Others have given links to fossils which include parents and babies.
But in any case you have answered my original question. You _are_
seriously arguing that your god has created a huge body of evidence
designed to mislead people. This god you believe in apparently is Loki."
> How do you know the babies had babies, who had babies in turn for
> hundreds of thousands of years before that first monkey gazed up into
> her mommy's big brown chocolate eyes and asked: Mommy why are teeth so
> long and your tail so big?
>
Do you think your parents had parents? Do you think your grandparents
had parents? Do you think your great grandparents had parents? Keep
following this back. Evolutionary theory, and much religious belief,
says we can follow this back to abiogenesis. You say that at some point
our great-great-great.......great grandparents were poofed into
existence, and that any fossil remains dated to before that time were
put there by God-Loki to fool us into thinking that evolution occurred.
Or we can accept that the babies had babies, and those babies had babies
in turn. That what we know is true from family histories going backward
is true from fossil histories going forward. That if God exists, God is
not Loki.
Kermit
> On May 18, 4:47�pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 17, 10:20�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 17, 4:55�pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > But you usually seem to be arguing that evolutionary science can't be
> > > > right because you can't use language in a meaningful way.
>
> > > by evolutionary science you mean ToE?
>
> > > My position has been stated clearly athttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology#Darwin.27s_.27Theory_of_Ev...
>
> > That is true, your position is clearly stated here. But it is not the
> > position you think you are stating. What you are saying is that you
> > are incapable of using language normally, and you have no reason to
> > either dispute the evidence nor fault the theory (model) which
> > explains it.
>
> > Claiming that we are using language incorrectly (even if that were a
> > valid and coherent claim, which it isn't) does not address either of
> > these matters. The evidence is still there, and the theory still
> > works.
>
> What theory, by whom, who is this person?
The theory of evolution, which has been described to you over and
again.
Please justify your bizarre notion that words have no meaning without
an authority to establish it.
Please justify your bizarre notion that a definition does not change
over time.
Please justify your bizarre notion that the rest of us only *think
we're communicating with each other.
Please justify your bizarre notion that repeatedly paraphrasing the
words of another, removing clear information each time, is a
reasonable way of "proving" the original words are meaningless.
>
> > > Darwin used the term ToE twice but the actual passages were rhetorical
> > > tautologies,
> > No, they weren't. It has been explained to you why they are not.
> > For example, if we take a large number of lab rats, measure a number
> > of characteristics, then expose them to cold temperatures so severe
> > that a significant number (say, half) were to die from exposure over
> > time, I could predict not only some of the characteristics of the ones
> > that survived, but the *inherited traits of their progeny. They would
> > be larger, they would have thicker fur, they would have a higher mass-
> > to-surface area ration, and if they had access to food, a faster
> > metabolism.
> > How the hell is this a tautology? This is differential reproductive
> > success of adaptive inheritable traits in a population.
>
> Who says differential reproductive success?
I did. Right up there ^^^^
>
> > And sane people understand that "science" in the above context refers
> > to the scientific community - �their social behavior, the methodology,
> > and their accumulated and collective knowledge.
> > > it only represented an idea by Darwin within his
> > > context.
> > As are all ideas only held by a person in context. The theory - which
> > is what the idea is in this case - has been modified but is
> > recognizably derived from Darwin's.
>
> who derived what, spell it out, show me the wikipedia page with this
> theory - it doesn't exist.
Sure it does. If you think it doesn't because you don't know how to
look up something on Wikipedia, that's *your problem. You can chant
all the magical spells you want; reality will not go away, nor will
the ability of ordinary people to speak plainly to each other.
>
> > > �What is meant today with ToE is undefined.
> > No, it's quite well understood. You seem to want to pretend to
> > yourself that if you can define it away, it will go away.
>
> What exactly will go away?
Whichever word or phrase bothers you, as far as I can tell.
Why do you claim "differential reproductive success" needs an
unchanging and authoritative definition, but not "The Holy Bible"?
>
> > > Like Neo-Darwinism is also undefined,
> > No it's not. Any biological dictionary, or Wikipedia, or an
> > introductory biology text book, describes it.
>
> In your own words what is it?
The combining of the then-modern theory of evolution (derived from
Darwin's work) with the developing theory of genetics (derived from
his contemporary, Mendel). Neo-Darwinism was used as early as Darwin's
lifetime to mean evolution driven by natural selection, but by 1950 it
had joined with genetics and the term is now synonymous with the
Modern Synthesis. It's somewhat archaic now, since there's little need
to differentiate it from alternatives.
>
> > > nowhere on the wikipedia is
> > > stated what is in actual reality the modern synthesis. Note Neo-
> > > Darwinism and Modern synthesis are two separate symbols for the same
> > > ideas as used in journals from 1940 onwards.
> > Here's the Wikpedia article on that:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis
>
> Yes, and it doesn't say what the theory is read it and show me the
> actual journal papers. the citations they reference are from 1940.
Pretty much any paper written on evolutionary biology since 1950.
Get this through your God-crippled brain: Authorities don't matter in
science. Evidence does.
Kermit
M_P
> On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:16:17 -0700 (PDT), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On May 18, 4:28�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 18 May 2010 12:53:14 -0700 (PDT), backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > who said 'i am the way the truth and the life'?
>
> >> notjesus. he never spoke.
>
> >He was a mute?
>
> could be. we just dont know.
>
> >> others wrote about him but they never met him
>
> >John did.
>
> john wrote long after jesus was dead. he never met him.
"Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were
written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is
scanty." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Dating
And even the conventionally accepted date ranges allow for Matthew's
gospel to have been written as soon as ~40 years after Jesus' death,
so it's chronologically quite possible that Matthew's gospel is a
first-hand account.
bpuharic
wrote:
>On May 20, 4:24�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:16:17 -0700 (PDT), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> others wrote about him but they never met him
>>
>> >John did.
>>
>> john wrote long after jesus was dead. he never met him.
>
>"Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were
>written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is
>scanty." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Dating
IOW there's no proof john ever met jesus.
thanks. i already knew that.
>
>And even the conventionally accepted date ranges allow for Matthew's
>gospel to have been written as soon as ~40 years after Jesus' death,
>so it's chronologically quite possible that Matthew's gospel is a
>first-hand account.
gee. admiral halsey lived during my lifetime. it's possible i met him.
there are only 6B people on earth, after all
got any proof taht any gospel writer met jesus? in fact, there's quite
a bit of evidence the gospel writers relied on an older, commona
source, known as the Q document...from the german 'quelle' (source).
so, no, there's no proof any gospel writer ever met jesus, let alone
wrote his actual words
M_P
> On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:04:08 -0700 (PDT), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On May 20, 4:24�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:16:17 -0700 (PDT), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> others wrote about him but they never met him
>
> >> >John did.
>
> >> john wrote long after jesus was dead. he never met him.
>
> >"Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were
> >written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is
> >scanty." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Dating
>
> IOW there's no proof john ever met jesus.
Backpedalling from your assertion "he never met him", I see.
> thanks. i already knew that.
