Appearance of design and real design?

[backspace]

In the video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6589272663573268460
Massimo says that the eyeball has only the appearance of design. By
implication Massimo himself has only the appearance of design and his
very words the appearance only of design: why should we then believe a
word he says?

My presupposition on this issue is defined at http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Pattern_or_design

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Saturday, June 2, 2012 12:07:10 PM UTC+1, backspace wrote:
> In the video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6589272663573268460
> Massimo says that the eyeball has only the appearance of design. By
> implication Massimo himself has only the appearance of design and his
> very words the appearance only of design: why should we then believe a
> word he says?

That's argument from authority, backwards.
If nobody in particular makes an argument,
is it a less valid argument?

Wikipedia says "The Massimo family claims to
have provided two Popes to the Catholic Church",
so that's "duplex cathedra". :-)

> My presupposition on this issue is defined at
> <http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Pattern_or_design>

But you shouldn't end with a presupposition.

[James Beck]

Nice koan.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 04:07:10 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

>In the video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6589272663573268460
>Massimo says that the eyeball has only the appearance of design. By
>implication Massimo himself has only the appearance of design

Correct...

> and his
>very words the appearance only of design:

Correct...

> why should we then believe a
>word he says?

Breathtaking non sequitur, there. I salute you.

But observation of your idiocies aside...

I'm still waiting for *anyone* to provide the criteria by
which design can be unambiguously detected. Would you care
to try, or will you just run away again?

>My presupposition on this issue is defined at http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Pattern_or_design

You wrote this, I assume? It's certainly turgid enough, and
vacantly long-winded enough, to be yours.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[Robert Camp]

On Jun 2, 4:07 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the videohttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6589272663573268460

> Massimo says that the eyeball has only the appearance of design. By
> implication Massimo himself has only the appearance of design

If you refer to his physical form, then yes, that is the implication
(one that is supported by the evidence),

> and his
> very words the appearance only of design:

Well of course this doesn't follow at all. There's nothing in an
observation that both the human eye and the human body are not the
products of design which suggests that human communication is
therefore undesigned as well.

> why should we then believe a
> word he says?

I wasn't able to view the video, but your silly argument leaves me
disinclined to worry about his veracity.

RLC

[Glen Davidson]

On Jun 2, 4:07 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In the videohttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6589272663573268460

And for what purpose do eyes, ostriches, influenza viruses, and
warthogs appear designed to fulfill?

How do these things appear to have been designed?

What makes anyone suppose that any of these things appear designed in
the first place? I know that Dawkins says it, but I can't even
imagine how that claim can be defended unless you already assume that
essentially purposeless organisms and ecosystems would be designed by
some inscrutable entity--some sort of deity, in most such imaginings.
It makes no sense, Dawkins has no actual business claiming that life
"appears designed" when it appears vastly different from anything that
humans design.

Life appears to be composed of functional parts, which is what Dawkins
and Massimo seem to be conflating with "appears designed." It's true
that if you already assume that functional parts "appear designed,"
then fine, to you it appears designed. However, there's nothing
legitimate about conflating function with design, and such a prejudice
oughtn't be considered to be either legitimate or universal. Life
happens to appear evolved, in fact, which is why ideas of evolution
arose, and that hypothesis also happens to pass falsification tests.

Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

[backspace]

On Jun 3, 2:56 am, Glen Davidson <interelectromagne...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Are you using ''evolved'' in the pattern or design sense? What I mean
by this is documented at my wiki:
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wiki

All of language functions on Platonic primary binary contrasts. If by
Evolved you mean some third option beyond the pattern with a purpose,
pattern without a purpose dichotomy then your sentences reduces to
grammatically correct constructs but meaningless. This is in terms of
my YEC premise, I am assuming my premise in my conclusion.

This is not the same as circular reasoning. I am coming increasingly
to the conclusion that the concept of circular reasoning doesn't
exist: only must assume some sort of premise in any conclusion. But
there are a few journal papers I have to read in order for formulate
reasons for my view, which is not yet clear on the issue.

Usually when two premises differ on a matter of logic, which is not
open to scientific falsification with an instrument either side
considers the other as "reasoning in a circle" in order to disparage
his premise. Usually it all depends on what unfalsifiable premise is
being assumed. Since there were no measurements of the speed of light
6000 years ago, 1mil or a billion not conclusions can be inferred and
all of cosmology extrapolations from our present measurements is
hocus-pocus nonsense.

This is not a point of science but of logic, you either comprehend the
premise or you don't . If you don't , well then you don't , no
"scientific" reasoning on the matter is possible: its all logic.

[backspace]

On a point of logic, the following premises:
1) Design begets design.
2) Non-design or apparent design can't beget design.

If you yourself have only the appearance of design, then everything
you say is non-design begets design, in violation of premise 1. This
has nothing to do with science.

For example the perception about what constitutes the fallacy of False
Analogy is whether you agree with the following logic:

On usenet I asked the question: What did the first talking monkey's
mommy look like? The response was : What did the first speaker of
French mother speak? This is a false analogy because the first speaker
of French's mother would have the same morphological features, while
the first talking monkey's mommy(who could not talk) morphology would
have been different: you either agree or don't. If you don't, well
then you don't - there isn't a False Analogy measurement machine sold
by the IEEE to confirm or refute arguments of logic.

[wiki trix]

On Jun 2, 7:07 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the videohttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6589272663573268460

> Massimo says that the eyeball has only the appearance of design. By
> implication Massimo himself has only the appearance of design and his
> very words the appearance only of design: why should we then believe a
> word he says?

That is a non sequitur. Why should we either believe or disbelieve
what he says on the basis of whether or not he or his words are
designed? Let's say that if you wait long enough, a random sequence of
ASCII bytes produces the English statement: "one plus one equals two".
Are we to claim it is false simply because the information source was
not a designed sequence?

[Burkhard]

Indeed, why woudl it be? Rather, it is an example of a non-sequitur.
Why would a premise that (mis) states the age of the earth have any
bearing on the semantics of natural languages?

I am coming increasingly
> to the conclusion that the concept of circular reasoning doesn't
> exist: only must assume some sort of premise in any conclusion.

Two things wrong with that : Logical truths are defined as being
derived from the empty set of premises. That's one of the things that
makes them tautologies.
Secondly, only because you have to assume some premises to reach a
conclusion does not make the argument circular. Only if either the
evidence for the premises is the very conclusion you just derived, or
the premises are in fact the conclusion, are you making a circular
argument.

>But
> there are a few journal papers I have to read in order for formulate
> reasons for my view, which is not yet clear on the issue.
>
> Usually when two premises differ on a matter of logic, which is not
> open to scientific falsification with an instrument either side
> considers the other as "reasoning in a circle" in order to disparage
> his premise. Usually it all depends on what unfalsifiable premise is
> being assumed. Since there were no measurements of the speed of light
> 6000 years ago, 1mil or a billion not conclusions can be inferred and
> all of cosmology extrapolations from our present measurements  is
> hocus-pocus nonsense.

So the world might be 200 years old? And that is as valid a conclusion
as any, including 2 days or 200bn?

Now, I'd say we can make a rational choice between these options based
on a few pretty simple ideas, in particular the coherence theory of
truth. The speed of light is not just observed as (for all intends
and purposes) stable, this also follows from a whole host of theories
that describe the nature of light, it is both observed and
theoretically derived. That does not mean that it could not be wrong,
but that everybody claiming so has a very reasonable burden of proof.
The notion that the speed of light is constant "fits" with all other
sorts of things we know, and forms a consistent set of belief - and
everybody claiming that it decelerated needs to show that this too is
consistent with a whole lo of related beliefs. Our scientific beliefs
form a coherent web, and are not just a set of more or less ad hoc
assumptions. Constancy of speed of light does not just cohere with
other things we know about light etc, the measurements we get as a
result for the age of the universe also cohere across different
measurement methods.

With a concept so firmly embedded into the network of our consistent
scientific concepts everybody claiming that is is not constant to
show what mechanism resulted in its deceleration or acceleration. This
explanation would also need to give a reason why we do not observe a
change _now_.

Once this burden of proof has been discharged, we can discuss if the
age of the universe needs to be reassessed. 'Til then, then.

[Burkhard]

Not according to the ToE. The morphology between child and mother
would not have been more radically different than what you always find
between generations

> you either agree or don't.

You seem to misunderstand what "analogy" means. An analogy always
keeps some traits of the original, while changing others
The analogy is correct, as it shows that both questions are based on a
wrong hypothesis - that there was "one" first speaker, and that this
speaker was in some sense significantly different from his progenitor.

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Sunday, June 3, 2012 6:41:25 PM UTC+1, backspace wrote:
> If you yourself have only the appearance of design, then everything
> you say is non-design begets design, in violation of premise 1. This
> has nothing to do with science.
>
> For example the perception about what constitutes the fallacy of False
> Analogy is whether you agree with the following logic:
>
> On usenet I asked the question: What did the first talking monkey's
> mommy look like? The response was : What did the first speaker of
> French mother speak? This is a false analogy because the first speaker
> of French's mother would have the same morphological features, while
> the first talking monkey's mommy(who could not talk) morphology would
> have been different: you either agree or don't. If you don't, well
> then you don't - there isn't a False Analogy measurement machine sold
> by the IEEE to confirm or refute arguments of logic.

The point made by referring to French
is that there is a smooth transition
from communicating by grunts or other
animal calls to having a language.
Animal calls already have meanings.
And apparently even plants can
communicate - at least I've been told
that an acacia (for instance) emits
a scent that warns other acacia that
a giraffe (for instance) is eating it.
So, when do you call it talking?

Anyway, maybe the first primate that
/did/ talk had a mother that /could/
talk, but never did talk.

[Mike Painter]

On 6/3/2012 10:41 AM, backspace wrote:
> On Jun 3, 1:33 am, Robert Camp<robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 4:07 am, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In the videohttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6589272663573268460
>>> Massimo says that the eyeball has only the appearance of design. By
>>> implication Massimo himself has only the appearance of design
>>
>> If you refer to his physical form, then yes, that is the implication
>> (one that is supported by the evidence),
>>
>>> and his
>>> very words the appearance only of design:
>>
>> Well of course this doesn't follow at all. There's nothing in an
>> observation that both the human eye and the human body are not the
>> products of design which suggests that human communication is
>> therefore undesigned as well.
>>
>>> why should we then believe a
>>> word he says?
>>
>> I wasn't able to view the video, but your silly argument leaves me
>> disinclined to worry about his veracity.
>>
>> RLC
>
> On a point of logic, the following premises:
> 1) Design begets design.
> 2) Non-design or apparent design can't beget design.
>

1. Everything I agree with is true
2. Everything I disagree with is not true.

I do not agree with you and since we both use the same (rather inane)
concept of logic, you are wrong.

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 2, 5:33 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 4:07 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In the videohttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6589272663573268460
> > Massimo says that the eyeball has only the appearance of design. By
> > implication Massimo himself has only the appearance of design
>
> If you refer to his physical form, then yes, that is the implication
> (one that is supported by the evidence),
>

Do **you** see said appearance of design, Robert?

How about any of your fellow evos?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 2, 6:56 pm, Glen Davidson <interelectromagne...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> On Jun 2, 4:07 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In the videohttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6589272663573268460
> > Massimo says that the eyeball has only the appearance of design. By
> > implication Massimo himself has only the appearance of design and his
> > very words the appearance only of design: why should we then believe a
> > word he says?
>
> > My presupposition on this issue is defined athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Pattern_or_design
>
> And for what purpose do eyes, ostriches, influenza viruses, and
> warthogs appear designed to fulfill?
>
> How do these things appear to have been designed?
>
> What makes anyone suppose that any of these things appear designed in
> the first place?  I know that Dawkins says it, but I can't even
> imagine how that claim can be defended unless you already assume that
> essentially purposeless organisms and ecosystems would be designed by
> some inscrutable entity--some sort of deity, in most such imaginings.
> It makes no sense, Dawkins has no actual business claiming that life
> "appears designed" when it appears vastly different from anything that
> humans design.
>

If you take the time to read Dawkins very closely (and I have),
***following his context,*** he does not actually say or admit that
he himself accepts, along with science, existence of an appearance of
design. What he actually says, is, IF anyone claims to see an
appearance of design THEN it must be a by-product of the power of
selection. Dawkins is saying: "Look, we know for a fact that the law
of natural selection exists; and we have yet to discover any evidence
supporting the existence of God; therefore those who see an appearance
of design the same must be a product of a powerful selection process."
He concludes that said appearance is an illusion, which provides him
and his colleagues the safe harbor of being able to say "we don't see
it."

