Is evidence passive, or can it speak for itself?
Mike Goodrich
Newbie wrote:
In article <slrn9f38p...@cx318157-c.chspk1.va.home.com>, Mike Goodrich
says...
>
>In article <1esojxe.162b7jtq0s75sN%wil...@wehi.edu.au>, wilkins wrote:
>>Spinto <recip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> No other conclusion was permissable.
>>Too right - if the evidence says something, then no other conclusion
>>*is* permissible...
>
>
>Disingenuous. A full disclosure discussion of the nature of evidence
>is needed.
>
Only to whom the evidence does not "say something".. :)
Didn't mean to ignore you there newbie as we would seem to
be compatriots; you, I, Tony, and perhaps a few others.
Anyway, you are quite right, my friend!
regards,
-mg
"The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively not by the false
appearance of things present and which mislead into error, not directly by
weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice."
-Schopenhauer
newbie
says...
>
>
>Newbie wrote:
>
>In article <slrn9f38p...@cx318157-c.chspk1.va.home.com>, Mike Goodrich
>says...
>>
>>In article <1esojxe.162b7jtq0s75sN%wil...@wehi.edu.au>, wilkins wrote:
>>>Spinto <recip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> No other conclusion was permissable.
>>>Too right - if the evidence says something, then no other conclusion
>>>*is* permissible...
>>
>>
>>Disingenuous. A full disclosure discussion of the nature of evidence
>>is needed.
>>
>
>Only to whom the evidence does not "say something".. :)
>
>
>Didn't mean to ignore you there newbie as we would seem to
>be compatriots; you, I, Tony, and perhaps a few others.
>
>Anyway, you are quite right, my friend!
Thanks. :) When "the" evidence starts talking...
A Pagano
Mike Goodrich wrote:
>
> Newbie wrote:
>
> In article <slrn9f38p...@cx318157-c.chspk1.va.home.com>, Mike Goodrich
> says...
> >
> >In article <1esojxe.162b7jtq0s75sN%wil...@wehi.edu.au>, wilkins wrote:
> >>Spinto <recip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> No other conclusion was permissable.
> >>Too right - if the evidence says something, then no other conclusion
> >>*is* permissible...
> >
I think Newbie wrote:
> >Disingenuous. A full disclosure discussion of the nature of evidence
> >is needed.
> >
M. Goodrich wrote:
> Only to whom the evidence does not "say something".. :)
Pagano replies:
I'll pipe in with my usual boring drum beat: Apart from drawing some
low-level (and in many cases trivial) generalizations the evidence is
completely and utterly silent. In fact it is doubtful that any set of
evidence no matter how perfect or complete could uniquely define or
point to only the one true theory. Artificial intelligence researchers
have been disappointed in this regard.
Evidence is never gathered in isolation. The gathering of evidence is
always preceded by the introduction of a problem to be solved and some
preliminary conjecture explaining the problem. It is the conjecture
(however preliminary) which suggests where to even look for evidence and
how to interpret that evidence once found. Evidence is always, always,
always interpreted in the light of our conjectural theories. It says
nothing without man's wonderful intellectual inventions---his
conjectures. The secularists have no explanation of how man creates
such new information, such new inventions almost "from nothing." But
christians have no trouble explaining this.
*****************************
Regards to my compatriots,
T Pagano
wf...@ptd.net
>
>
>Mike Goodrich wrote:
>>
>> Newbie wrote:
>>
>> In article <slrn9f38p...@cx318157-c.chspk1.va.home.com>, Mike Goodrich
>> says...
>> >
>> >In article <1esojxe.162b7jtq0s75sN%wil...@wehi.edu.au>, wilkins wrote:
>> >>Spinto <recip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> No other conclusion was permissable.
>> >>Too right - if the evidence says something, then no other conclusion
>> >>*is* permissible...
>> >
>
>I think Newbie wrote:
>> >Disingenuous. A full disclosure discussion of the nature of evidence
>> >is needed.
>> >
>
>M. Goodrich wrote:
>> Only to whom the evidence does not "say something".. :)
>
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>I'll pipe in with my usual boring drum beat:
geez, he finally said something right for once...wonder if he feels
its naturalistic or supernatural...