>
> >And even the conventionally accepted date ranges allow for Matthew's
> >gospel to have been written as soon as ~40 years after Jesus' death,
> >so it's chronologically quite possible that Matthew's gospel is a
> >first-hand account.
>
> gee. admiral halsey lived during my lifetime. it's possible i met him.
Did you write a document about the words and deeds of Admiral Halsey,
as Matthew did about Jesus?
> there are only 6B people on earth, after all
>
> got any proof taht any gospel writer met jesus?
I haven't asserted as fact that they did, whereas you have asserted as
fact that they didn't - so the entire burden of proof is on you, not
me.
backspace
> > > > Like Neo-Darwinism is also undefined,
> > > No it's not. Any biological dictionary, or Wikipedia, or an
> > > introductory biology text book, describes it.
> > In your own words what is it?
> The combining of the then-modern theory of evolution (derived from
What was the then modern theory - where is its wikipedia entry? If one
can't find a theory on wikipedia such as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/theory_of_evolution which redirects to
evolution, then you know it doesn't exist. Evolution is a word, a
symbol that has no meaning. It can be used to convey either a pattern
or design. Evolution the symbol isn't a theory , only somebody, some
person in 1940 could have had a theory - who is he?
> Darwin's work) with the developing theory of genetics (derived from
> his contemporary, Mendel). Neo-Darwinism was used as early as Darwin's
> lifetime to mean evolution driven by natural selection, but by 1950 it
> had joined with genetics and the term is now synonymous with the
> Modern Synthesis.
You are jumping from 1940 to 2010, don't know what theory as defined
by whom on what wikipedia page which explains how IPC (inverted
pendulum control) gets transmitted from mammal to mammal has been
explained.
> It's somewhat archaic now, since there's little need
> to differentiate it from alternatives.
What exactly is archaic?
Burkhard
wikipedia entry on it, does it still make a sound?
> What was the then modern theory - where is its wikipedia entry? If one
> can't find a theory on wikipedia such ashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/theory_of_evolutionwhich redirects to
Boikat
> In the category: If a tree falls in the woods and there is no
> wikipedia entry on it, does it still make a sound?
Or, "If it's not in Wiki, it doesn't count."
>
>
>
> > What was the then modern theory - where is its wikipedia entry? If one
> > can't find a theory on wikipedia such ashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/theory_of_evolutionwhichredirects to
bpuharic
wrote:
>On May 21, 3:58�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:04:08 -0700 (PDT), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On May 20, 4:24�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:16:17 -0700 (PDT), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>
>> >> >> others wrote about him but they never met him
>>
>> >> >John did.
>>
>> >> john wrote long after jesus was dead. he never met him.
>>
>> >"Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were
>> >written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is
>> >scanty." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Dating
>>
>> IOW there's no proof john ever met jesus.
>
>Backpedalling from your assertion "he never met him", I see.
i stand by the statement. where's the proof he did. your assertion is
that some unknown author at some time met some guy.
if that's your proof, color me unconvinced.
guess you forgot to note the following, from your own reference
-the author was not 'john'
-if he was not 'john' then we dont know who he was and if he met jesus
-the gospel we call john is dated to 85-90 AD. about 60 years after
the death of jesus. so, unless 'john' was about 10 years old when he
was a disciple, you have a problem
so you're wrong. thanks. i already knew that.
>
>> thanks. i already knew that.
>>
>> >And even the conventionally accepted date ranges allow for Matthew's
>> >gospel to have been written as soon as ~40 years after Jesus' death,
>> >so it's chronologically quite possible that Matthew's gospel is a
>> >first-hand account.
>>
>> gee. admiral halsey lived during my lifetime. it's possible i met him.
>
>Did you write a document about the words and deeds of Admiral Halsey,
>as Matthew did about Jesus?
who was 'mathew'? where's the proof he met jesus? where's the proof he
didnt plagiarize his material?
>
>> there are only 6B people on earth, after all
>>
>> got any proof taht any gospel writer met jesus?
>
>I haven't asserted as fact that they did, whereas you have asserted as
>fact that they didn't - so the entire burden of proof is on you, not
>me.
wrong. since we know that the gospel authors are unknown, saying they
'met' jesus is nonsense
M_P
> On Fri, 21 May 2010 14:23:00 -0700 (PDT), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:04:08 -0700 (PDT), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:16:17 -0700 (PDT), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> others wrote about him but they never met him
>
> >> >> >John did.
>
> >> >> john wrote long after jesus was dead. he never met him.
>
> >> >"Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were
> >> >written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is
> >> >scanty." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Dating
>
> >> IOW there's no proof john ever met jesus.
>
> >Backpedalling from your assertion "he never met him", I see.
>
> i stand by the statement. where's the proof he did.
And you backpedal from your assertion "he never met him."
> your assertion is
> that some unknown author at some time met some guy.
>
> if that's your proof, color me unconvinced.
>
> guess you forgot to note the following, from your own reference
>
> -the author was not 'john'
The page I cited doesn't say that. Making up your 'facts' as you go?
> -if he was not 'john' then we dont know who he was and if he met jesus
> -the gospel we call john is dated to 85-90 AD.
By many but not all, on the basis of "scanty" evidence.
"The parallels and similarities [between the Essene scrolls and the
Gospel of John] are, in fact, so numerous and conclusive that they
seriously challenge the theory that the Gospel of John was the latest
to be written and that it shows marked Greek influence. Instead, many
modern scholars now view John as thoroughly Jewish and his Gospel
perhaps the earliest of the four." - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,862553-10,00.html
> about 60 years after
> the death of jesus. so, unless 'john' was about 10 锟統ears old when he
> was a disciple, you have a problem
>
> so you're wrong. thanks. i already knew that.
>
> >> thanks. i already knew that.
>
> >> >And even the conventionally accepted date ranges allow for Matthew's
> >> >gospel to have been written as soon as ~40 years after Jesus' death,
> >> >so it's chronologically quite possible that Matthew's gospel is a
> >> >first-hand account.
>
> >> gee. admiral halsey lived during my lifetime. it's possible i met him.
>
> >Did you write a document about the words and deeds of Admiral Halsey,
> >as Matthew did about Jesus?
>
> who was 'mathew'? where's the proof he met jesus? where's the proof he
> didnt plagiarize his material?
Where's your answer to my question?
My statement "it's chronologically quite possible that Matthew's
gospel is a first-hand account" is supported by the evidence at hand.
> >> there are only 6B people on earth, after all
>
> >> got any proof taht any gospel writer met jesus?
>
> >I haven't asserted as fact that they did, whereas you have asserted as
> >fact that they didn't - so the entire burden of proof is on you, not
> >me.
>
> wrong. since we know that the gospel authors are unknown,
You have yet to provide any evidence for this claim - just like you
have yet to provide any evidence for your claim, "he never met him."
I'm beginning to see a trend ...
> saying they 'met' 锟絡esus is nonsense
No, my statement "it's chronologically quite possible that Matthew's
gospel is a first-hand account" is supported by the evidence at hand.
(I retract my statement "John did [meet Jesus]" and state instead that
"based on the uncertainties in dating the gospels, it's
chronologically possible that John's gospel is a first-hand account.")
bpuharic
wrote:
>On May 22, 8:03�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 14:23:00 -0700 (PDT), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> IOW there's no proof john ever met jesus.