When you read Dawkins closely, this is what he is saying.

Ray

[wiki trix]

On Jun 3, 4:39 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 5:33 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 2, 4:07 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > In the videohttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6589272663573268460
> > > Massimo says that the eyeball has only the appearance of design. By
> > > implication Massimo himself has only the appearance of design
>
> > If you refer to his physical form, then yes, that is the implication
> > (one that is supported by the evidence),
>
> Do **you** see said appearance of design, Robert?
>
> How about any of your fellow evos?

The word "design" is meaningless.

[Ray Martinez]

A graphic way of saying, "Hell no!"

Ray

[wiki trix]

When a genetic algorithm finds a solution to a problem, such as the
TSP, are you saying that the genetic algorithm has meaningful and
intelligent intent to find the solution? Is it designing the solution?

BTW, the genetic algorithm itself was the result of a meta genetic
algorithm known as the human mind, which was the result of a meta
genetic algorithms on multiple levels, known as mathematics, physics,
cognitive development, cultural and linguistic evolution, which came
from biological evolution which came from molecular evolution which
came from cosmological evolution, which came from many worlds
evolution. The cool thing is when these levels interact, one great
example of which is the discipline known as science.

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/3/12 10:41 AM, backspace wrote:
>
> On a point of logic, the following premises:
> 1) Design begets design.
> 2) Non-design or apparent design can't beget design.

Assuming your conclusion. Not a valid way to do logic.

> [...]

> On usenet I asked the question: What did the first talking monkey's
> mommy look like? The response was : What did the first speaker of
> French mother speak? This is a false analogy because the first speaker
> of French's mother would have the same morphological features, while
> the first talking monkey's mommy(who could not talk) morphology would
> have been different: you either agree or don't. If you don't, well
> then you don't - there isn't a False Analogy measurement machine sold
> by the IEEE to confirm or refute arguments of logic.

It may not be exactly what you want, but it is a true analogy. Try
answering the question, and you might be able to see why.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[wiki trix]

IEEE does not sell any machines... and I have been a member for about
30 years. But the Church of Ziontology does have a few Z-Meters on
sale that can be used for measuring anything and everything,
including false Analogy measurements. I give you one cheeeep. High
kvality...

[backspace]

The point that John D.Brey in his book Tautological oxymorons made was
that Atheists are using language not available to them given their
premises. Our entire language is structured as communicating actual
design, they are using the same volitional type terminology to express
the opposite.

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

On Monday, June 4, 2012 6:43:07 AM UTC+1, backspace wrote:
> On Jun 3, 10:08 pm, Ray Martinez

That is a fault in the language itself then,
and Americans will not like the proposition
that anyone, even Atheists, isn't permitted
to say whatever they like. (Actually I'm
not sure of that.)

If John Brey prepared the book and its
description at Amazon himself, then I see
that he finds it necessary to spell
"ontotheological" with a capital T -
on the cover - and he isn't very good
at full stops.

[Ray Martinez]

Yes, I agree. That said, why do you accept natural selection to have
any validity?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 4, 2:23 am, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-

As ridiculous as it gets!

Shows how whacked-out evos truly are.

Ray

[backspace]

My position on this issue is probably not very clear at
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wiki , it is a work in
progress. I need to sit down with somebody who proof reads to clear up
the grammar mistakes, repetition etc. I am not the brightest YEC as
Burkhard has demonstrated , but I am trying my best: my intentions are
honest.

A position, idea or concept and its possible validity or not can only
be expressed using full sentences. Natural selection by consulting a
dictionary before 1859 is an oxymoron and as such can be used
metaphorically for any concept as Darwin did. Only sentences can be
tautologies, ns is a term not a sentence and can thus by definition
not be a tautology. The central idea that Darwin constructed is a
tautology for which he used ns as the contracted shorthand for Patrick
matthew's ''natural means of competitive
selection,preservation,survival''. From reading Henry Osborn
''selection'' must be viewed as one of many dissimilar terms
(preservation,survival, cultivation, accumulation) to express the
unfalsifiable Democritus Atomism theory with different terminology.

[UC]

> My position on this issue is probably not very clear athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wiki, it is a work in

> progress. I need to sit down with somebody who proof reads to clear up
> the grammar mistakes, repetition etc. I am not the brightest YEC as
> Burkhard has demonstrated , but I am trying my best: my intentions are
> honest.
>
> A position, idea or concept and its possible validity or not can only
> be expressed using full sentences. Natural selection by consulting a
> dictionary before 1859 is an oxymoron and as such can be used
> metaphorically for any concept as Darwin did. Only sentences can be
> tautologies, ns is a term not a sentence and can thus by definition
> not be a tautology. The central idea that Darwin constructed is a
> tautology for which he used ns as the contracted shorthand for Patrick
> matthew's ''natural means of competitive
> selection,preservation,survival''.  From reading Henry Osborn
> ''selection'' must be viewed as one of many dissimilar terms
> (preservation,survival, cultivation, accumulation) to express the
> unfalsifiable Democritus Atomism theory with different terminology.

"Natural selection' was a term coined by Darwin to indicate that
Nature provides a sifting mechanism for living organism, whose chances
of survival and reproduction vary by chance and their traits,
including fertility and hardiness.

He also asserted that from these 'survivors' some will be different
from others, and that those most often selected in this way will pass
their traits onto their progeny, and if this process is repeated often
enough, over many generations, the result is that the morphology of
organisms can and does change radically.

He knew nothing of genetics.

[backspace]

It was a term due to Patrick Matthew. This is an historical fact,which
raises the question as to where he got the concept as the
natural,unintentional means of competitive preservation of those
favorable atoms,animals,ideas and rejection of those unfavorable
atoms,animals. The concept is from Democritus Atomism, because it is
an unfalsifiable series of propositions ,it allows one to use the same
core idea for inanimate matter or living subjects.

> Nature provides a sifting mechanism for living organism, whose chances
> of survival and reproduction vary by chance and their traits,
> including fertility and hardiness.

Nature is an effect, nothing is adapted to anything all phenomena
express only their attributes. Are you using sifting in the pattern or
design sense.

> He also asserted that from these 'survivors' some will be different
> from others, and that those most often selected in this way will pass
> their traits onto their progeny, and if this process is repeated often
> enough, over many generations, the result is that the morphology of
> organisms can and does change radically.

This is Democritus atomism reformulated. See Henry osborne's book :
From the Greeks to Darwin on Gutenberg press(google it)

> He knew nothing of genetics.

Neither did Democritus and Aristotle, yet Darwin,Hutton,Matthew
reformulated their core ideas which are stated in such a manner that
the truth of their propositions can't be disputed, thus it is
unfalsifiable.

[backspace]

Assume for sake of argument that God made the universe 6000 years ago.
He also made the abstract concept of measurement during this 6 day
period( assume,assume). Assume only humans can measure things.
Thus any measurement of anything was only possible when God told Adam
to label the animals. During the creation event the very concept of
measuring anything,including the speed of light did not exist.

Problem with this argument for one is that it is utterly
unfalsifiable. This would be a problem if God himself didn't state: He
calleth those things that be not as though they were. Thus from the
premise of unfalsifiability follow the conclusion of unfalsifiable
faith .

The same type of faith I use to speak this language the Lord Jesus
gave me at age 12:
http://www.esnips.com/displayimage.php?album=4868690&pid=34103247#top_display_media

[Burkhard]

OK...

> He also made the abstract concept of measurement during this 6 day
> period( assume,assume).

Don't think that works. Abstract concepts are not made, nor are they
physical properties of things. That is pretty much independent from
the religious or scientific beliefs - Theologians typically argue
that even God can't change the laws of logic, simply because they are
not "laws" in that sense. as soon as you have anything, you can mesure
it, "being measurable" is not an additional quality it can acquire
later. So your sentence is meaningless i the true sense of the word,

>Assume only humans can measure things.

Fine, though I don't see how it helps you (and what about angels, and
God, and any of the other non human but intelligent agents in the
bible/)

> Thus any measurement of anything was only possible when God told Adam
> to label the animals.

As I said, that idea is not even intelligible. The animals were
measurable, e.g. had one specific number, as soon as they were reated,
and independent fro the question if someone is around who could
actually count them.

> D>uring the creation event the very concept of

> measuring anything,including the speed of light did not exist.

Well, if you think of the creation moment as singularity, a bit like
the big bang, that had no extension in time, that would work. But that
of course contradicts the biblical idea tha the creation took 6 days -
which is of course an explicit statement of a time measurement.

> Problem with this argument for one is that it is utterly
> unfalsifiable. This would be a problem if God himself didn't state: He
> calleth those things that be not as though they were. Thus from the
> premise of unfalsifiability follow the conclusion of unfalsifiable
> faith .

I think you misunderstand why unfalsifibale proposition, especially
"strong unfalsifiable propositions" (that is, not jut unfalsifiable
with present measurement equipment, but in principle unfalsifiable)
are a problem.

First, while your position can't be refuted, you also lose the ability
to use to to refute anyone else's position. Sure, we can assume for
the moment that the world is 6000 years old, and then adjust lots of
stuff to make this fit with all possible observations. But why 6000?
Why not 6 days? Or 7000 years? Or 60000, 600000, 6bn, 60bn, 600bn? We
can use the same approach of "assuming" the starting point, and then
to rearrange everything around it as you have done above, and by
definition, there is no way to distinguish between the legitimacy of
one assumption over the other. Let's assume Discordia created the
world 6 days ago. Or lets assume that Brahma started dreaming the
present universe about 4,320,000,000 years ago. Now IF you treat these
as statements about material reality, and IF at the same time you take
them as unfalsifiable assumptions justified by faith, they (and any
other number) is just as good as yours.

Now, some religions may be willing to bite that bullet - all those
religions that reject proselyting e.g will have fewer problems. But
most think it is possible to convince other people of their belief,
something you lose in principle through your approach. That is where
Ray Martinez started criticising you last time round - your
"assumption" approach makes religious choice with necessity arbitrary,
fully subjective and in a way very postmodern.

It also raises the issue why you post on a NG like this one - on your
own terms, there is nothing that you can possibly learn here that can
change your mind, and there is also nothing you can say that can
legitimately change the mind of others. All discussion becomes futile,
and "agreeing to disagree" the only and immediate choice.

There is another set of difficulties for you though. You are always
able to prevent your assumptions from being falsified by data, but
some of the adjustments can be a problem for the internal consistency
of your own approach. As I said elsewhere, our knowledge, in
particular our scientific knowledge, forms a net where all parts "fit"
and support each other.
Changing parts of it very often has unforeseen ripple effects at other
parts.Changing the speed of light in the past for instance will mean
to make lots and lots of adjustments in all other sorts of physical
theories. I'm not a physicist, and have no idea how much you can
"contain" changes like this, but I guess is that you'd have to make
massive adjustments and introduce more and more assumptions in fields
of our knowledge that seem to be far removed and look unrelated to
the age of the earth.

again, this might be bullet you are willing to bite, but your troubles
don't stop with physics. Essentially, your line of argument leads to
radical scepticism towards our knowledge of the past - any inference
of observations now can't be any longer extrapolated to the past. And
that makes all reports from the past also unintelligible for the
present. _all_ reports, including the Bible. In your cosmology,
certain things we experience as constant now speed of light e.g.)
would have changed with rapid speed, others that we experience now as
changing may have been constant then (as above, you will have to
introduce many more assumptions to make your model consistent). and
that means that people in the past would have experienced, and
described, a very different world.

There is no guarantee any longer, in your approach, that when the
bible talks of 6 days of creation, 40 years in the desert, 3 days on
the cross etc that these words mean anything like what they mean for
today's readers. All measurements might have been radically out of
line with what we experience and measure today, 4 years then may have
been 4000 or 0.4 years "in today's measurements" etc.

And this only uses those changes to standard model of the universe
that you make explicitly. Your _type_ of argument goes potentially
much further. How do we know that in biblical times, people did not
have green scales on their bodies and fangs? Well, because we
extrapolate backwards from what we observe today, but according to
your approach, this is illegitimate (it says noewehre in the bible
that people did NOT have green scales and fangs..)

So in your approach, both with the restricted assumptions you make
explicitly, and even more so when one is using the type of argument
you do, the Bible just like any other old human record becomes
meaningless for us, unreliable and devoid of _any_ intelligible
factual content. We have no idea any more if the words used there
comport anything like their modern meaning to us.

>
> The same type of faith I use to speak this language the Lord Jesus

> gave me at age 12:http://www.esnips.com/displayimage.php?album=4868690&pid=34103247#top...