>
>Evidence is never gathered in isolation. The gathering of evidence is
>always preceded by the introduction of a problem to be solved and some
>preliminary conjecture explaining the problem. It is the conjecture
>(however preliminary) which suggests where to even look for evidence and
>how to interpret that evidence once found. Evidence is always, always,
>always interpreted in the light of our conjectural theories. It says
>nothing without man's wonderful intellectual inventions---his
>conjectures. The secularists have no explanation of how man creates
>such new information, such new inventions almost "from nothing." But
>christians have no trouble explaining this.
whatever this means. magic can explain everything. if pagano thinks
the ability to explain everything is the final proof of truth, perhaps
he should take up astrology.
Blackadder
"A Pagano" <apa...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:3B26C013...@fast.net...
On the contrary! The great thing about the superstitionists "explanation" is
that it actually explains absolutely nothing. Saying "I believe the
invisible man I believe in did it" has never, will never, in fact can never,
explain anything useful about the world, for that, the theist knows as well
as I, we have to rely upon methodological naturalism.
So I suppose if you are silly and gullible enough to believe "The invisible
pink unicorn did it" actually counts as an explanation of something then I
guess you can claim to have <cough> "explained" it, but only to those people
who are stupid enough to accept less than imaginative metaphysical conjuring
as an explanation of something, which is a rather hollow victory. Luckily
for all of us most people are not that stupid, which is why we discovered
methodological naturalism which has given us every single piece of useful
data about the universe we currently posess.
Remember..... methodological NATURALISM. The only method that can be shown
to actually work =)
-Adder
Dave Horn
"Nope" doesn't cut it.
[Repost]
[In April], I provided three references to debunk Pagano claims with respect
to what another writer had to say about creationist claims concerning
thermodynamics. With typical bluster, Pagano claimed that the author had
offered a caricature of the "creationist position" as it relates to
thermodynamics. A typical evasion by Pagano ensued in which he demanded
references (which were provided). Pagano ignored them, at first, but was
goaded into responding when I forced the issue. He then stated that he
would take the three references and examine them. He promised that he would
approach the references with respect to six points that he would make. This
was a pretty firm assertion on his part.
Pagano took the first reference that I offered and dismissed it. However,
he failed to fulfill the six points that he said he would fulfill. He then
stated that he would do the same with the other two references.
This Pagano never did. He went from asserting this would be done, to
presuming to offering me an "out" with respect to his presumption of "harsh
criticism" of the references, to stating that he would get to them "when
time permits," after which he treated us to yet another disappearing act.
Since I can predict that Pagano, assuming he works up the courage to respond
at all, will respond with lies and misrepresentations of that even (along
with his typical bluster), I am fully prepared to repost the details of that
exchange. But this was my response to Pagano's last gasp with respect to
that issue, posted April 22nd:
[Begin repost]
"A Pagano" <apa...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:3AE23824...@fast.net...
>
> Oh I'm not finished with Horn yet.
Nor I with Pagano.
> Still two more url links to review and comment on concerning
> his defense of Sharp (for those interested please see the post
> with Subject title: Horn's First Link Proves Nothing but His
> lack of interest in Truth).
An article which I answered and thoroughly refuted all points Pagano made.
Pagano has not responded to that article. This is certainly not a surprise.
> If these two other links are as bad as the first one I will have
> shown conclusively that the Horn has no credibility whatsoever.
I have never worried about Pagano claims with respect to my credibility. If
the concensus of recorded opinion is any indicator at all, it is Pagano who
has a problem in this area, and he will continue to do so.
> I will post the results of my review of those links both in
> the appropriate thread and as new threads so others will
> be sure to see.
And I'll be waiting. I won't be expecting much.
Pagano's lies will be exposed every time he posts. I hope he enjoys the
ride.
I know *I* will...
[End repost]
As we can see above, Pagano stated he would post reviews of the other links
in both "the appropriate thread" and in a new thread "so others will be sure
to see."
Pagano disappeared after that.