>>
>> >Backpedalling from your assertion "he never met him", I see.
>>
>> i stand by the statement. where's the proof he did.
>
>And you backpedal from your assertion "he never met him."
let me type this slowly so you can read it:
JOHN NEVER MET JESUS
so you claim i'm backpedaling. if i type that statement 1000X, would
you still claim i'm backpedaling>
>
>> your assertion is
>> that some unknown author at some time met some guy.
>>
>> if that's your proof, color me unconvinced.
>>
>> guess you forgot to note the following, from your own reference
>>
>> -the author was not 'john'
>
>The page I cited doesn't say that. Making up your 'facts' as you go?
really? let me cut and paste so you dont have to strain yourself by
actually reading your own reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John
Modern mainstream scholarship has predominantly concluded that the
author of the Gospel of John was not an eyewitness to the Historical
Jesus.[39][40] Certain modern critical scholars concluded that the
Gospel of John was largely unreliable.[5][41] These further argued
that the traditional identification of the book's author�the Beloved
Disciple�with the apostle John was false.[6][42]
----------
do you see those words above?? it certainly looks like 'john' didnt
even exist.
and your own reference...that's YOUR reference...says EXACTLY what i
claimed:
JOHN NEVER MET JESUS.
so your claim that i'm backpedaling?
that's a lie.
>
>> -if he was not 'john' then we dont know who he was and if he met jesus
>> -the gospel we call john is dated to 85-90 AD.
>
>By many but not all, on the basis of "scanty" evidence.
>
>"The parallels and similarities [between the Essene scrolls and the
>Gospel of John] are, in fact, so numerous and conclusive that they
>seriously challenge the theory that the Gospel of John was the latest
>to be written and that it shows marked Greek influence. Instead, many
>modern scholars now view John as thoroughly Jewish and his Gospel
>perhaps the earliest of the four." - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,862553-10,00.html
?? WTF??
this is totally irrelevant to my claims. i claimed that john NEVER
MET JESUS.
that is substantiated by YOUR OWN REFERENCE
>>
>> who was 'mathew'? where's the proof he met jesus? where's the proof he
>> didnt plagiarize his material?
>
>Where's your answer to my question?
>
>My statement "it's chronologically quite possible that Matthew's
>gospel is a first-hand account" is supported by the evidence at hand.
well let's see. you just got your ass kicked by having been shown to
be lying about JOHN...so let's see about mathew.
did mathew write the gospel of mathew? irrelevant. he never met jesus
either. so he relied on 4th hand evidence based on hearsay, myths,
etc.
it's irrelevant.
>
>> >> there are only 6B people on earth, after all
>>
>> >> got any proof taht any gospel writer met jesus?
>>
>> >I haven't asserted as fact that they did, whereas you have asserted as
>> >fact that they didn't - so the entire burden of proof is on you, not
>> >me.
>>
>> wrong. since we know that the gospel authors are unknown,
>
>You have yet to provide any evidence for this claim - just like you
>have yet to provide any evidence for your claim, "he never met him."
>I'm beginning to see a trend ...
i just used your own post...quoted above...to show that you're lying
>
>> saying they 'met' �jesus is nonsense
>
>No, my statement "it's chronologically quite possible that Matthew's
>gospel is a first-hand account" is supported by the evidence at hand.
>
>(I retract my statement "John did [meet Jesus]" and state instead that
>"based on the uncertainties in dating the gospels, it's
>chronologically possible that John's gospel is a first-hand account.")
how does a 'first hand' account differ from 'meeting jesus'?
regarding matthew, let's see what the evidence shows
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew
Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed in the latter
part of the first century by a Jewish Christian.[7] Early Christian
writings state that Matthew the Apostle wrote the Hebrew
Gospel.[8][9][10]
Many scholars today believe that "canonical Matthew was originally
written in Greek by a non eyewitness whose name is unknown to us and
who depended on sources like Mark and Q".[11][12][13] However, other
scholars disagree variously on these points.[13][14]
The Gospel of Matthew contains around 612 verses of the 662 verses of
the Gospel of Mark, and mostly in exactly the same order.[20] Matthew
however quite frequently removes or modifies from Mark redundant
phrases or unusual words and modifies the passages in Mark's gospel
that might put Jesus in a negative light (e.g. removing the highly
critical comment that Jesus "is out of his mind" in Mark 3:21,
removing "do you not care" from Mark 4:38 etc.) [21]
Although the author of Matthew wrote according to his own plans and
aims and from his own point of view, the great amount of overlap in
sentence structure and word choice indicates that Matthew copied from
other Gospel writers, or they copied from each other, or they all
copied from another common source. This synoptic problem increasingly
caused 18th Century scholars to question the traditional view of
composition.[12][13]
-------------
so to say that matthew is a 'first hand account' is unsupported by the
evidence. it looks like 'matthew' plagiarized mark.
so, try again.
M_P
> On Mon, 24 May 2010 11:12:10 -0700 (PDT), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 21 May 2010 14:23:00 -0700 (PDT), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> IOW there's no proof john ever met jesus.
>
> >> >Backpedalling from your assertion "he never met him", I see.
>
> >> i stand by the statement. where's the proof he did.
>
> >And you backpedal from your assertion "he never met him."
>
> let me type this slowly so you can read it:
>
> JOHN NEVER METJESUS
>
> so you claim i'm backpedaling.
Your previous post was all "where's the proof he did."
> if i type that statement 1000X, would
> you still claim i'm backpedaling>
No. You had stopped typing it as soon as I started pointing out you
hadn't supported it.
> >> your assertion is
> >> that some unknown author at some time met some guy.
>
> >> if that's your proof, color me unconvinced.
>
> >> guess you forgot to note the following, from your own reference
>
> >> -the author was not 'john'
>
> >The page I cited doesn't say that. Making up your 'facts' as you go?
>
> really? let me cut and paste so �you dont have to strain yourself by
> actually reading your own reference:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John
That's not the page I cited.
> Modern mainstream scholarship has predominantly concluded that the
> author of the Gospel of John was not an eyewitness to the Historical Jesus.[39][40] Certain modern critical scholars concluded that the
> Gospel of John was largely unreliable.[5][41] These further argued
> that the traditional identification of the book's author�the Beloved
> Disciple�with the apostle John was false.[6][42]
>
> ----------
>
> do you see those words above?? it certainly looks like 'john' didnt
> even exist.
Actually, that's not what those words say.
> and your own reference...that's YOUR reference...says EXACTLY what i
> claimed:
>
> JOHN NEVER MET JESUS.
It says that modern mainstream scholarship has predominantly concluded
that John (the gospel author) never met Jesus ... which at long last
constitutes evidence for your claim.
> so your claim that i'm backpedaling?
Apparently you've now stopped. Good for you.
> that's a lie.
>
> >> -if he was not 'john' then we dont know who he was and if he metjesus
> >> -the gospel we call john is dated to 85-90 AD.
>
> >By many but not all, on the basis of "scanty" evidence.