Sorry can't quite see what that is supposed to be evidence of.

[nick_keigh...@hotmail.com]

On Sunday, June 3, 2012 11:29:59 AM UTC+1, backspace wrote:

<snip>

> Are you using ''evolved'' in the pattern or design sense? What I mean
> by this is documented at my wiki:
> http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wiki

how are you defining "pattern" and "design".

Evolution as far as I can see is neither pattern nor design. Evolution is the adaption of a life form to its environment. No preset pattern. No design.

> All of language functions on Platonic primary binary contrasts.

no it doesn't

> If by
> Evolved you mean some third option beyond the pattern with a purpose,
> pattern without a purpose dichotomy then your sentences reduces to
> grammatically correct constructs but meaningless. This is in terms of
> my YEC premise, I am assuming my premise in my conclusion.

is a gun a lizard or an egg plant? If by gun you mean some third option beyond the lizard or the egg plant then your sentences reduces to grammatically correct constructs but meaningless.

You artificaially contrain evolution evolution to have one of two possible meanings. Both seem very similar and have no connection with the actual meaning (do you own a dictionary or have accessto the internet?). And then claim evolution is improperly defined if someone fails to agree with your grammatical procrustian bed.

<snip.

> Usually when two premises differ on a matter of logic, which is not
> open to scientific falsification with an instrument either side
> considers the other as "reasoning in a circle" in order to disparage
> his premise. Usually it all depends on what unfalsifiable premise is
> being assumed. Since there were no measurements of the speed of light
> 6000 years ago, 1mil or a billion not conclusions can be inferred and
> all of cosmology extrapolations from our present measurements is
> hocus-pocus nonsense.
>
> This is not a point of science but of logic, you either comprehend the
> premise or you don't . If you don't , well then you don't , no
> "scientific" reasoning on the matter is possible: its all logic.

pretty much all of science is based on such inferences derived from observation. If you want to axiomatically abolish science that's up to you.Though it seems odd to me that a luddite like yourself would continue to use a science based artifact susch as the internet.

Oh, and changing the speed of light would have observable consequences (E=MC^2 etc.)

[nick_keigh...@hotmail.com]

On Sunday, June 3, 2012 6:41:25 PM UTC+1, backspace wrote:

<snip>

> On a point of logic, the following premises:
> 1) Design begets design.
> 2) Non-design or apparent design can't beget design.

I don't accept your premises. For instance I'm not designed yet I can design things.

<snip>

[nick_keigh...@hotmail.com]

On Sunday, June 3, 2012 9:39:23 PM UTC+1, Ray Martinez wrote:

<snip>

> Do **you** see said appearance of design, Robert?
>
> How about any of your fellow evos?

living things look incredibly intricate. They look a bit like little machines designed to do something. But a closer look reveals many oddities compared with what we normally see as a design. Living things build themselves, living things don't reuse parts and "sub-designs" fromother living things.

Living things are not designed. With the exceptions of domestic animals and genetic engineering.

Design is a concious activity.

[UC]

Oh that is untrue. They are not tautologies.

[nick_keigh...@hotmail.com]

On Monday, June 4, 2012 6:43:07 AM UTC+1, backspace wrote:

> On Jun 3, 10:08 pm, Ray Martinez

could you expand on that I simply don't see it. For instance I have a stone here. It's a quartz pebble from a scottish beach. I can describe it to you, I can describe a thing that wasn't designed- and most reasonably creationists (if that isn't an oxymoron!) would agree it wasn't designed. Doesn't this destroy your "language is structured to communicate (actual) design".Or is this just another one of your dodgy premises?

> they are using the same volitional type terminology to express
> the opposite.

people are ingenious

[TomS]

"On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 06:20:47 -0700 (PDT), in article
<96039e30-dac3-40bd...@googlegroups.com>,
nick_keigh...@hotmail.com stated..."

I'd also note that design does not entail existence.

Imaginary things are designed, yet they don't exist.

So we need something in addition to design to explain the existence
of something.


--
---Tom S.
"Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
(1999)

[John Stockwell]

On Saturday, June 2, 2012 5:07:10 AM UTC-6, backspace wrote:
> In the video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6589272663573268460

> Massimo says that the eyeball has only the appearance of design. By
> implication Massimo himself has only the appearance of design and his
> very words the appearance only of design: why should we then believe a
> word he says?
>
> My presupposition on this issue is defined at http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Pattern_or_design

There is nothing to tell us what is and what is not design. The eyeball is
a complex object

On Saturday, June 2, 2012 5:07:10 AM UTC-6, backspace wrote:
> In the video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6589272663573268460

> Massimo says that the eyeball has only the appearance of design. By
> implication Massimo himself has only the appearance of design and his
> very words the appearance only of design: why should we then believe a
> word he says?
>
> My presupposition on this issue is defined at http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Pattern_or_design

The real problem, of course, is that there is no criterion that will make
"designedness" an attribute that we can classify objects by.

Ultimately we only decide if something is designed, when we have modeled
the mode of its manufacture. Eyeballs are thought to arise, as with all other
biological structures, through the process of common descent influenced by
natural selection. So we have no compelling reason to consider such
structures to be designed.

-John

[UC]

A tautology is involved in the ontological argument:

I know God exists because the concept I have of God includes
existence.


Existence is a perfection.
God is perfect.
Therefore God must contain all perfections and must also exist.

[John Stockwell]

On Sunday, June 3, 2012 11:41:25 AM UTC-6, backspace wrote:

> On Jun 3, 1:33 am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 2, 4:07 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In the videohttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6589272663573268460
> > > Massimo says that the eyeball has only the appearance of design. By
> > > implication Massimo himself has only the appearance of design
> >

> > If you refer to his physical form, then yes, that is the implication
> > (one that is supported by the evidence),
> >

> > > and his
> > > very words the appearance only of design:
> >

> > Well of course this doesn't follow at all. There's nothing in an
> > observation that both the human eye and the human body are not the
> > products of design which suggests that human communication is
> > therefore undesigned as well.
> >

> > > why should we then believe a
> > > word he says?
> >

> > I wasn't able to view the video, but your silly argument leaves me
> > disinclined to worry about his veracity.
> >
> > RLC
>

> On a point of logic, the following premises:
> 1) Design begets design.
> 2) Non-design or apparent design can't beget design.
>

> If you yourself have only the appearance of design, then everything
> you say is non-design begets design, in violation of premise 1. This
> has nothing to do with science.

Premise 1 is false. Design is a label that humans put on activities that
other humans do, it has no other meaning.

>
> For example the perception about what constitutes the fallacy of False
> Analogy is whether you agree with the following logic:
>
> On usenet I asked the question: What did the first talking monkey's
> mommy look like? The response was : What did the first speaker of
> French mother speak? This is a false analogy because the first speaker
> of French's mother would have the same morphological features, while
> the first talking monkey's mommy(who could not talk) morphology would
> have been different: you either agree or don't. If you don't, well
> then you don't - there isn't a False Analogy measurement machine sold
> by the IEEE to confirm or refute arguments of logic.

Most animals "talk" to a certain degree in that they communicate by making
noises, physical posturing, release of scents, etc. So your claim
that a "monkey could not talk" is false.

You like to create paradoxes, however within logic there can be no
paradoxes, therefore you are not logical.

-John

[wiki trix]

There is a hell of a lot of talk about design without any definition
of the term. How can you talk about whether you are designed or
whether you can design things without a working definition? Can you
define the word "design" in such as way that we can say what is
designed and what is not?

[UC]

Interestingly, 'design' is a highly polysemous word. It can mean
anything from a mere pattern to an intention.

"The spider's web was an interesting design."

"She has designs on him".

[wiki trix]

On Jun 5, 9:33 am, nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 3, 2012 9:39:23 PM UTC+1, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Do **you** see said appearance of design, Robert?
>
> > How about any of your fellow evos?
>
> living things look incredibly intricate. They look a bit like little machines designed to do something. But a closer look reveals many oddities compared with what we normally see as a design. Living things build themselves, living things don't reuse parts and "sub-designs" fromother living things.

Living things do reuse parts and "sub-designs" from other living
things, namely from their parents. It is true that human design is
sexed-up to an absurd degree, so any new design inherits parts and sub-
designs from any and all available designs. That is multiple
recombinant cluster-fuck parent ideas in the prefrontal cortex.

> Living things are not designed. With the exceptions of domestic animals and genetic engineering.

Why the artificial distinction?

> Design is a concious activity.

We are having a hard enough time with "design" let alone
"consciousness". Why bring that in? What value does it add?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 08:23:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by wiki trix
<wiki...@gmail.com>:

Good luck with that request; every time I've made it the
proponents seem to be rendered mute. (Of course, their
claims are already moot, but that's a separate issue...)
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 08:37:29 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

In the context of this thread it has only one meaning: "This
did not arise through unconscious processes". The problem is
that it's solely a judgement call, with zero criteria for
evaluation.

[Ray Martinez]

> My position on this issue is probably not very clear athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wiki, it is a work in

> progress. I need to sit down with somebody who proof reads to clear up
> the grammar mistakes, repetition etc. I am not the brightest YEC as
> Burkhard has demonstrated , but I am trying my best: my intentions are
> honest.
>

You did just about everything except answer my question. Since Burk is
an Atheist-Evolutionist his opinion of you is predetermined,
worthless.

You spend most of your time here at Talk.Origins showing the world how
natural selection is a nonsensical and illogical concept, yet when
asked why you accept the scientific validity of said concept you balk
and hesitate and by doing so all the work you've done showing the
concept illogical and nonsensical is undermined. For these reasons,
and these reasons alone, you are not the brightest person.

Stop attacking that which you accept to have scientific validity.

Ray (anti-selectionist)

[Burkhard]

I'm about as far away from an atheist as you can get, that's why I try
to defend religion against people who try to give it a bad name by
misrepresenting it for fourth rate science

>-Evolutionist his opinion of you is predetermined,

I don't really have an opinion of backspace, I try to reply to the
post, not the poster. It's a science things. And whether or not
sentences or terms are suitable candidates for being tautologies is
pretty independent of one's religious views, it only requires some
understanding of linguistics and logic


> worthless.

How do you get from "predetermined" to "worthless"? Are you saying
that for someone who believes in predestination, like many protestant
sects, considers everything as worthless? And is your opinion of
Christians and atheists not euqally predetermined, and hence by your
own reckoning worthless? And maybe you should debate this with your
fellow creationist Nando, who things people who believe in any form of
predestination are dangerous social Darwinians, which would make you
one too.

[backspace]

Only sentences can be illogical, natural selection is a term and
oxymoron.

> yet when
> asked why you accept the scientific validity of said concept you balk

What sentence have I accepted, please indicate?

> and hesitate and by doing so all the work you've done showing the
> concept illogical and nonsensical is undermined.

What is illogical is using oxymorons non-metaphorically in sentences,
it turns the sentence into a meaningless sentence. Democritus
tautological sentences are not meaningless, because he didn't use an
oxymoron to formulate it. Darwin in restating Democritus used meant
the "natural means of competitive selection,preservation". Because
Dawkins, Burkhard, Wilkins don't specifically mean this with NS ,
their sentences are meaningless.

In my "preferential decision" example I used ns as the metaphor for
making a preferential decision for one type of food over another. For
some reason if I google preferential + decision my notes on this issue
is ranked at nr.1 . This is most likely because Google personalized my
search results.... I don't know.

Nietzsche stated: 'My philosophy is an inverted Platonism.'
Thus first figure out what idea is to be communicated with the
Platonic binary opposites using any combination of words be they
natural,selection,preservation. Rorty is quoted on p.36 of
Tautological Oxymorons : ''...Darwinism can't be stated in Platonic
terminology , so our efforts must be a gradual inculcation of new ways
of speak, rather than an honest argument using old
terminology....''(this is paraphrased).

Behold Ken Ham: ''.... I believe in natural selection(purposeless
purpose)....'' . YEC , theist are being turned into doublethink
tautological oxymorons.

[Ray Martinez]

False; ideas (like natural selection) can be illogical, including the
sentences that convey the idea. And I agree that NS is an oxymoron. I
could post the names of 20 scholars that say natural selection is "an
idea."

You have once again evaded a simple and plain question: why do you
accept an oxymoron and the illogical sentences that convey the idea to
have scientific validity?

Since you have evaded, the answer is obvious: You can't explain why
you argue against a concept while accepting its scientific validity.
You "the thing known as Backspace" are an oxymoron.

Ray (anti-selectionist)

P.S.: Burkhard: Please stay out of Creationist business.