Pagano still owes us for two links.
[End Repost]
Elmer Bataitis
> Evidence is never gathered in isolation. The gathering of evidence is
> always preceded by the introduction of a problem to be solved and some
> preliminary conjecture explaining the problem.
Say Tony, why do you even bother? You claim that "naturalism" is false
so "naturalistic" evidence means nothing to you anyway. Right?
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
Proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor,
the straight jacket of conventional thought.
**********************************************************
Tracy P. Hamilton
>
>
> Mike Goodrich wrote:
> >
> > Newbie wrote:
> >
> > In article <slrn9f38p...@cx318157-c.chspk1.va.home.com>, Mike
Goodrich
> > says...
> > >
> > >In article <1esojxe.162b7jtq0s75sN%wil...@wehi.edu.au>, wilkins wrote:
> > >>Spinto <recip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> No other conclusion was permissable.
> > >>Too right - if the evidence says something, then no other conclusion
> > >>*is* permissible...
> > >
>
> I think Newbie wrote:
> > >Disingenuous. A full disclosure discussion of the nature of evidence
> > >is needed.
> > >
>
> M. Goodrich wrote:
> > Only to whom the evidence does not "say something".. :)
>
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> I'll pipe in with my usual boring drum beat: Apart from drawing some
> low-level (and in many cases trivial) generalizations the evidence is
> completely and utterly silent.
"The heavens *declare* the glory of God, the firmament *showeth* his
handiwork."
Emphasis mine.
[snip mixture of obvious, irrelevant, and dubious verbiage]
> Evidence is always, always,
> always interpreted in the light of our conjectural theories.
So God is a conjecture? Far be iut from me to disagree, but I would
have thought a Christian to assert that the evidence of the world
spoke for itself.
> It says
> nothing without man's wonderful intellectual inventions---his
> conjectures. The secularists have no explanation of how man creates
> such new information, such new inventions almost "from nothing." But
> christians have no trouble explaining this.
No doubt this is so obvious it does not need to be explained. As if the
evidence spoke for itself!
Tracy P. Hamilton
leonardo dasso
[snip]
> Pagano replies:
> I'll pipe in with my usual boring drum beat: Apart from drawing some
> low-level (and in many cases trivial) generalizations the evidence is
> completely and utterly silent. In fact it is doubtful that any set of
> evidence no matter how perfect or complete could uniquely define or
> point to only the one true theory. Artificial intelligence researchers
> have been disappointed in this regard.
>
> Evidence is never gathered in isolation. The gathering of evidence is
> always preceded by the introduction of a problem to be solved and some
> preliminary conjecture explaining the problem.
1. Popper said this 50 years ago.
2. Somebody said some time ago that we tend to use "hypothesis " for the
scientific ideas we like and "conjectures" for the ones we don't.
As Pagano doesnt like any scientific idea, he uses the term "conjectures"
for all of them.
>It is the conjecture
> (however preliminary) which suggests where to even look for evidence and
> how to interpret that evidence once found.
Nothing surprising here.
Suppose you walk into your flat, and the light is gone.
You propose the hypothesis: "the ligtht bulb went kaput".
You change the light bulb and there is light!
The hypothesis was right: The lightbulb was kaput.
The hypothesis guided you and helped you interpret the data. Big deal.
Alternatively, you could allow some supernatural hypotheses there.
You could think, god turned off the light, or some naughty little angels
have cut my cables.
These hypotheses (or conjectures, if you prefer), would be more difficult to
prove or disprove.
But I'm sure you take these possibilities into account all the time, so you
will be willing to tell us how you proceed.
>Evidence is always, always,
> always interpreted in the light of our conjectural theories. It says
> nothing without man's wonderful intellectual inventions---his
> conjectures. The secularists have no explanation of how man creates
> such new information, such new inventions almost "from nothing." But
> christians have no trouble explaining this.
>
Really? how come church sermons are so bloody boring then?
regards
leo
Joe Cummings
It wasn't very long ago that Tony was saying that creationist
critics of evolution didn't need to have a theory before they started
to criticise evolution.
As a result of the criticism, people were going to look around
for another theory.