>
> >"The parallels and similarities [between the Essene scrolls and the
> >Gospel of John] are, in fact, so numerous and conclusive that they
> >seriously challenge the theory that the Gospel of John was the latest
> >to be written and that it shows marked Greek influence. Instead, many
> >modern scholars now view John as thoroughly Jewish and his Gospel
> >perhaps the earliest of the four." -http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,862553-10,00.html
>
> ?? WTF??
>
> this is totally irrelevant to my claims. �i claimed that john NEVER
> MET JESUS.
And you offered in support of your claim the conventional dating,
which the above calls into question. See the relevance now?
> that is substantiated by YOUR OWN REFERENCE
>
> >> who was 'mathew'? where's the proof he met jesus? where's the proof he
> >> didnt plagiarize his material?
>
> >Where's your answer to my question?
>
> >My statement "it's chronologically quite possible that Matthew's
> >gospel is a first-hand account" is supported by the evidence at hand.
>
> well let's see. you just got your ass kicked by having been shown to
> be lying about JOHN
Wrong ... all you've shown - at long last - is that that modern
mainstream scholarship has predominantly concluded that John (the
gospel author) never met Jesus.
> ...so let's see about mathew.
>
> did mathew write the gospel of mathew? �irrelevant. he never met jesus
> either.
"other scholars disagree variously on these points."
> so he relied on 4th hand evidence based on hearsay, myths,
> etc. �
>
> it's irrelevant.
>
> >> >> there are only 6B people on earth, after all
>
> >> >> got any proof taht any gospel writer metjesus?
>
> >> >I haven't asserted as fact that they did, whereas you have asserted as
> >> >fact that they didn't - so the entire burden of proof is on you, not
> >> >me.
>
> >> wrong. since we know that the gospel authors are unknown,
>
> >You have yet to provide any evidence for this claim - just like you
> >have yet to provide any evidence for your claim, "he never met him."
> >I'm beginning to see a trend ...
>
> i just used your own post...quoted above...to show that you're lying
Wrong again; at the time I posted that, you had yet to provide any
evidence for that claim.
> >> saying they 'met' �jesus is nonsense
>
> >No, my statement "it's chronologically quite possible that Matthew's
> >gospel is a first-hand account" is supported by the evidence at hand.
>
> >(I retract my statement "John did [meetJesus]" and state instead that
> >"based on the uncertainties in dating the gospels, it's
> >chronologically possible that John's gospel is a first-hand account.")
>
> how does a 'first hand' account differ from 'meeting jesus'?
Which part of "possible" did you not understand?
> so, try again.
bpuharic
wrote:
>On May 24, 5:00�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 May 2010 11:12:10 -0700 (PDT), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On May 22, 8:03�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 21 May 2010 14:23:00 -0700 (PDT), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>
>> >> >> IOW there's no proof john ever met jesus.
>>
>> >> >Backpedalling from your assertion "he never met him", I see.
>>
>> >> i stand by the statement. where's the proof he did.
>>
>> >And you backpedal from your assertion "he never met him."
>>
>> let me type this slowly so you can read it:
>>
>> JOHN NEVER METJESUS
>>
>> so you claim i'm backpedaling.
>
>Your previous post was all "where's the proof he did."
my previous post was that john never met jesus
and he didn't.
you said he did. and, to your credit, you admit he didn't
QED.
>>
>> and your own reference...that's YOUR reference...says EXACTLY what i
>> claimed:
>>
>> JOHN NEVER MET JESUS.
>
>It says that modern mainstream scholarship has predominantly concluded
>that John (the gospel author) never met Jesus ... which at long last
>constitutes evidence for your claim.
>
>> so your claim that i'm backpedaling?
>
>Apparently you've now stopped. Good for you.
ROFLMAO!! so you're backpedaling from accusing me of backpedaling??
I LOVE IT!!
>>
>> ?? WTF??
>>
>> this is totally irrelevant to my claims. �i claimed that john NEVER
>> MET JESUS.
>
>And you offered in support of your claim the conventional dating,
>which the above calls into question. See the relevance now?
ah. and you want the wizard of oz dating? the chicken entrails dating?
which dating did you have in mind?
none, apparently.
>>
>> well let's see. you just got your ass kicked by having been shown to
>> be lying about JOHN
>
>Wrong ... all you've shown - at long last - is that that modern
>mainstream scholarship has predominantly concluded that John (the
>gospel author) never met Jesus.
which was my claim from the beginning.
>
>> ...so let's see about mathew.
>>
>> did mathew write the gospel of mathew? �irrelevant. he never met jesus
>> either.
>
>"other scholars disagree variously on these points."
hmmm....so he plagiarized mark...and just reordered THAT gospel
and that proves he met jesus??
gee...i guess all of the apostles were plagiarists? is that your
claim?
>> -------------
>>
>> so to say that matthew is a 'first hand account' is unsupported by the
>> evidence. it looks like 'matthew' plagiarized mark.
>
>"other scholars disagree variously on these points."
>
>> so, try again.
fine. you go find the parts of matthew that are original. and we'll
talk. hell, even matthew has been edited to the point no one knows who
MATTHEW was
but glad to see you admit your error about john
M_P
> On Tue, 25 May 2010 09:07:09 -0700 (PDT), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 24 May 2010 11:12:10 -0700 (PDT), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 21 May 2010 14:23:00 -0700 (PDT), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> IOW there's no proof john ever met jesus.
>
> >> >> >Backpedalling from your assertion "he never met him", I see.
>
> >> >> i stand by the statement. where's the proof he did.
>
> >> >And you backpedal from your assertion "he never met him."
>
> >> let me type this slowly so you can read it:
>
> >> JOHN NEVER MET JESUS
>
> >> so you claim i'm backpedaling.
>
> >Your previous post was all "where's the proof he did."
>
> my previous post was that john never met jesus
Wrong, as the record shows.
> and he didn't.
>
> you said he did. and, to your credit, you admit he didn't
Wrong again; I admit there are scholarly opinions, and observations to
support them, on both sides of the question, so I can no more validly
assert "John met Jesus" than you can "John never met Jesus."
> QED.
>
> >> and your own reference...that's YOUR reference...says EXACTLY what i
> >> claimed:
>
> >> JOHN NEVER METJESUS.
>
> >It says that modern mainstream scholarship has predominantly concluded
> >that John (the gospel author) never metJesus... which at long last
> >constitutes evidence for your claim.
>
> >> so your claim that i'm backpedaling?
>
> >Apparently you've now stopped. Good for you.
>
> ROFLMAO!! so you're backpedaling from accusing me of backpedaling??
No, I'm noting that you were previously backpedalling and you now are
not.
> I LOVE IT!!
> >> ?? WTF??
>
> >> this is totally irrelevant to my claims. �i claimed that john NEVER
> >> MET JESUS.
>
> >And you offered in support of your claim the conventional dating,
> >which the above calls into question. See the relevance now?
>
> ah. and you want the wizard of oz dating? the chicken entrails dating?
> which dating did you have in mind?
>
> none, apparently.
What I offered, and you deleted while claiming I offered nothing, is
restored below:
> >> >> -the gospel we call john is dated to 85-90 AD.