[Burkhard]

No backspace is spot on here. Logic is about the relation (especially
the inference relation) between sentences.
ideas are instantiated or not instantiated, sentences (necessarily or
contingently) true or false, and inferences valid 9logical0 or invalid
(illogical)
Pretty much every inroduciotn to logic will tell you so, I'd recommend
Copi myself, but the basic distinctions are already described
extremely well by Occam

>including the
> sentences that convey the idea. And I agree that NS is an oxymoron. I
> could post the names of 20 scholars that say natural selection is "an
> idea."
>
> You have once again evaded a simple and plain question: why do you
> accept an oxymoron and the illogical sentences that convey the idea to
> have scientific validity?
>
> Since you have evaded, the answer is obvious: You can't explain why
> you argue against a concept while accepting its scientific validity.
> You "the thing known as Backspace" are an oxymoron.
>
> Ray (anti-selectionist)
>
> P.S.: Burkhard: Please stay out of Creationist business.
>

If you post on a public forum, expect the public to respond. if you
want private conversations, use email

[UC]

On Jun 5, 5:39�ｿｽpm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 10:10�ｿｽpm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 1:15�ｿｽpm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 5, 8:41�ｿｽpm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 4, 11:42�ｿｽam, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> �ｿｽ>including the

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > sentences that convey the idea. And I agree that NS is an oxymoron. I
> > could post the names of 20 scholars that say natural selection is "an
> > idea."
>
> > You have once again evaded a simple and plain question: why do you
> > accept an oxymoron and the illogical sentences that convey the idea to
> > have scientific validity?
>
> > Since you have evaded, the answer is obvious: You can't explain why
> > you argue against a concept while accepting its scientific validity.
> > You "the thing known as Backspace" are an oxymoron.
>
> > Ray (anti-selectionist)
>
> > P.S.: Burkhard: Please stay out of Creationist business.
>

> �ｿｽIf you post on a public forum, expect the public to respond. if you

> want private conversations, use email

If you want a real oxymoron, try 'customary fate'.

Custom is what men habitually do; do is what they have no control over.

[Ray Martinez]

Your input is badly written assertion that does not account for ideas.

Stay out of our business.

Ray

[backspace]

On Jun 6, 12:12�ｿｽam, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 2:39�ｿｽpm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 10:10�ｿｽpm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 5, 1:15�ｿｽpm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 5, 8:41�ｿｽpm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 4, 11:42�ｿｽam, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > �ｿｽ>including the

>
> > > sentences that convey the idea. And I agree that NS is an oxymoron. I
> > > could post the names of 20 scholars that say natural selection is "an
> > > idea."
>
> > > You have once again evaded a simple and plain question: why do you
> > > accept an oxymoron and the illogical sentences that convey the idea to
> > > have scientific validity?
>
> > > Since you have evaded, the answer is obvious: You can't explain why
> > > you argue against a concept while accepting its scientific validity.
> > > You "the thing known as Backspace" are an oxymoron.
>
> > > Ray (anti-selectionist)
>
> > > P.S.: Burkhard: Please stay out of Creationist business.
>

> > �ｿｽIf you post on a public forum, expect the public to respond. if you

> > want private conversations, use email
>
> Your input is badly written assertion that does not account for ideas.
>
> Stay out of our business.
>
> Ray

I would beg to differ, without Burkhard the thread ''Stanford
tautologies on natural selection''
https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/116fe2d3ca334b90
would not have led you to post one of the most brilliant insights I
have seen on how to disentangle a logical validity from science. In
your own words ''.... by the precepts of empiricism the claims of
logic are not falsifiable ....''.

Burkhard is one of the more sane posters around here, he genuinely
seems to believe what he says. The problem with Kermit and many other
posters are they are ex-Christians who have blasphemed Christ and
think by attacking me in an exasperated sarcastic tone, it will
somehow get them off their terrible fate: they have made a big mistake
and are trying to rationalize away their folly.

[Burkhard]

Why should it? Ideas are not a syntactic category, backspace's issue
was what syntactic category (sentences or terms) can possibly have
tautologies as members. Since obviously, only entities that can be
true or false can be necessary true (tautologies) or false
(contradictions), only sentences qualify. "Natural selection" is not a
sentence, case closed.

>
> Stay out of our business.

fat chance.
> Ray

[nick_keigh...@hotmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 4:23:18 PM UTC+1, wiki trix wrote:
> On Jun 5, 9:20 am, nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 3, 2012 6:41:25 PM UTC+1, backspace wrote:

> > > On a point of logic, the following premises:
> > > 1) Design begets design.
> > > 2) Non-design or apparent design can't beget design.
> >
> > I don't accept your premises. For instance I'm not designed yet
> > I can design things.
>

> There is a hell of a lot of talk about design without any definition
> of the term. How can you talk about whether you are designed or
> whether you can design things without a working definition? Can you
> define the word "design" in such as way that we can say what is
> designed and what is not?

a concious effort to form a physical object for a particular class.

cups and cupboards are designed. Stars, pebbles, clouds and kittens are not.

I'm aware that you think the term is meaningless and are about to quote some example of "genetic" programming. These systems are of course designed.

[nick_keigh...@hotmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 4:30:24 PM UTC+1, wiki trix wrote:
> On Jun 5, 9:33 am, nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 3, 2012 9:39:23 PM UTC+1, Ray Martinez wrote:

> > > Do **you** see said appearance of design, Robert?
> >
> > > How about any of your fellow evos?
> >
> > living things look incredibly intricate. They look a bit like little machines designed to do something. But a closer look reveals many oddities compared with what we normally see as a design. Living things build themselves, living things don't reuse parts and "sub-designs" fromother living things.
>
> Living things do reuse parts and "sub-designs" from other living
> things, namely from their parents.

quite true. But not from other parts of the tree.

> It is true that human design is
> sexed-up to an absurd degree, so any new design inherits parts and sub-
> designs from any and all available designs. That is multiple
> recombinant cluster-fuck parent ideas in the prefrontal cortex.

well if you want to go back to living in a technology-free cave, be my guest

> > Living things are not designed. With the exceptions of domestic animals and genetic engineering.
>
> Why the artificial distinction?

because humans make concious design decisions. Race horses and milk cows are poorly suited to living in their ancestors environemtn.

> > Design is a concious activity.
>
> We are having a hard enough time with "design" let alone
> "consciousness". Why bring that in? What value does it add?

because to me a design is an activity carried out by concious beings to serve a purpose.

If you think a computer is not fundamentally different from a coral reef then we are too far apart to have a meaningful discussion

[nick_keigh...@hotmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 9:28:02 PM UTC+1, Burkhard wrote:

> >-Evolutionist his opinion of you is predetermined,

> > worthless.
>
> How do you get from "predetermined" to "worthless"?

perhaps in an information theoretic sense. A completly predictable sentence contains no new information and is hence worthless. Just a thought.

[wiki trix]

On Jun 6, 6:49 am, nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 4:23:18 PM UTC+1, wiki trix wrote:
> > On Jun 5, 9:20 am, nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, June 3, 2012 6:41:25 PM UTC+1, backspace wrote:
> > > > On a point of logic, the following premises:
> > > > 1) Design begets design.
> > > > 2) Non-design or apparent design can't beget design.
>
> > > I don't accept your premises. For instance I'm not designed yet
> > > I can design things.
>
> > There is a hell of a lot of talk about design without any definition
> > of the term. How can you talk about whether you are designed or
> > whether you can design things without a working definition? Can you
> > define the word "design" in such as way that we can say what is
> > designed and what is not?
>
> a concious effort to form a physical object for a particular class.

Ok.. what ia a "concious effort"? What is "concious"?

[backspace]

On Jun 6, 10:24 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Why should it? Ideas are not a syntactic category, backspace's issue
> was what  syntactic category (sentences or terms) can possibly have
> tautologies as members.

I am using sentences and ideas interchangeably. Ideas can only be
communicated with sentences.

> Since obviously, only entities that can be
> true or false can be necessary true (tautologies) or false
> (contradictions), only sentences qualify. "Natural selection" is not a
> sentence, case closed.

Agreed Natural selection as a term can only in a sentence have the
following interpretation(In terms of Platonic opposites).

1) Acquisition of favorable attributes via the *natural means of
competitive selection(purposeless)* between competing atoms,
plants,trees or animals etc. and the destruction of those not
favored(Democritus atoms, plants, animals etc.)
1a) Darwin reduced this to: Acquisition of attributes via natural
selection.

Most authors use ns without reference to 1) , formulating meaningless
sentences, because we then must revert to ns default definition in
dictionaries before 1859: purposeless purpose.

In this 1,1a context preservation,survival,accumulation,
cultivation(Erasmus darwin) can be used as dissimilar terms for
selection. These are not selection's dictionary definition.

2) I made a more preferential decision(purpose) for cake over soya.
2a) I made a more natural(intention) selection(decision) for cake over
soya.

From a dictionary perspective before 1859 natural was the majority
metaphor(literal meaning) for no purpose and selection for (purpose).
A Chinese learning English and using that dictionary would come to the
conclusion that in the ordinary sense of the terms, natural selection
is an oxymoron - purposeless purpose. If he assumes Platonic opposites
then his world view would allow him to use any word (random,natural)
in either the pattern or design sense.

Random is an interesting case
1) I made a selection at random from the bowl, by scrambling the
marbles before taking one. This sentence conveys purpose.
2) The tornado made a random selection of which house to destroy. This
sentence conveys purposeless.

What Atheists are saying is that because the words coming out of their
mouths are merely matter in motion like a tornado is matter in motion,
all of design is only an illusion, an appearance of design. Their
minds
are caught in a Godelian paradox.

Rejecting Platonic opposites, they fabricate multi-dimensional
meanings for terms such as *selection's* "biological" meaning, which
does not exist from Platonic opposites. They have deceived ICR, AIG
into using their terminology, in contradiction of AIG, ICR Platonic
opposites premise.

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/6/12 6:49 AM, backspace wrote:
> On Jun 6, 10:24 am, Burkhard<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Why should it? Ideas are not a syntactic category, backspace's issue
>> was what syntactic category (sentences or terms) can possibly have
>> tautologies as members.
>
> I am using sentences and ideas interchangeably. Ideas can only be
> communicated with sentences.

Pffffththt!

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[wiki trix]

conscious, that is...

[Kermit]

On Jun 2, 4:07 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the videohttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6589272663573268460
> Massimo says that the eyeball has only the appearance of design.

He is correct.

> By implication

You infer many things which people do not imply.

> Massimo himself has only the appearance of design and his
> very words the appearance only of design:

Why do you think he implies that his own words involve no design, and
what would it mean to biology even if he did?

> why should we then believe a
> word he says?

You reference one true statement of his. I see no reason to doubt
anything he says (based on a single datum) and no reason to trust
anything you say (based on a history of misrepresenting people's
arguments).

>
> My presupposition on this issue is defined athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Pattern_or_design

Kermit

[Kermit]

On Jun 3, 10:43 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 10:08 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 2, 6:56 pm, Glen Davidson <interelectromagne...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>

> > > On Jun 2, 4:07 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In the videohttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6589272663573268460

> > > > Massimo says that the eyeball has only the appearance of design. By
> > > > implication Massimo himself has only the appearance of design and his
> > > > very words the appearance only of design: why should we then believe a
> > > > word he says?
>

> > > > My presupposition on this issue is defined athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Pattern_or_design
>

Books do not have points, unless they are very oddly made.
Language is not made of bricks; how can it be "structured"?

Much of language is derived from physical objects, and is used
*metaphorically to refer to abstractions.
Emotional vocabulary can be used to refer to processes which are not
sentient entities.
And words such as "express" refer not to the sounds coming from one's
mouth, but the meanings or emotions one is trying to communicate.

You use this sort of language often and correctly; why are you
pretending to not understand it when it is ideologically inconvenient?
It does not make your philosophical opponents' arguments less correct;
it only makes you look incoherent.

Kermit
Kermit

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

I'll propose "something that you can fully
describe in words before and/or after you
do it."

This implies that there is a "you" that is
"doing" it.