>
> >> >By many but not all, on the basis of "scanty" evidence.
> >> >
> >> >"The parallels and similarities [between the Essene scrolls and the
> >> >Gospel of John] are, in fact, so numerous and conclusive that they
> >> >seriously challenge the theory that the Gospel of John was the latest
> >> >to be written and that it shows marked Greek influence. Instead, many
> >> >modern scholars now view John as thoroughly Jewish and his Gospel
> >> >perhaps the earliest of the four." -http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,862553-10,00.html
[end of restoration]
> >> well let's see. you just got your ass kicked by having been shown to
> >> be lying about JOHN
>
> >Wrong ... all you've shown - at long last - is that that modern
> >mainstream scholarship has predominantly concluded that John (the
> >gospel author) never met Jesus.
>
> which was my claim from the beginning.
Wrong yet again - "modern mainstream scholarship has predominantly
concluded that X" is a weaker claim than X.
> >> ...so let's see about mathew.
>
> >> did mathew write the gospel of mathew? �irrelevant. he never met jesus
> >> either.
>
> >"other scholars disagree variously on these points."
>
> hmmm....so he plagiarized mark...
That's one of the points on which other scholars disagree.
> and just reordered THAT gospel
>
> and that proves he met jesus??
I never said nor implied that ... that's just a straw man you propped
up to beat.
> gee...i guess all of the apostles were plagiarists? is that your
> claim?
I never came anywhere close to saying or implying that. Quit frothing.
> >> -------------
>
> >> so to say that matthew is a 'first hand account' is unsupported by the
> >> evidence. it looks like 'matthew' plagiarized mark.
>
> >"other scholars disagree variously on these points."
>
> >> so, try again.
>
> fine. you go find the parts of matthew that are original. and we'll
> talk.
'The Two-Source Hypothesis (or 2SH) [...] posits that the Gospel of
Matthew and the Gospel of Luke were based on the Gospel of Mark and a
lost, hypothetical sayings collection called Q. [...] its weaknesses
lie in the exceptions to those patterns [of shared material], and in
the hypothetical nature of its proposed collection of Jesus-sayings.
Later scholars have advanced numerous elaborations and variations on
the basic hypothesis, and even completely alternative hypotheses.'
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis
'The Two-Gospel Hypothesis [...] states that Matthew was written first
[...] After Matthew, as the church expanded beyond the Jewish world,
Luke was written as a gospel to the Gentiles. But since neither Luke
(nor his patron Paul) were eyewitnesses of Jesus, Peter gave public
testimonies that validated Luke�s gospel. These public speeches were
transcribed into Mark�s gospel [...] Paul then allowed Luke�s gospel
to be published. This hypothesis is the most serious alternative to
the two-source hypothesis. Its main advantages over the two-source
hypothesis include the fact that it relies not just on internal
evidence, that it doesn�t require lost sources or other �plugs� (like
the Q document)'
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-gospel_hypothesis
> hell, even matthew has been edited to the point no one knows
By definition, there is no way of knowing that the oldest known
manuscript of Matthew is not identical in content to the original -
and if you want to claim there's some relevance to any differences
among known manuscripts, the burden is on you to explain what that
relevance is.
> who MATTHEW was
>
> but glad to see �you admit your error about john
I admitted my overstatement ("John met Jesus"); when will you admit
your parallel overstatement ("John never met Jesus")?
M_P
> On Tue, 25 May 2010 09:07:09 -0700 (PDT), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 24 May 2010 11:12:10 -0700 (PDT), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 21 May 2010 14:23:00 -0700 (PDT), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> IOW there's no proof john ever met jesus.
>
> >> >> >Backpedalling from your assertion "he never met him", I see.
>
> >> >> i stand by the statement. where's the proof he did.
>
> >> >And you backpedal from your assertion "he never met him."
>
> >> let me type this slowly so you can read it:
>
> >> JOHN NEVER MET JESUS
>
> >> so you claim i'm backpedaling.
>
> >Your previous post was all "where's the proof he did."
>
> my previous post was that john never met jesus
Wrong, as the record shows.
> and he didn't.
>
> you said he did. and, to your credit, you admit he didn't
Wrong again; I admit there are scholarly opinions, and observations to
support them, on both sides of the question, so I can no more validly
assert "John met Jesus" than you can "John never met Jesus."
> QED.
>
> >> and your own reference...that's YOUR reference...says EXACTLY what i
> >> claimed:
>
> >> JOHN NEVER METJESUS.
>
> >It says that modern mainstream scholarship has predominantly concluded
> >that John (the gospel author) never metJesus... which at long last
> >constitutes evidence for your claim.
>
> >> so your claim that i'm backpedaling?
>
> >Apparently you've now stopped. Good for you.
>
> ROFLMAO!! so you're backpedaling from accusing me of backpedaling??
No, I'm noting that you were previously backpedalling and you now are
not.
> I LOVE IT!!
> >> ?? WTF??
>
> >> this is totally irrelevant to my claims. �i claimed that john NEVER
> >> MET JESUS.
>
> >And you offered in support of your claim the conventional dating,
> >which the above calls into question. See the relevance now?
>
> ah. and you want the wizard of oz dating? the chicken entrails dating?
> which dating did you have in mind?
>
> none, apparently.
What I offered, and you deleted while claiming I offered nothing, is
restored below:
> >> >> -the gospel we call john is dated to 85-90 AD.
>
> >> >By many but not all, on the basis of "scanty" evidence.
> >> >
> >> >"The parallels and similarities [between the Essene scrolls and the
> >> >Gospel of John] are, in fact, so numerous and conclusive that they
> >> >seriously challenge the theory that the Gospel of John was the latest
> >> >to be written and that it shows marked Greek influence. Instead, many
> >> >modern scholars now view John as thoroughly Jewish and his Gospel
> >> >perhaps the earliest of the four." -http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,862553-10,00.html
[end of restoration]
> >> well let's see. you just got your ass kicked by having been shown to
> >> be lying about JOHN
>
> >Wrong ... all you've shown - at long last - is that that modern
> >mainstream scholarship has predominantly concluded that John (the
> >gospel author) never met Jesus.
>
> which was my claim from the beginning.
Wrong yet again - "modern mainstream scholarship has predominantly
concluded that X" is a weaker claim than X.
> >> ...so let's see about mathew.
>
> >> did mathew write the gospel of mathew? �irrelevant. he never met jesus
> >> either.
>
> >"other scholars disagree variously on these points."
>
> hmmm....so he plagiarized mark...
That's one of the points on which other scholars disagree.
> and just reordered THAT gospel
>
> and that proves he met jesus??
I never said nor implied that ... that's just a straw man you propped
up to beat.
> gee...i guess all of the apostles were plagiarists? is that your
> claim?
I never came anywhere close to saying or implying that. Quit frothing.
> >> -------------
>
> >> so to say that matthew is a 'first hand account' is unsupported by the
> >> evidence. it looks like 'matthew' plagiarized mark.
>
> >"other scholars disagree variously on these points."
>
> >> so, try again.
>
> fine. you go find the parts of matthew that are original. and we'll
> talk.