[Kermit]

On Jun 4, 10:23 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 11:14 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 4, 2:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Yes, I agree. That said, why do you accept natural selection to have
> > > > any validity?
>
> > > > Ray
>
> > > My position on this issue is probably not very clear athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wiki, it is a work in
> > > progress. I need to sit down with somebody who proof reads to clear up
> > > the grammar mistakes, repetition etc. I am not the brightest YEC as
> > > Burkhard has demonstrated , but I am trying my best: my intentions are
> > > honest.
>

> > > A position, idea or concept and its possible validity or not can only
> > > be expressed using full sentences. Natural selection by consulting a
> > > dictionary before 1859 is an oxymoron and as such can be used
> > > metaphorically for any concept as Darwin did. Only sentences can be
> > > tautologies, ns is a term not a sentence and can thus by definition
> > > not be a tautology. The central idea that Darwin constructed is a
> > > tautology for which he used ns as the contracted shorthand for Patrick
> > > matthew's ''natural means of competitive
> > > selection,preservation,survival''.  From reading Henry Osborn
> > > ''selection'' must be viewed as one of many dissimilar terms
> > > (preservation,survival, cultivation, accumulation) to express the
> > > unfalsifiable Democritus Atomism theory with different terminology.
>

> > "Natural selection' was a term coined by Darwin to indicate that
>
> It was a term due to Patrick Matthew. This is an historical fact,which
> raises the question as to where he got the concept as the
> natural,unintentional means of competitive preservation of those
> favorable atoms,animals,ideas and rejection of those unfavorable
> atoms,animals. The concept is from Democritus Atomism, because it is
> an unfalsifiable series of propositions ,it allows one to use the same
> core idea for  inanimate matter or living subjects.

I am not in the least interested in Patrick Matthews, nor the origin
of the phrase "natural selection". It is now used in English, in the
21st century, to refer to the most famous process essential to
biological evolution. It is not a difficult concept to understand, and
pretending that it doesn't make any sense will not make it false.

If you somehow succeeded in making everybody find it linguistically
distasteful, then we would simply find and use another term.
"Biological evolution" comes to mind.

>
> > Nature provides a sifting mechanism for living organism, whose chances
> > of survival and reproduction vary by chance and their traits,
> > including fertility and hardiness.
>
> Nature is an effect,

Eh?
An effect of what?

> nothing is adapted to anything

So, when my skin develops callouses exactly where my hands rub against
tools I use, they are not adapting?

> all phenomena express only their attributes.

Yes. Lions express their attributes by eating zebras; sometimes my
feet express their attributes by kicking somebody's shin; mocha almond
fudge ice cream expresses its attributes by tasting yummy when I eat
it.

You really have a very awkward way of saying less. I think you prefer
doing this "rephrasing" on occasion because you can convince yourself
that various statements are syntactically equivalent when they are
not. I put that word in scare quotes because you are in fact *not
rephrasing, but misrepresenting, or at best, simplifying to the point
of making it useless (except for duplicity).

> Are you using sifting in the pattern or
> design sense.

"Sifting" is a metaphor.
Certain attributes, characteristics, structures, behaviors,
biochemical balances, etc give an organism a reproductive advantage.
If organisms in that species with those characteristics reproduce more
often, then the genes associated with those characteristics spread
rapidly throughout the species. This is biological evolution.

Doesn't matter what you call it, nor does it matter whether or not you
like it. It happens nonetheless.

>
> > He also asserted that from these 'survivors' some will be different
> > from others, and that those most often selected in this way will pass
> > their traits onto their progeny, and if this process is repeated often
> > enough, over many generations, the result is that the morphology of
> > organisms can and does change radically.
>
> This is Democritus atomism reformulated. See Henry osborne's book :
> From the Greeks to Darwin on Gutenberg press(google it)
>

No, it's not. It's a description of natural processes.

> > He knew nothing of genetics.
>
> Neither did Democritus and Aristotle, yet Darwin,Hutton,Matthew
> reformulated their core ideas which are stated in such a manner that
> the truth of their propositions can't be disputed, thus it is
> unfalsifiable.

Logical arguments are valid only if they are sound and true.
Your arguments frequently are neither.

Democritus, Aristotle, et al have nothing to do with the nature of
reality. There may be an historical thread linking some of them to
some phrases or terms we use, but they have nothing to do with the
nature of reality.

You have not indicated in years of posting that you understand what
the theory of evolution is, therefore you can not coherently argue
that it should be described differently.

Everybody in the field is communicating with each other just fine.

Kermit

[Kermit]

On Jun 6, 6:49 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 6, 10:24 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Why should it? Ideas are not a syntactic category, backspace's issue
> > was what  syntactic category (sentences or terms) can possibly have
> > tautologies as members.
>
> I am using sentences and ideas interchangeably. Ideas can only be
> communicated with sentences.

Sometimes they require more than one.
Humans also communicate in other ways, although gestures and such can
have complex meanings only if the context is understood and complex.

Such as Mark's very erudite response to this claim.

>
> > Since obviously, only entities that can be
> > true or false can be necessary true (tautologies) or false
> > (contradictions), only sentences qualify. "Natural selection" is not a
> > sentence, case closed.
>
> Agreed Natural selection as a term can only in a sentence have the
> following interpretation(In terms of Platonic opposites).
>
> 1) Acquisition of favorable attributes via the *natural means of
> competitive selection(purposeless)* between competing atoms,
> plants,trees or animals etc. and the destruction of those not
> favored(Democritus atoms, plants, animals etc.)

No, natural selection when used in biology does not refer to atoms.
Organisms which are selected against are not necessarily destroyed;
they merely do not reproduce as often.

> 1a) Darwin reduced this to: Acquisition of attributes via natural
> selection.

Actually, he wrote a whole book on the subject.

>
> Most authors use ns without reference to 1) , formulating meaningless
> sentences, because we then must revert to ns default definition in
> dictionaries before 1859: purposeless purpose.

Your emotional needs constrain neither science nor nature.

Your tortured pseudo-linguistics contribute nothing to the
understanding of simple words and phrases. A study of the history of
western philosophy adds nothing to understanding science. (It does
contribute to the history of science.)

>
> In this 1,1a context preservation,survival,accumulation,
> cultivation(Erasmus darwin) can be used as dissimilar terms for
> selection. These are not selection's dictionary definition.

From the Oxford Dictionary Online:
************************************************************
selection
Pronunciation: /sɪˈlɛkʃ(ə)n/
noun
[mass noun]

1the action or fact of carefully choosing someone or something as
being the best or most suitable: such men decided the selection of
candidates some local Tories objected to his selection
[...]

2 Biology a process in which environmental or genetic influences
determine which types of organism thrive better than others, regarded
as a factor in evolution: there has been more than enough time for
selection to generate specific DNA sequences of the required length
********************************************************************

Note definition #2. You're too late; the dictionaries have been
corrupted! Now *everybody will understand what it means.

>
> 2) I made a more preferential decision(purpose) for cake over soya.
> 2a) I made a more natural(intention) selection(decision) for cake over
> soya.

3) "Through natural selection, the wolves soon showed a considerably
thicker pelt of fur as the climate turned colder."
3a) "Circumstances produced a higher survival or thriving rate among
wolves with a thicker coat as the climate turned colder, and that
trait became noticeably more prominent over a few
generations." (Awkward and turgid)

>
> From a dictionary perspective before 1859 natural

Science is not constrained to your favorite dictionaries.
In fact, nobody is but you.

Observed fact: we can communicate with each other just fine. If your
"linguistics" cannot explain that, then it is inadequate. I use the
scare quote there because true linguistics is a science, but you do
not use scientific methodology.

> was the majority
> metaphor(literal meaning) for no purpose and selection for (purpose).
> A Chinese learning English and using that dictionary would come to the
> conclusion that in the ordinary sense of the terms, natural selection
> is an oxymoron - purposeless purpose.

Why would he use that dictionary to look up a 21st century term from
biology?

> If he assumes Platonic opposites

[...]
Somebody learning English does not have that high on their list of
priorities.

> then his world view would allow him to use any word (random,natural)
> in either the pattern or design sense.

He would use a modern dictionary, which would give him the correct
meaning.

>
> Random is an interesting case
> 1) I made a selection at random from the bowl, by scrambling the
> marbles before taking one. This sentence conveys purpose.

But you did not choose that marble on purpose, or it was not random.

> 2) The tornado made a random selection of which house to destroy. This
> sentence conveys purposeless.

Actually, it conveys nonsense. The tornado did not choose anything.

"Natural selection" works as a metaphor (no longer really a metaphor,
but a scientific term) because it is *not random.

>
> What Atheists

Atheism != science literate.

> are saying is that because the words coming out of their
> mouths are merely matter in motion like a tornado is matter in motion,

atheism != determinism

> all of design is only an illusion, an appearance of design. Their
> minds
> are caught in a Godelian paradox.

*Scientists* says that there is no evidence for design in biological
evolution.

There is no paradox here.

>
> Rejecting Platonic opposites, they fabricate multi-dimensional
> meanings for terms such as *selection's* "biological" meaning, which
> does not exist from Platonic opposites.

Plato is dead. We're allowed to use words in whatever way we want. If
others use them the same way, then we can communicate.

If you think otherwise, then you are being dishonest with yourself.
If your "linguistics" cannot explain this, then it is inadequate (or
more likely, fundamentally flawed).

> They have deceived ICR, AIG
> into using their terminology, in contradiction of AIG, ICR Platonic
> opposites premise.

You aren't making any sense. Do you tell the grocery clerk that he is
violating Platonic binary ideals?
Do you quote obscure 18th century philosophers when arguing with your
auto mechanic?

Kermit

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 06:13:09 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by wiki trix
<wiki...@gmail.com>:

The opposite of "unconscious". (Well, you asked for it...)

Note that your question isn't about design, but about the
philosophical question of the existence of consciousness and
will. For purposes of this discussion it can be assumed that
there is such a thing as consciousness (or the question
becomes moot), and that we can recognize its existence. The
question then reverts to "Is this object the product of
conscious design, or did it result from natural and unguided
processes?", which is the actual question, requiring that we
be able to objectively distinguish guided from unguided
processes by examining their results. And *that* is where
the ID proponents fall short, since they cannot define such
an evaluation process.

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 5, 10:00 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 6, 12:12 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 2:39 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 5, 10:10 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 5, 1:15 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 5, 8:41 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 4, 11:42 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > >including the
>
> > > > sentences that convey the idea. And I agree that NS is an oxymoron. I
> > > > could post the names of 20 scholars that say natural selection is "an
> > > > idea."
>
> > > > You have once again evaded a simple and plain question: why do you
> > > > accept an oxymoron and the illogical sentences that convey the idea to
> > > > have scientific validity?
>
> > > > Since you have evaded, the answer is obvious: You can't explain why
> > > > you argue against a concept while accepting its scientific validity.
> > > > You "the thing known as Backspace" are an oxymoron.
>
> > > > Ray (anti-selectionist)
>
> > > > P.S.: Burkhard: Please stay out of Creationist business.
>

> > > If you post on a public forum, expect the public to respond. if you
> > > want private conversations, use email
>
> > Your input is badly written assertion that does not account for ideas.
>
> > Stay out of our business.
>
> > Ray
>
> I would beg to differ, without Burkhard the thread ''Stanford

> tautologies on natural selection''https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/116...

> would not have led you to post one of the most brilliant insights I
> have seen on how to disentangle a logical validity from science. In
> your own words ''.... by the precepts of empiricism the claims of
> logic are not falsifiable ....''.
>

More evasion and non-sequitur while doing the bidding of a
particularly convoluted Atheist-Evolutionist

> Burkhard is one of the more sane posters around here, he genuinely
> seems to believe what he says.

He has moments where he is able to think straight but for the most
part his thinking is, like I said, convoluted. In addition: he does
not hesitate, like any given Evolutionist, to misrepresent when the
Atheist-Evolution agenda is threatened.

Because you now have announced yourself as his lackey your objectivity
is almost all gone. Burk is a wolf and his only concern is the hen
house (discredit Biblical veracity). You've seemed to have lost your
mind, Stephan.

> The problem with Kermit and many other
> posters are they are ex-Christians who have blasphemed Christ and
> think by attacking me in an exasperated sarcastic tone, it will
> somehow get them off their terrible fate: they have made a big mistake
> and are trying to rationalize away their folly.

Kermit doesn't hide his agenda, like Burk and Dana Tweedy.

Wake up, Stephan, you've been duped by wolves in sheeps clothing.

Ray (anti-selectionist)

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 5, 10:00 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip derailments....]

I'd like to get back to the main issues, Stephan?

You are known to attack natural selection, exposing it to be many bad
things. Yet on the other hand you accept its scientific validity. The
latter negates the former. You need to acknowledge or announce your
conversion to anti-selectionism. I would be happy to discuss any
issues preventing your conversion.

Ray (anti-selectionist)

[backspace]

On Jun 6, 7:34 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Kermit doesn't hide his agenda, like Burk and Dana Tweedy.

With this I agree, Burkhard keeps on insisting that Jerry Fodor is
playing some type of Sokal hoax and asked a rhetorical question in his
LRB article Why pigs don't have wings
'''....... What then is the intended meaning of natural
selection......'''

My answer to this question is basically what type of language
structure you use
1) Rejection of Platonic opposites like Rorty and Nietzsche, who
states that his world view is an inverse Platonism
2) Acceptance of Platonic opposites as established by Jesus Christ
(Alpha, Omega, Beginning and end)

Thus anything we discuss must first state whether there is anything
beyond cause/effect, pattern/design, light/darkness. Rorty,
Nietzsche, Wilkins, Burkhard is firmly in the camp of Platonic
inversion. While Fodor's
selection about/selection for seems to be a repressed Platonic duality
for pattern/design. The confusion is that both camps use the same
terms but express different world views. None of these issues are on
either AIG, ICR or Discovery institute , Dawkins , AAAS is made clear
because there is vast money making and book publishing scam going on.
Once you have understood what as a YEC you are supposed to believe,
everything the Atheist side says is rejected out of hand as
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Meaningless_sentence

> Wake up, Stephan, you've been duped by wolves in sheeps clothing.

This is possible, because you are smarter than me. It therefore
bothers me if I can't convince you how my conclusions follow from my
premises. It is probably a failure in my ability to express my ideas
clearly. The stakes are eternal because we will be judged by the Lord
Jesus as conducting,expressing ourselves or not in terms of Platonic
duality- his very nature.

Do I accept reject a natural selection(purposeless purpose): I reject
the question even being asked.

[Burkhard]

On Jun 7, 6:24�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 6, 7:34�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Kermit doesn't hide his agenda, like Burk and Dana Tweedy.

>
> With this I agree, Burkhard keeps on insisting that Jerry Fodor is
> playing some type of Sokal hoax and asked a rhetorical question in his
> LRB article Why pigs don't have wings
> '''....... What then is the intended meaning of natural
> selection......'''

What has a "Sokal hoax" to do with asking at the beginning of an
article a rhetorical question that sets out your research question? My
point was that you are misinterpreting a pretty common stylistic
convention in academic writing. Here an analogy: You want to write
about patriotism in the US, You may start your paper thus: It is said
that the US are a very patriotic country. But what does this actually
mean? It can't mean that every single citizen is patriotic, or
patriotic to the same degree. in this study, we asked 50 questions to
1000 citizens of various age groups..."

Should we conclude from this that the "word meaning" of "patriotic" or
"US" is problematic, and the expression unintelligible? Obviously not,
the main body of the paper proves that the understanding is clear
enough to construct an experiment, to carry out tests etc. It is not
the "intension" or meaning of the term that is the issue, but its
extension" or reach - how many and to what degree show that
characteristics?

Same with the Fodor paper. If "NS" would indeed be incomprehensible
for him as you claim, all the rest of the article where he discusses
the extension, or prevalence, of NS would be worse than pointless, it
would be unintelligible too.

This is a quote from the same Fodor article:

"But that argument [of our common descent]is over now. Except,
perhaps, in remote backwaters of the American Midwest, the Darwinian
account of our species� history is common ground in all civilised
discussions, and so it should be. The evidence really is
overwhelming".

and

"It is, in short, an entirely EMPIRICAL question to what extent
exogenous variables are what shape phenotypes; and it�s entirely
possible that adaptationism is the wrong answer."

"Exegonous variables" for Fodor are those used in explanations using
Natural selection.

So the entire argument that follows in the paper is not about semantic
or word meaning - which shows that NS must be clear enough to carry
out empirical tests. The only question is the _extension_ of the term:
how often does it happen, how significant is it to shape the traits of
species, and how do we test in individual cases if a trait is adaptive
or something else.

Now, Fodors argument on that is terribly bad and illinformed, and his
knowledge of current evolutionary thinking bad beyond belief for an
academic writing about this Most of his discussion is about the"level
of selection debate", but without being apparently aware that this
discussion has been done already within biology, and with the Price
equations a solution for the specific issue he addresses been found.
pistasis, link equilibriua and other concepts provide precise
mathematical models to dal with the issue of "selection about/for".

All these can be discussed, all these are empirical questions about
how we determine whether a specific trait was selected or not, what
Fodor does not even try to do is to base his argument on an issue
about tautologies or the inabiity to understand what NS means, the
entire article shows otherwise and presupposes a shared, sufficiently
clear understanding of NS between himself and the biologists he
criticises

> My answer to this question is basically what type of language
> structure you use
> 1) Rejection of Platonic opposites like Rorty and Nietzsche, who
> states that his world view is an inverse Platonism
> 2) Acceptance of Platonic opposites as established by Jesus Christ
> (Alpha, Omega, Beginning and end)
>
> Thus anything we discuss must first state whether there is anything

> beyond cause/effect, pattern/design, light/darkness. �Rorty,

> Nietzsche, Wilkins, Burkhard is firmly in the camp of Platonic
> inversion.

Don't understand any of this.

>While Fodor's
> selection about/selection for seems to be a repressed Platonic duality
> for pattern/design.

Not in the slightest, what gives you that idea? Fodor sets up a bit of
a strawman here (or genuinely is unaware of the relevant literature,
in particular the price equations) It runs roughly like this: Assume
you have a population where due to genetic reasons, everybody, and
nobody else, who is taller than 6ft has also red hair. Assume that we
observe that over time, the frequency of red haired people increases.
Now, a biologist might form a hypothesis: in this society, "having red
hair" is selected, possibly by sexual selection (they look more
attractive to possible mates) Has, says Fodor, how do you know that's
what really happens - we know that the gene for being red haired also
codes for tallness, and that what is really selected is being tall,
because it gives you an advantage of fighting off predators. It is, if
you like, a problem of free riding: the red haired trait is not
selected (in the sense it does not give you an advantage itself), it
is the correlated trait of size that does. To express that different
between the free riding trait and the "truly selected trait" he
suggest the distinction between selection about and for. None of it
however is "design" the way you use the term.

From a scientific perspective, balderdash. There are much better, well
understood ways to deal with this - just follow the covariances.

>The confusion is that both camps use the same
> terms but express different world views. None of these issues are on
> either AIG, ICR or Discovery institute , Dawkins , AAAS is made clear
> because there is vast money making and book publishing scam going on.
> Once you have understood what as a YEC you are supposed to believe,

> everything the Atheist side says is rejected out of hand ashttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Meaningless_sentence

[backspace]

https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/015c3069fc289984/f4d0fe9a96860a1e?lnk=raot

http://www.dailycal.org/article/18178/academic_extinction
"....Darwin's theory affirms, is the result of random variation and
natural selection. ...." (this article vanished, where can we find it
again? )

Darwin never said "random variations" or "random mutations". The word
"random" doesn't occur in OoS.

Who is Berlinski interpreting and is he using "natural selection" in
the pattern or design sense?

We could interpret a "random variation selected" in the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sample sense(design) and not
the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness sense.

Dawkins weasel program for example he confuses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sample
with Randomness. This game with words is huge fun, you should ask
whomever is saying "random" whether he is using it in the design or
pattern sense. Note that there isn't an article on Wikipedia
expounding on Howard's "Design is subset of pattern" view. It all
depends on what concept the author is trying to convey: patterns or
design.

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 6, 10:24 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 6, 7:34 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Kermit doesn't hide his agenda, like Burk and Dana Tweedy.
>
> With this I agree, Burkhard keeps on insisting that Jerry Fodor is
> playing some type of Sokal hoax and asked a rhetorical question in his
> LRB article Why pigs don't have wings
> '''....... What then is the intended meaning of natural
> selection......'''
>
> My answer to this question is basically what type of language
> structure you use
> 1) Rejection of Platonic opposites like Rorty and Nietzsche, who
> states that his world view is an inverse Platonism
> 2) Acceptance of Platonic opposites as established by Jesus Christ
> (Alpha, Omega, Beginning and end)
>
> Thus anything we discuss must first state whether there is anything
> beyond cause/effect, pattern/design, light/darkness.  Rorty,
> Nietzsche, Wilkins, Burkhard is firmly in the camp of Platonic
> inversion. While Fodor's
> selection about/selection for seems to be a repressed Platonic duality
> for pattern/design. The confusion is that both camps use the same
> terms but express different world views. None of these issues are on
> either AIG, ICR or Discovery institute , Dawkins , AAAS is made clear
> because there is vast money making and book publishing scam going on.
> Once you have understood what as a YEC you are supposed to believe,

> everything the Atheist side says is rejected out of hand ashttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Meaningless_sentence

>
> > Wake up, Stephan, you've been duped by wolves in sheeps clothing.
>
> This is possible, because you are smarter than me. It therefore
> bothers me if I can't convince you how my conclusions follow from my
> premises. It is probably a failure in my ability to express my ideas
> clearly. The stakes are eternal because we will be judged by the Lord
> Jesus as conducting,expressing ourselves or not in terms of Platonic
> duality- his very nature.
>
> Do I accept reject a natural selection(purposeless purpose): I reject
> the question even being asked.

So you have embraced anti-selectionism? That is, you agree the concept
of natural selection does not exist in nature?

Ray (anti-selectionist)

[backspace]

Please define for me what a natural selection(purposeless purpose) is.
What is the full sentence for which ns is a metaphor and who defined
this sentence in
what knowledge context pre genes or post genes.

[Craig Franck]

On 6/5/2012 7:53 AM, Burkhard wrote:
> On Jun 5, 6:56 am, backspace<stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

<...>

>> Problem with this argument for one is that it is utterly
>> unfalsifiable. This would be a problem if God himself didn't state: He
>> calleth those things that be not as though they were. Thus from the
>> premise of unfalsifiability follow the conclusion of unfalsifiable
>> faith .
>
> I think you misunderstand why unfalsifibale proposition, especially
> "strong unfalsifiable propositions" (that is, not jut unfalsifiable
> with present measurement equipment, but in principle unfalsifiable)
> are a problem.
>
> First, while your position can't be refuted, you also lose the ability
> to use to to refute anyone else's position. Sure, we can assume for
> the moment that the world is 6000 years old, and then adjust lots of
> stuff to make this fit with all possible observations. But why 6000?
> Why not 6 days? Or 7000 years? Or 60000, 600000, 6bn, 60bn, 600bn? We
> can use the same approach of "assuming" the starting point, and then
> to rearrange everything around it as you have done above, and by
> definition, there is no way to distinguish between the legitimacy of
> one assumption over the other. Let's assume Discordia created the
> world 6 days ago. Or lets assume that Brahma started dreaming the
> present universe about 4,320,000,000 years ago. Now IF you treat these
> as statements about material reality, and IF at the same time you take
> them as unfalsifiable assumptions justified by faith, they (and any
> other number) is just as good as yours.

The basic argument is

1) all belief systems are underdetermined.
2) Christianity just happens to be true.

> Now, some religions may be willing to bite that bullet - all those
> religions that reject proselyting e.g will have fewer problems. But
> most think it is possible to convince other people of their belief,
> something you lose in principle through your approach.

This doesn't necessarily follow.

Paul went to Athens not to debated the sophists, but to announce
the Gospel. Then, presumably, if your soul was in a suitable
condition, the Holy Spirit hovered around you and you perceived
the Gospel Truth the same way others perceive shapes and colors.

So intellectual argument was seen as totally impotent right from
the start. No person *technically* ever convinces another of The
Truth; it's more a case of epistemological mysticism being shared:

http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentalism-Word-God-J-Packer/dp/0802811477

Craig

[Ray Martinez]

Since the claim literally makes no sense, I can't.

> What is the full sentence for which ns is a metaphor and who defined

> this sentence....

No one ever said the metaphor is conveyed in one sentence. Here is the
scholarly standard explaining Darwin's metaphor:

http://human-nature.com/dm/chap4.html

> ....in what knowledge context pre genes or post genes.

The claim is that Darwin & Wallace discovered a selection phenomenon
that occurs automatically at different levels (in the seen world of
nature and unseen world of genetics).

You have singlehandedly shown natural selection to be illogic and
nonsense (there is no phenomenon). Yet you accept this nonsense and
illogic to have scientific validity.

You need to explain or acknowledge the contradiction, Stephan.

Ray (anti-selectionist)

[Desertphile]

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 04:07:10 -0700 (PDT), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In the video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6589272663573268460

> Massimo says that the eyeball has only the appearance of design. By
> implication Massimo himself has only the appearance of design and his
> very words the appearance only of design: why should we then believe a
> word he says?

Give us an example what does *NOT* look designed.