'The Two-Source Hypothesis (or 2SH) [...] posits that the Gospel of
Matthew and the Gospel of Luke were based on the Gospel of Mark and a
lost, hypothetical sayings collection called Q. [...] its weaknesses
lie in the exceptions to those patterns [of shared material], and in
the hypothetical nature of its proposed collection of Jesus-sayings.
Later scholars have advanced numerous elaborations and variations on
the basic hypothesis, and even completely alternative hypotheses.'
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis
'The Two-Gospel Hypothesis [...] states that Matthew was written first
[...] After Matthew, as the church expanded beyond the Jewish world,
Luke was written as a gospel to the Gentiles. But since neither Luke
(nor his patron Paul) were eyewitnesses of Jesus, Peter gave public
testimonies that validated Luke�s gospel. These public speeches were
transcribed into Mark�s gospel [...] Paul then allowed Luke�s gospel
to be published. This hypothesis is the most serious alternative to
the two-source hypothesis. Its main advantages over the two-source
hypothesis include the fact that it relies not just on internal
evidence, that it doesn�t require lost sources or other �plugs� (like
the Q document)'
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-gospel_hypothesis
> hell, even matthew has been edited to the point no one knows
By definition, there is no way of knowing that the oldest known
manuscript of Matthew is not identical in content to the original -
and if you want to claim there's some relevance to any differences
among known manuscripts, the burden is on you to explain what that
relevance is.
> who MATTHEW was
>
bpuharic
wrote:
>On May 25, 5:46�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 May 2010 09:07:09 -0700 (PDT), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
>>
>> >> let me type this slowly so you can read it:
>>
>> >> JOHN NEVER MET JESUS
>>
>> >> so you claim i'm backpedaling.
>>
>> >Your previous post was all "where's the proof he did."
>>
>> my previous post was that john never met jesus
>
>Wrong, as the record shows.
fine. go find the record.
>
>> and he didn't.
>>
>> you said he did. and, to your credit, you admit he didn't
>
>Wrong again; I admit there are scholarly opinions, and observations to
>support them, on both sides of the question, so I can no more validly
>assert "John met Jesus" than you can "John never met Jesus."
fine. you tell me who 'john' was. prove there was A 'john'.
that's merely your first hurdle.
>>
>> ROFLMAO!! so you're backpedaling from accusing me of backpedaling??
>
>No, I'm noting that you were previously backpedalling and you now are
>not.
you make me laugh...what a sense of humor you have!
\
>> which was my claim from the beginning.
>
>Wrong yet again - "modern mainstream scholarship has predominantly
>concluded that X" is a weaker claim than X.
as i said, tell me who 'john' was. you can't even do that, let alone
say that john met jesus (let alone tell us who the hell jesus was
since he never let any signs of his being here apart from the gossip
you place such faith in)
>>
>> fine. you go find the parts of matthew that are original. and we'll
>> talk.
>
>'The Two-Source Hypothesis (or 2SH) [...] posits that the Gospel of
>Matthew and the Gospel of Luke were based on the Gospel of Mark and a
>lost, hypothetical sayings collection called Q. [...] its weaknesses
>lie in the exceptions to those patterns [of shared material], and in
>the hypothetical nature of its proposed collection of Jesus-sayings.
>Later scholars have advanced numerous elaborations and variations on
>the basic hypothesis, and even completely alternative hypotheses.'
>- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis
>
>'The Two-Gospel Hypothesis [...] states that Matthew was written first
>[...] After Matthew, as the church expanded beyond the Jewish world,
>Luke was written as a gospel to the Gentiles. But since neither Luke
>(nor his patron Paul) were eyewitnesses of Jesus, Peter gave public
>testimonies that validated Luke�s gospel. These public speeches were
>transcribed into Mark�s gospel [...] Paul then allowed Luke�s gospel
>to be published. This hypothesis is the most serious alternative to
>the two-source hypothesis. Its main advantages over the two-source
>hypothesis include the fact that it relies not just on internal
>evidence, that it doesn�t require lost sources or other �plugs� (like
>the Q document)'
>- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-gospel_hypothesis
well, unfortunately, matthew's dating...and authorship...is so unclear
as to render the idea of 'matthew' meaningless. for example:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html
It is the near-universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of
Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark. This position is
accepted whether one subscribes to the dominant Two-Source Hypothesis
or instead prefers the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis.
another scholarly source
http://www.bergen.edu/phr/bible/bible9.1_outline.pdf
says
The majority of contemporary biblical scholars are agreed that the
earliest of the New Testament gospels is that of Mark. It is also
widely believed that Mark's gospel was one of the sources utilized in
the composition of the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Matthew's gospel
contains 1,068 verses, and 500 of these are parallel to 606 out of the
673 verses of Mark.
so SOMEBODY PLAGIARIZED. who was it?
>
bpuharic
wrote:
>On May 25, 5:46�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 May 2010 09:07:09 -0700 (PDT), M_P <m...@rocketmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> JOHN NEVER MET JESUS
>>
>> >> so you claim i'm backpedaling.
>>
>> >Your previous post was all "where's the proof he did."
>>
>> my previous post was that john never met jesus
>
>Wrong, as the record shows.
>
>> and he didn't.
>>
>> you said he did. and, to your credit, you admit he didn't
>
>Wrong again; I admit there are scholarly opinions, and observations to
>support them, on both sides of the question, so I can no more validly
>assert "John met Jesus" than you can "John never met Jesus."
except no one know who 'john' was. how can a composite author whose
identity is not even known be defined, let alone be said to have met
jesus?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John
Scholarly opinion is divided as to whether these epistles are the work
of the evangelist himself, or of his followers writing in his name
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works
Scholars have debated the authorship of the Johannine works (Gospel of
John, the first, second, and third epistles of John, and the Book of
Revelation) since at least the third century. Beasley-Murray notes,
"Everything we want to know about this book [the Gospel of John] is
uncertain, and everything about it that is apparently knowable is [a]
matter of dispute (sic)."[1] The main debate centers on (1) Whether
these works were authored by the same person, and (2) The identity of
the author(s).
>
>> who MATTHEW was
>>
>> but glad to see �you admit your error about john
>
>I admitted my overstatement ("John met Jesus"); when will you admit
>your parallel overstatement ("John never met Jesus")?
at BEST i will concede that there may have been a 'john'. anything
more than that is simply speculation.
backspace
unproven assumptions."�*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), p. 101.
"The real problem with Darwin's selection theory, however, is that it
can explain everything and therefore, nothing, By logical necessity
what survives (or what produces more offspring) is more fit than what
doesn't. What is more, it is therefore better adapted, and what is
better adapted is therefore `selected for' (or in other words,
survives). Of course selection is successful in explaining nature,
since the characteristic of tautologies is that they explain
everything. And, of course, that is the true measure of selection's
appeal."�*D. Rosen, "Darwin's Demon," in Systematic Zoology 27 (1978),
p. 371.
"Selection" has no meaning, the word was arbitrarily used to
reformulate Aristotle by Darwin as shown by Darwin in quoting
Aristotle as the basis for his natural selection theory. This insight
that words don't mean anything allows us to see what ideas we are
actually dealing with: Democritus, Aristotle, Empedocles, Epicurus
back to Gandalf the tribal wizard.