> My presupposition on this issue is defined at http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Pattern_or_design

--
REALITY NEEDS ALLIES!
"I am not part of the problem. I am a Republican." - Dan Quayle

[Rolf]

Wikipedia:
The union of traditional Darwinian evolution with subsequent discoveries in
classical and molecular genetics is termed the modern evolutionary synthesis

Denial may work well for you; but your problem is that it is not contagious
unless you invite it into your mind. I am sorry you did but it is your own
funeral so better enjoy it while you can.

You may tear down Newton's theory of gravity but apples nevertheless keep
falling to the ground

Rolf, an objective observer.

BTW, You really think Robert M. Young is the ultimate authority on Darwin?

BTW, Denial and references to RMY is not evidence for or proof of anything.

If you don't want to believe that the words "Natural Selection" cover some
facts; are a shorthand way of expressing some facts fo nature, that's okay.
but your disbelief (actually, denial) is not evidence or proof - it is
ust - denial.

Now be a good boy and demonstrate what is wrong with the concept "Natural
Selection." You know that artificial selection has dome wonders for
agriculture and animal breeding? Wouldn't it be appropriate of you did some
proper, unbiased research into the subject to find out what it really is
about, instad of monotonous repetition of your mantra: "it doesn't exist"?

There is a great world of genetics out there that you are completely in the
dark about. Darwin knew nothing about DNA and the mechanisms of heredity.
Epigenetics, Embryology, there is so much to learn that you haven't got a
clue about.

But you need to be clueleless if you really want to finish (BWAHAHAHA) your
project. Let it go down the proper drain where it belongs and get yourself a
life, if you are capable.

(Just an example of stuff you know nothing about - you would need lifetimes
even to scratch at the surface:
http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/9/71/1168.full )

There may, in addition to 150 years of post.Darwin science to be rejected,
be some pre-Darwin science to reject, like
http://www.facebook.com/pages/ReichertGaupp-theory/111132565604483

I am researching the subject of denial, the well know mental state
associated with anorexia and bulimi; my theory is that the same mechanism is
a strong component of the science denial so widespread in the USA.

[backspace]

http://human-nature.com/dm/chap4.html Chapter 4 makes no reference to
the originator of the term natural selection: Patrick Matthew

> > ....in what knowledge context pre genes or post genes.
>
> The claim is that Darwin & Wallace discovered a selection phenomenon
> that occurs automatically at different levels (in the seen world of
> nature and unseen world of genetics).

Who made this claim? As your sentence stands, is selection used in the
pattern or design sense.

> You have singlehandedly shown natural selection to be illogic and
> nonsense (there is no phenomenon).

I have shown it be an oxymoron by using a dictionary from 1850.

> Yet you accept this nonsense and
> illogic to have scientific validity.
> You need to explain or acknowledge the contradiction, Stephan.

I can only accept a sentence being either meaningful or nonsense.
Natural selection is a term not a sentence.


premise1 : I only use dictionaries before 1850 and specifically not
those that give selection a third meaning namely "biology".
http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/podcasts/critical_reasoning_for_beginners
course notes states that Logicians don't care for the truth or falsity
of the premises so much as whether the conclusions follow logically.

premise2: Only ideas have meaning, neither sentences nor terms have an
actual meaning. Sentences are only the means of conveying an
underlying world view: Platonic duality or Nietzsche Platonic
inversion(getting rid of grammar) . You have a green light could mean
depending on the idea(intent,pragmatics):
a) You are holding a green light
b) You can drive your car.
c) You are glowing with the light of green.
d) etc... many more.
There is nothing in the actual words themselves that will convey the
idea the sentence symbolically represents.

premise3: YEC only accept Platonic duality as opposed to Nietzsche
Platonic inversion world view. Oxford , Harvard Yale tutors are
deceiving liers by not making it clear they reject Platonic duality.
All sentences not stated in terms of Platonic duality are
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Meaningless_sentence from the YEC
world view.

premise4: Platonic duality means that all sentences can only
communicate a pattern with a purpose and a pattern without a purpose.
Using the dictionary 1850, selection,design,non-random refers to
purpose and natural,random to purposeless.

prem5: Only sentences can be tautologies not terms. Natural
selection(purposeless purpose) , dictionary 1850 is a term not a
sentence. I defined a rhetorical tautology in the second paragraph of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29
.... A rhetorical tautology can also be defined as a series of
statements that form an argument ....

prem6: From dictionary 1850 natural selection the term is an oxymoron.
Many dictionaries from 1990 differ on this view. Using the 1850
dictionary the oxymoron used in a sentence makes the sentence
meaningless if one of the following aren't met:
a) Contracted short hand for the full sentence - Acquisition of
attributes via the natural means of competitive selection(Patrick
Matthew). With selection a dissimilar term for preservation(Darwin's
preferred term), survival(Osborn) etc.
b) Metaphorically for any yet to be defined concept, could be
anything. In terms of YEC Platonic duality I used natural selection as
the metaphor for http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Preferential_decision

prem7: Only meaningful sentences can be determined to be tautological
or not.

prem8: If it is not clear in a sentence containing the oxymoron
natural selection what is meant, then replace the oxymoron with any
combination of words such as fruit cake, coo-coo-clock and see what
meaning if any you can distill and to make clear that the sentence is
meaningless. Usually the oxymoron natural selection is used in a
tautological sentence, employing terms that self-referentially refer
to the same fact. See http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Stanford_tautologies
where the tautological sentence had natural selection stripped out of
to distill the essence from this ....... The process of evolution by
natural selection is “a process in which the differential extinction
and proliferation of interactors cause the differential perpetuation
of the replicators that produced them” (Hull 1980, p. 318; see Brandon
1982, pp. 317-318) .....
to this .... Those that proliferate , perpetuate their descendents.
The confusion about the tautological status or not of the oxymoron
natural selection is because the term is arbitrarily inserted into a
rhetorical tautological sentence: the sentence is a tautology, not the
term ns.

Wikipedia doesn't have an article defining the dictionary meaning of
non-random, non-random redirects to random. But in the random article
itself, non-random isn't defined as the Platonic opposite of random,
therefore the Wikipedian world view generates meaningless sentences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

[backspace]

On Jun 10, 12:49 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Please define for me what a natural selection (purposeless purpose) is.

> Since the claim literally makes no sense, I can't.

> > What is the full sentence for which ns is a metaphor and who defined
> > this sentence....
>
> No one ever said the metaphor is conveyed in one sentence. Here is the
> scholarly standard explaining Darwin's metaphor:
>
> http://human-nature.com/dm/chap4.html
>
> > ....in what knowledge context pre genes or post genes.
>

> The claim is that Darwin & Wallace discovered a selection phenomenonu

> that occurs automatically at different levels (in the seen world of
> nature and unseen world of genetics).

In the pattern without a purpose sense would you agree we can replace
selection in your paragraph with the dissimilar terms
preservation,survival, cultivation ? If so then your sentence reads(in
the context of Matthew, OoS)..... Darwin discovered a preservation
phenomena of the favorable attributes of those who out competed their
opponents in the struggle for life.

preservation and favorable self-referentially refer to the same fact,
guaranteeing the truth of the proposition, hence making it a claim of
logic: by logical necessity it must be so that favorable attributes
are preserved.

In the Standford thread you wrote: By the precepts of empiricism the

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 10, 5:24 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 10, 12:49 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Please define for me what a natural selection (purposeless purpose) is.
> > Since the claim literally makes no sense, I can't.
> > > What is the full sentence for which ns is a metaphor and who defined
> > > this sentence....
>
> > No one ever said the metaphor is conveyed in one sentence. Here is the
> > scholarly standard explaining Darwin's metaphor:
>
> >http://human-nature.com/dm/chap4.html
>
> > > ....in what knowledge context pre genes or post genes.
>
> > The claim is that Darwin & Wallace discovered a selection phenomenonu
> > that occurs automatically at different levels (in the seen world of
> > nature and unseen world of genetics).
>
> In the pattern without a purpose sense would you agree we can replace
> selection in your paragraph with the dissimilar terms
> preservation,survival, cultivation ? If so then your sentence reads(in
> the context of Matthew, OoS)..... Darwin discovered a preservation
> phenomena of the favorable attributes of those who out competed their
> opponents in the struggle for life.
>

No, I wrote "The claim is that...."

I reject the claim. I am simply conveying the claim in the context of
your question: "in what knowledge context pre genes or post genes?"
Again, the answer is, in short, both. Darwinism claims that the
**concept** of natural selection exists at the seen level (of nature)
and unseen level (of genetics (post-Darwin)).

> preservation and favorable self-referentially refer to the same fact,
> guaranteeing the truth of the proposition, hence making it a claim of
> logic: by logical necessity it must be so that favorable attributes
> are preserved.
>
> In the Standford thread you wrote: By the precepts of empiricism the
> claims of logic are not falsifiable.

Yes, NS (like any claim) is a claim of logic.

Note that I didn't say the claim is logical.

The claim is not logical. Darwinists disagree.

But the point ***here*** is that NS is a claim of logic, and this
particular aspect of the claim is not subject to falsification. Let me
explain: There are two components to any given scientific claim. (1)
The actual things or empirics. (2) The logic that binds the things.
Whatever logic is used to explain the former is not eligible for
falsification. One can say the logic is sound or unsound. One can
agree or disagree. Only the former is eligible for falsification,
existence of the things, so to speak. Concerning NS the things do
indeed exist. The claims made in behalf of the things (the logic) is
absurd, ridiculous.

Ray

[backspace]

Yes, I agree a claim of logic isn't the same thing as formulating a
logical argument. Logicians in evaluating arguments determine whether
the conclusions follow logically from the premises, not whether the
premises are true or not. Since What happens, happens is a claim of
logic, it therefore is a further claim that any conclusion from such
is a non-sequitur: doesn't follow logically.

In other words it very well might be possible that we evolved from
ancestors, but there is no actual theory as to how this could possibly
have happened and it violates our intuition in terms of
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Irreducible_Functionality. Because
there is no theory about the actual mechanism Life itself, the
Aristotelians have equivocated between claims of logic, logical
validities such as logical tautologies and rhetorical tautologies as I
have shown in John Wilkins attempt at dealing with the obvious
tautology of survival of the fittest. Ns was the proxy for the phrase
SoF, which in turn was the short hand for the full paragraph on
competing entities (atoms, animals,plants) incrementally acquiring
(differential)
attributes ,until transforming into new species.

In the Stanford thread, I understood you that the concepts, sentences
the way the propositions incorporating the oxymoron ns is logical.
Gould around 2002 stated that ns is logical, drilling down into his
formulation of his *senteces* , he uses dissimilar terms that refer to
the same fact, because his sentences says the same thing twice,
guaranteeing the truth of the proposition it is a claim of logic. We
agree about 99%, my point is just a small pedantic issue about the
difference between terms and sentences.

If and only if the oxymoron(dict.1850) is used as the contracted short
hand for a well defined sentence as I have done in my opening
paragraph at http://http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wiki can
we refer to natural selection(a term) as a concept(which means
sentences).

> The claim is not logical. Darwinists disagree.
>
> But the point ***here*** is that NS is a claim of logic, and this
> particular aspect of the claim is not subject to falsification.

I agree if by ns you are referring to some defined sentence as I did
at my wiki. My paragraph interprets Patrick Matthew, Malthus,
Democritus, Aristotle and Osborn. No sentence or term has an actual
meaning,the meaning matthew, Darwin had was a claim of
logic(tautology) that applies to past,present and future. This enabled
the modern day Aristotelians to change their conclusion that evolution
is a random process to a non-random process. Tautological formulations
that guarantee the truth the propositions , allows one to come to any
arbitrary conclusion.

> Let me
> explain: There are two components to any given scientific claim. (1)
> The actual things or empirics. (2) The logic that binds the things.

Very good , I am working through a course in logic from Oxford online
and will make a note of this on my wiki.

> Whatever logic is used to explain the former is not eligible for
> falsification. One can say the logic is sound or unsound. One can
> agree or disagree. Only the former is eligible for falsification,
> existence of the things, so to speak.

Taking notes.

> Concerning NS the things do
> indeed exist. The claims made in behalf of the things (the logic) is
> absurd, ridiculous.

You have lost me here. What is a natural selection? This question
would be silly if I did not have Jerry Fodor in all sincerity ask the
same question on his LRB books article ''Why pigs don't have wings''.
If you read it you would agree with me that he wasn't asking a
rhetorical question.