As the Bible says: "..... there is nothing new under the sun....." the
ideas stay the same and gets recycled for each generation using
different symbols(selection , phenotype, genotype, reproductive
success etc). Darwin's breakthrough in 1859 was restating Democritus
but using the word "selection" for this purpose. Which is why the
question "Who did the selecting" doesn't really make sense. The idea
being represented with "selection" isn't "decision" but the battle
mythology between the atoms from Democritus.
"Reproductive success" was a term crafted to reflect the battle theme
between the atoms from Democritus as in " the good atom was a
"success" after outwitting the bad atom...." which today is the fight
between the alleles or organisms "dominating" an ecological niche.
Dominating, success were the words Gandalf the wizard used 5000years
ago in telling how the god Zoras outwitted the giant see snake.
Note that nobody can still explain what technical concept
"reproductive success" is supposed to represent: Who says reproductive
success? That would be like asking who said 'You have a green light',
the term is so generic that it should be obvious it can't have any
specific technical concept in mind like Newtons inverse square law
does.
Rather see through the weasel words and terms and look for what is
really being spun into biology : dominate, success, 'red in tooth and
claw', survival, fittest.
Burkhard
> "At key points, Darwin's theory boiled down to empty tautologies and
> unproven assumptions."�*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), p. 101.
>
> "The real problem with Darwin's selection theory, however, is that it
> can explain everything and therefore, nothing, By logical necessity
> what survives (or what produces more offspring) is more fit than what
> doesn't. What is more, it is therefore better adapted, and what is
> better adapted is therefore `selected for' (or in other words,
> survives). Of course selection is successful in explaining nature,
> since the characteristic of tautologies is that they explain
> everything. And, of course, that is the true measure of selection's
> appeal."�*D. Rosen, "Darwin's Demon," in Systematic Zoology 27 (1978),
> p. 371.
>
> "Selection" has no meaning, the word was arbitrarily used to
> reformulate Aristotle by Darwin as shown by Darwin in quoting
> Aristotle as the basis for his natural selection theory. This insight
A typo for sure. Replace "insight" by "confusion"
> that words don't mean anything allows us to see what ideas we are
> actually dealing with: Democritus, Aristotle, Empedocles, Epicurus
> back to Gandalf the tribal wizard.
>
> As the Bible says: "..... there is nothing new under the sun....."
Well, if you mean: I'm going to repeat the same stuff over and over
and over again, even though it was false in the first place, that is
surely true.
the
> ideas stay the same and gets recycled for each generation using
> different symbols(selection , phenotype, genotype, reproductive
> success etc). Darwin's breakthrough in 1859 was restating Democritus
> but using the word "selection" for this purpose. Which is why the
> question "Who did the selecting" doesn't really make sense.
It doesn't make sense since there is no ""who",just a "what".
>The idea
> being represented with "selection" isn't "decision"
true
>but the battle
> mythology between the atoms from Democritus.
false
> "Reproductive success" was a term crafted to reflect the battle theme
> between the atoms from Democritus as in " the good atom was a
> "success" after outwitting the bad atom...." which today is the fight
> between the alleles or organisms "dominating" an ecological niche.
> Dominating, success were the words Gandalf the wizard used 5000years
> ago in telling how the god Zoras outwitted the giant see snake.
>
> Note that nobody can still explain what technical concept
> "reproductive success" is supposed to represent:
You've been given several definitions in varying degrees of precision.
It simply means: having more offspring than your competitors.
Simple counting suffices
backspace
>
> > ideas stay the same and gets recycled for each generation using
> > different symbols(selection , phenotype, genotype, reproductive
> > success etc). Darwin's breakthrough in 1859 was restating Democritus
> > but using the word "selection" for this purpose. Which is why the
> > question "Who did the selecting" doesn't really make sense.
>
> It doesn't make sense since there is no ""who",just a "what".
As in "what does the selecting?" Since the sentence doesn't mean
anything in either the patter or design sense, we need to know who
used the symbols and what concept in either pattern or design he was
communicating
http://www.answerspice.com/c284/1162075/i-have-a-question-about-natural-selection-which-of-these-is-correct-both
"....Natural selection occurs when one individual of a species
possesses a genetic advantage to other members of the species (faster,
armoured plates, smarter, etc). This gives the individual more chance
of surviving long enough to reproduce and pass on the 'superior'
trait....."
Ok, other than noting the species had an advantage how did the author
figure out that they would have a better chance of surviving?
If you follow the URL you will note how they struggle to reconcile the
natural and selection part, trying to make sense not realizing that
"natural selection" doesn't mean anything, only the idea Patrick
Matthews had with "natural means of selection" had meaning. All
scientific theories are always formally defined without exception.
> >The idea
> > being represented with "selection" isn't "decision"
> true
Depends who says selection.
> > "Reproductive success" was a term crafted to reflect the battle theme
> > between the atoms from Democritus as in " the good atom was a
> > "success" after outwitting the bad atom...." which today is the fight
> > between the alleles or organisms "dominating" an ecological niche.
> > Dominating, success were the words Gandalf the wizard used 5000years
> > ago in telling how the god Zoras outwitted the giant see snake.
> > Note that nobody can still explain what technical concept
> > "reproductive success" is supposed to represent:
> You've been given several definitions in varying degrees of precision.
Such as?
> It simply means: having more offspring than your competitors.
DR has no meaning. Only an idea could have meaning, which person are
you interpreting and why did he uses DR to represent his technical
concept.
Kermit
> "At key points, Darwin's theory boiled down to empty tautologies and
Thomas Roszak was a socialogist (not to be confused with the
architect) who was infused with enthusiasm for the New Age woo of the
1960s. I had at one point his "The Making of a Counter Culture". He
was not a biologist, and "Unfinished Animal" is listed in Amazon.com
as a novel. Why do you embrace this non-biologist's opinion's on a
subject to which he was hostile and about which he was ignorant? Was
it his opinion, or the opinion of somebody inhis book? Could it be
that you quote him as an authority because you approve of his confused
distaste for hard science? (Sociology certainly can be, but not the
way he did it.)
>
> "The real problem with Darwin's selection theory, however, is that it
> can explain everything and therefore, nothing, By logical necessity
> what survives (or what produces more offspring) is more fit than what
> doesn't. What is more, it is therefore better adapted, and what is
> better adapted is therefore `selected for' (or in other words,
> survives). Of course selection is successful in explaining nature,
> since the characteristic of tautologies is that they explain
> everything. And, of course, that is the true measure of selection's
> appeal."—*D. Rosen, "Darwin's Demon," in Systematic Zoology 27 (1978),
> p. 371.
This was a book review:
http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content/vol27/issue3/index.dtl#POINTS_OF_VIEW
It appears as though Donn Eric Rosen was an architect, although a
serious amateur biolgist - a member of the American Society of
Icthyologists and Herpetologists.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1445812
Do you see how deeply you have to bury yourself in dusty corners of
the library in order to find anyone who will criticize mainstream
biology?