[backspace]

On Jun 3, 7:39�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 6:41�pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 1:33�am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 2, 4:07�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > > > In the videohttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6589272663573268460

> > > > Massimo says that the eyeball has only the appearance of design. By
> > > > implication Massimo himself has only the appearance of design
>

> > > If you refer to his physical form, then yes, that is the implication
> > > (one that is supported by the evidence),

>
> > > > and his
> > > > very words the appearance only of design:
>

> > > Well of course this doesn't follow at all. There's nothing in an
> > > observation that both the human eye and the human body are not the
> > > products of design which suggests that human communication is
> > > therefore undesigned as well.

>
> > > > why should we then believe a
> > > > word he says?
>

> > > I wasn't able to view the video, but your silly argument leaves me
> > > disinclined to worry about his veracity.
>
> > > RLC

>
> > On a point of logic, the following premises:
> > 1) Design begets design.
> > 2) Non-design or apparent design can't beget design.
>

> > If you yourself have only the appearance of design, then everything
> > you say is non-design begets design, in violation of premise 1. �This
> > has nothing to do with science.
>
> > For example the perception about what constitutes the fallacy of False
> > Analogy is whether you agree with the following logic:
>
> > On usenet I asked the question: What did the first talking monkey's
> > mommy look like? The response was : What did the first speaker of
> > French mother speak? This is a false analogy because the first speaker
> > of French's mother would have the same morphological features,
> > while
> > the first talking monkey's mommy(who could not talk) morphology would
> > have been different:
>
> Not according to the ToE. The morphology between child and mother
> would not have been more radically different than what you always find
> between generations
>
> > you either agree or don't.
>
> You seem to misunderstand what "analogy" means. An analogy always
> keeps some traits of the original, while changing others
> The analogy is correct, as it shows that both questions are based on a
> wrong hypothesis - that there was "one" first speaker, and that this
> speaker was in some sense significantly different from his progenitor.


http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/podcasts/critical_reasoning_for_beginners
states that Logicians are not concerned so much with the truth/falsity
of the premise but whether the conclusions follow logically. My
premise was the *first* talking monkey.

[Burkhard]

So? When you start with a premise that is obviously false, such as
any premise that assumes the existence of a first talking monkey, you
get garbage in the conclusions, regardless of the logic.

[Desertphile]

On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 19:33:50 -0600, Desertphile
<Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 04:07:10 -0700 (PDT), backspace
> <steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In the video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6589272663573268460
> > Massimo says that the eyeball has only the appearance of design. By
> > implication Massimo himself has only the appearance of design and his
> > very words the appearance only of design: why should we then believe a
> > word he says?

> Give us an example what does *NOT* look designed.

So, no answer from the cultist. This means he has no idea what
looks designed and what does not.


--
REALITY NEEDS ALLIES!
"al gore needs to be hung" -- MrPolarismannn
"Certainly I wish I were" -- Desertphile

[backspace]

Richard Harter recently died and failed to notice the following:


http://home.tiac.net/~cri/2008/demolish.html
''...3) Continuous variation (or emulation thereof) is necessary for
the Darwinian model of natural selection which supposes a process of
accumulating small advantages. It is, moreover, that which is observed
for many traits....''

rephrase in terms of the *idea* Patrick Matthew had, which Darwin
lifted:
... the Matthew model of natural selection posits a process of
accumulating small advantages...

rephase, expand the oxymoron ns into its full meant sentence:
The Matthew model of acquiring attributes in each generation via the
*natural(unintended) means of competitive selection(preservation)
implies on a point of logic that advantages are accumulated.

rephrase to distill the claim of logic:
Advantages attributes implies they will be accumulated in succeeding
generations of descendants in the struggle for life.

Finally:
It is a claim of logic that in a generalized context Advantages are
accumulated.

Notes:
This same claim of logic can be formulated by using many and varied
*dissimilar* terms such as ''... proliferators perpetuate ....'' in
the http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Stanford_tautologies thread.

*differential* is just one of many such *dissimilar* terms to
formulate the same core idea of the natural means of competitive
preservation of favorable attributes increasing
incrementally(differentially). Differential itself does not provide
the scale, allowing both PunkEek and gradualism to use the same term.
They must use subscripts to designate the differences in perception of
scale, which as I pointed out elsewhere confuses the issues as it
deals with a perception of scale and not the mechanism.

Tie all of this in with your excellent reply to Burkhard on the
*claims of logic* in the thread Stanford tautologies
https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/116fe2d3ca334b90

[backspace]

The origins debate is largely one of inference as opposed to
observation and thus careful delineation of the premises is required.
Our concern is whether the conclusions follow logically from the
premises and whether the premises are self-contradictory or not.
Wittgenstein's puts forth the view that conceptual confusions
surrounding the philosophy of language use are at the root of most
philosophical problems. In his work Philosophical investigations he
reduces his work to linguistic analysis. Chomsky showed that language
is a Composite Integrity or IC of indissoluble grammar; integrated key
functional parts that enable an Irreducible Functionality like a
clock. In opposition to this was Skinner's behaviorism or Darwinian
gradualism. Composite Integrity is the Platonic opposite of
gradualism. Concentration/uniformity is the Platonic abstraction from
which all of thermodynamics derive. The laws of thermodynamics
describe the tendency of a concentrate of matter or energy to become
uniform. Financial markets are bound by the dichotomy between
certainty and uncertainty(contingency, probability). Information, like
energy and matter can neither be created or destroyed, it is only
expressed. Destroyed the opposite of created and expressed is used
here as the contrast to Adaptation. Thus careful consideration must be
given to the difference between communication and Information, they
are not the same.

David Berlinski's observation that the concept of Natural Selection is
hopelessly confused is because two different world views(Platonic and
non-Platonic) are using the same syntax to express different meanings.
Sentences have a structural ambiguity. There is nothing in the words
themselves that will define what "... you have a green light
means ..." - pragmatics

ICR, AIG, Demski , Dawkins have all one thing in common: the avoidance
of classifying their ideas explicitly as assuming the premise of
Platonic binary contrasts or rejecting it. This allows them to sell
books and hold endless conferences, making money in the process. Ken
Ham's premise differs from Dawkins hence he can't come to the same
conclusion as Dawkins with regard to the term Natural Selection.

--
Natural selection: What naturaled and who did the selecting?

[Attila]

Do you mind giving a reference to your Chomsky claim? The one where he
allegedly shows "that language is a Composite Integrity or IC[sic] of
indissoluble grammar". I confess that the only references I could find
to "Composite Integrity" are in Tautology Wki and the Scratchpad page
on Meaningless Sentences. D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson seems to be the
source of this phrase. Thanks in advance.

[backspace]

I am the author of http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wiki . My
reference is Berlinski's book Black Mischief first edition and the
book tautological oxymorons by John Brey. The scratchpad pages I moved
to the main wikia site.

[Attila]

Thanks for that, BS but I still don't see what that has to do with any
claim made by Chomsky wrt linguistic structure.

[backspace]

At my page on meaningless sentences at http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Meaningless_sentence
I listed Shakespeare as formulating meaningless sentences. I was
pleasantly surprised after listening to a series on Wittgenstein at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrpvBJrnhRQ&feature=related that
Wittgenstein came to the same conclusion. I am deeply impressed by
this.

[Attila]

That's interesting, BS but I still don't see what that has to do with

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:10:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

Please satisfy my curiosity regarding the term "tautological
oxymoron"...

A tautology is trivially true (ex: "It will rain tomorrow or
it won't", "The animal is either alive or not", "Backspace
will or will not answer this question").

An oxymoron is internally contradictory (ex: "jumbo shrimp",
"congressional integrity", "clear backspace post").

So a tautological oxymoron is both trivially true and
internally contradictory; how exactly does that work?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[Attila]

I wish you better luck than I had in getting a response to your
question.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 06:27:01 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Attila <jdka...@gmail.com>:

Thanks. Backspace generally ignores my questions anyway, and
I'm not expecting any change. He's basically a quotemining
semantics troll with delusions of adequacy.

[Attila]

Thanks. I was worried I was getting senile. None of what BS said made a
whole lot of sense to me and I'm somewhat familiar with linguistics.

[nick_keigh...@hotmail.com]

On Sunday, June 24, 2012 1:08:36 PM UTC+1, backspace wrote:

> The origins debate is largely one of inference as opposed to
> observation and thus careful delineation of the premises is required.

oi! I saw you palm that card! the "origins debate" ie. speciation via evolution is (like much of science) inference *based on primary observation*. Your attempt to reduce science to mere inference is misplaced.

Examples of science which require some inference from primary observation is pretty well all of them (no one has seen a quark or an electron), but particularly long time-base ones like geology and astronomy. My uncle was a geologist who spent a lot of time looking at worn down volcanoes because you can basically see the insides. Are you claiming that he wasn't in fact observing volcanoes?

> Our concern is whether the conclusions follow logically from the
> premises and whether the premises are self-contradictory or not.

the only premise is what I call the "Reality Premise": that there really is a world out there that underlies the sensory data we receive. Science (and much other real world knowledge) consists of careful experiment and observation that is used to form parsimoneous models of that world.

<snip what I suspect is made up>

> David Berlinski's observation that the concept of Natural Selection is
> hopelessly confused is because two different world views(Platonic and
> non-Platonic) are using the same syntax to express different meanings.

could you expand on that? I don't think any Platonic notions are necessary for physical science. So where is the Platonic notion in natural selection? "Natural selection" is just a posh word for "sorting"

> Sentences have a structural ambiguity. There is nothing in the words
> themselves that will define what "... you have a green light
> means ..." - pragmatics

only if you choose to ignore the meaning by concentrating on the syntax- and then complaining that there is no meaning!

> ICR, AIG, Demski , Dawkins have all one thing in common: the avoidance
> of classifying their ideas explicitly as assuming the premise of
> Platonic binary contrasts or rejecting it.

what? are they accepting it or rejecting it (or ignoring it as 2000 year old irrelevant bollocks?)

This allows them to sell
> books and hold endless conferences, making money in the process. Ken
> Ham's premise differs from Dawkins hence he can't come to the same
> conclusion as Dawkins with regard to the term Natural Selection.

that's because Demski isn't playing by the rules of science (except when cornered)

> --
> Natural selection: What naturaled and who did the selecting?

disparate genomes arise in populations ultimately by mutation (I'm ignoring sex here), these have differencial survival rates in the particular environment leading to selection. So I suppose the environment selects amongst the mutations. Couldn't you just have googled for this?

The "who" in your little quote is an example of assumign your conclusion

[backspace]

On Jun 25, 11:57 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:10:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace

> <stephan...@gmail.com>:

> >I am the author ofhttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wiki. My

> >reference is Berlinski's book Black Mischief first edition and the
> >book tautological oxymorons by John Brey. The scratchpad pages I moved
> >to the main wikia site.
>
> Please satisfy my curiosity regarding the term "tautological
> oxymoron"...
>
> A tautology is trivially true (ex: "It will rain tomorrow or
> it won't", "The animal is either alive or not", "Backspace
> will or will not answer this question").
>
> An oxymoron is internally contradictory (ex: "jumbo shrimp",
> "congressional integrity", "clear backspace post").
>
> So a tautological oxymoron is both trivially true and
> internally contradictory; how exactly does that work?
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>                           - McNameless

premise: Only sentences can be tautologies and not terms. ns is a term
not a sentence. In addition ns the term, not whatever concept you
might choose and on semantic grounds is an oxymoron. A tautological
oxymoron is using an oxymoron in a tautological sentence. In 99% of
cases the sentence surrounding ns is a rhetorical tautology.

[Burkhard]

That would be a simple tautology, doesn't matter what the constituent
parts say. "X is a square circle or X is not a square circle" is
simply a tautology (true under any assignments of variables)

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:48:02 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace

<steph...@gmail.com>:

>premise: Only sentences can be tautologies and not terms.

Incorrect premises lead to false conclusions...

> ns is a term
>not a sentence. In addition ns the term, not whatever concept you
>might choose and on semantic grounds is an oxymoron. A tautological
>oxymoron is using an oxymoron in a tautological sentence. In 99% of
>cases the sentence surrounding ns is a rhetorical tautology.

....as shown.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:08:10 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

>> premise: Only sentences can be tautologies and not terms. ns is a term
>> not a sentence. In addition ns the term, not whatever concept you
>> might choose and on semantic grounds is an oxymoron. A tautological
>> oxymoron is using an oxymoron in a tautological sentence.
>
>That would be a simple tautology, doesn't matter what the constituent
>parts say. "X is a square circle or X is not a square circle" is
>simply a tautology (true under any assignments of variables)

Yep. Backspace understands neither "tautology" nor
"oxymoron".

>>In 99% of
>> cases the sentence surrounding ns is a rhetorical tautology.
>