>
> "Selection" has no meaning, the word was arbitrarily used to
> reformulate Aristotle by Darwin as shown by Darwin in quoting
> Aristotle as the basis for his natural selection theory. This insight
> that words don't mean anything allows us to see what ideas we are
> actually dealing with: Democritus, Aristotle, Empedocles, Epicurus
> back to Gandalf the tribal wizard.
"Selection" has nothing to do with Greek philosophers. It wouldn't
have mattered if it had come from Phoenecian animal husbandry, Dutch
piracy, or a Welsh nursery rhyme. It was a word that suited Darwin
because it paralleled the results or domestic animal and crop
breeding, practiced in agricultural cultures for thousands of years.
Everybody but you who could read his book understood the concept when
they read his explanation.
We still use that word because the concept is still legitimate. Darwin
got a number of things wrong, and those were changed by succeeding
biologists. And of course we have learned a good deal in 150 years.
>
> As the Bible says: "..... there is nothing new under the sun....." the
> ideas stay the same and gets recycled for each generation using
> different symbols(selection , phenotype, genotype, reproductive
> success etc). Darwin's breakthrough in 1859 was restating Democritus
He wasn't restating Democritus. He was describing a new insight into
the behavior of the world around us. You don't like that discovery, so
you are trying to make it go away with word magic. How's that working
for you?
> but using the word "selection" for this purpose. Which is why the
> question "Who did the selecting" doesn't really make sense. The idea
> being represented with "selection" isn't "decision" but the battle
> mythology between the atoms from Democritus.
No, it's a selection by the environment.
Too bad if you don't like it; we all know what it means.
>
> "Reproductive success" was a term crafted to reflect the battle theme
> between the atoms from Democritus as in " the good atom was a
> "success" after outwitting the bad atom...." which today is the fight
> between the alleles or organisms "dominating" an ecological niche.
> Dominating, success were the words Gandalf the wizard used 5000years
> ago in telling how the god Zoras outwitted the giant see snake.
Nope. It means some organisms have more babies that others do. Your
obsession with language has crippled you.
>
> Note that nobody can still explain what technical concept
> "reproductive success" is supposed to represent: Who says reproductive
> success?
*I do. I mean by it the same thing everybody else does. Like this:
Student: "Excuse me, professor. What do you mean by 'reproductive
success'? Is that like an easy birth or something?
Professor: "No, it means having more babies than other individuals in
the gene pool."
Student: "Ah. Thank you."
> That would be like asking who said 'You have a green light',
> the term is so generic that it should be obvious it can't have any
> specific technical concept in mind like Newtons inverse square law
> does.
Correct. And if you were driving a car, and a passenger told you that
you had a green light, you would sit there referencing Democritus and
complaining that your passenger had given you no primal authority
defining the term, and wouldn't admit what his pragmatics were.
Until the police showed up.
Normal people understand common terms by the context they find
themselves in. If it is the uncommon situation in which the context
can suggest two meanings, the normal person would ask for
clarification.
>
> Rather see through the weasel words and terms and look for what is
> really being spun into biology : dominate, success, 'red in tooth and
> claw', survival, fittest.
Please cite the authority who first defined "weasel words". They have
no meaning; they are merely symbolic place holders for ideas, which do
have meaning, but only in the proper context, which you have not
established, but they are clearly derived from the Confucian school;
especially Mencius. The famous phrase associated with him, "mèng mǔ
sān qiān", emphasizes the importance of context. The child associated
with with the term's origins is a small animal, like a weasel, and
clearly begs for proper context, as the referenced child does before
it. And yet you try to use the derived term with no context at all!
This clearly establishes the vacuous nature of your argument. Let's
examine it more carefully:
"see through the weasel words and terms and look for what is really
being spun into biology : dominate, success, 'red in tooth and claw',
survival, fittest.
Paraphrased:
"look at the weasel phrase in context, and see the nature of biology:
mean stuff."
Paraphrased:
"the lost child searches biology, but see nothing which is not scary."
Paraphrased:
"science is scary."
Hope that helps!
Kermit
Burkhard
No, we don't. We just need basic competency in English.
>
> http://www.answerspice.com/c284/1162075/i-have-a-question-about-natur...
> "....Natural selection occurs when one individual of a species
> possesses a genetic advantage to other members of the species (faster,
> armoured plates, smarter, etc). This gives the individual more chance
> of surviving long enough to reproduce and pass on the 'superior'
> trait....."
>
> Ok, other than noting the species had an advantage how did the author
> figure out that they would have a better chance of surviving?
Looking at them and see how long they survive, and if they have
offspring
>
> If you follow the URL you will note how they struggle to reconcile the
> natural and selection part, trying to make sense not realizing that
> "natural selection" doesn't mean anything, only the idea Patrick
> Matthews had with "natural means of selection" had meaning. All
> scientific theories are always formally defined without exception.
wrong
>
> > >The idea
> > > being represented with "selection" isn't "decision"
> > true
>
> Depends who says selection.
>
> > > "Reproductive success" was a term crafted to reflect the battle theme
> > > between the atoms from Democritus as in " the good atom was a
> > > "success" after outwitting the bad atom...." which today is the fight
> > > between the alleles or organisms "dominating" an ecological niche.
> > > Dominating, success were the words Gandalf the wizard used 5000years
> > > ago in telling how the god Zoras outwitted the giant see snake.
> > > Note that nobody can still explain what technical concept
> > > "reproductive success" is supposed to represent:
> > You've been given several definitions in varying degrees of precision.
>
> Such as?
I gave a simple one below. Garamond referred you on a number of
occasions to a fully formal version by Barton, _Evolution_, (2007)
p788.
>
> > It simply means: having more offspring than your competitors.
>
> DR has no meaning.
I just gave you th emeaning
>Only an idea could have meaning,
Only becuase you have an inadequate theory of meaning doesn't mean we
others have to t use it
>which person are
> you interpreting and why did he uses DR to represent his technical
> concept.
I'm using it in the way evolutionary biologists are using it.
backspace
> > but using the word "selection" for this purpose. Which is why the
> > question "Who did the selecting" doesn't really make sense. The idea
> > being represented with "selection" isn't "decision" but the battle
> > mythology between the atoms from Democritus.
> No, it's a selection by the environment.
Are you using selection in the pattern or design sense? Note to my
fellow YEC: If you want to go to heaven and not have the Lord Jesus
remove your name from the book of life you always ask this question
whether at Harvard(will throw you out by the third time) or Ken Ham (I
believe in natural selection) or Dembski. Because as a YEC you believe
there are only patterns or designs, anything else and you are
mentally ill. There aren't crazy people in heaven , only sane rational
normal people.
backspace
mentally ill person(YEC, atheist , id): I believe in natural selection
question: You mean you believe in natural decision?
mentally ill person(YEC, atheist , id): mmmm , uh, duh no ,no not
really....don' know....what you mean?
question: Ok, fine are you using "selection" in the pattern or design
sense?
mentally ill person(YEC, atheist , id): All design is subset of
pattern .........
In other words I am bringing the endless debate between theists and
atheists to a closure, Paul didn't engage in endless discussions with
people who "..... are willingly ignorant...." ,he dusted his feat and
went on.