That was, of course, in the past; nature and Tony don't need
to be uniform, according to him.
Ah, well.
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
Mike Goodrich
>
>
>Mike Goodrich wrote:
>>
>> Newbie wrote:
>>
>> In article <slrn9f38p...@cx318157-c.chspk1.va.home.com>, Mike Goodrich
>> says...
>> >
>> >In article <1esojxe.162b7jtq0s75sN%wil...@wehi.edu.au>, wilkins wrote:
>> >>Spinto <recip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> No other conclusion was permissable.
>> >>Too right - if the evidence says something, then no other conclusion
>> >>*is* permissible...
>> >
>
Sorry for my bungling!
>I think Newbie wrote:
Actually it was me who said this:
>> >Disingenuous. A full disclosure discussion of the nature of evidence
>> >is needed.
>> >
>
This was newbie's reply:
>> Only to whom the evidence does not "say something".. :)
>
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>I'll pipe in with my usual boring drum beat: Apart from drawing some
>low-level (and in many cases trivial) generalizations the evidence is
>completely and utterly silent. In fact it is doubtful that any set of
>evidence no matter how perfect or complete could uniquely define or
>point to only the one true theory. Artificial intelligence researchers
>have been disappointed in this regard.
>
>Evidence is never gathered in isolation. The gathering of evidence is
>always preceded by the introduction of a problem to be solved and some
>preliminary conjecture explaining the problem. It is the conjecture
>(however preliminary) which suggests where to even look for evidence and
>how to interpret that evidence once found. Evidence is always, always,
>always interpreted in the light of our conjectural theories.
Much as I had to say here:
URL: <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=goodrich+evidence+grid&hl=en&lr=&group=
talk.origins&safe=off&rnum=1&ic=1&selm=3A343B6F.9E3FD36D%40home.com>
>It says
>nothing without man's wonderful intellectual inventions---his
>conjectures. The secularists have no explanation of how man creates
>such new information, such new inventions almost "from nothing." But
>christians have no trouble explaining this.
>*****************************
>
>
>Regards to my compatriots,
>T Pagano
>
Indeed, since secularists are precommited to a
naturalistic-materialist-reductionist "explanation". But if man is more than
a mere collection of 'particles' moving in concert, then his thoughts, will,
and spirit cannot be analyzed by materialism redux. Thus man is not then a
purely natural entity; the results of his action cannot be explained as the
result of natural law. This would imply that man is "supernatural" (in the
literal sense of the term), and the results he produces likewise.
Christians have an additional truth authority which trumps all others;
the revelation of God.
Secularists typically deny that there are any truth authorities, except of
course science; they ascribe to the imperialism of science. Since for them,
science is the only possible truth authority, no wonder they fight so hard
to prop up thier embattled 'king'. If only they would come to know the true
and eternal King.
my $0.02
Besides, it only takes a few compatriots to start a revolution, no?
-mg
A Pagano
> [In April], I provided three references to debunk Pagano claims with respect
> to what another writer had to say about creationist claims concerning
> thermodynamics. With typical bluster, Pagano claimed that the author had
> offered a caricature of the "creationist position" as it relates to
> thermodynamics.
Pagano replies:
Fact of the matter is I asked that poster (Sharp was the name he used)
who claimed to be a scientist to produce a citation from a creation
scientist written in the last 50 years which could justify the
caricature. The alleged "scientist" never replied. I inferred nothing
from his lack of reply, however, this left his bald ridicule completely
unsupported.
********************************
Paluxy Dave continues:
> A typical evasion by Pagano ensued in which he demanded
> references (which were provided). Pagano ignored them, at first, but was
> goaded into responding when I forced the issue.
Pagano replies:
Since I very rarely engage in back and forth debates with anyone (over
the last 5 years) the claim that I "ignored" and then was "goaded" into
responding plays fast and loose with the facts. I respond to suit my
own purposes.
***********************************
Paluxy Dave continued:
> He then stated that he
> would take the three references and examine them. He promised that he would
> approach the references with respect to six points that he would make. This
> was a pretty firm assertion on his part.
Pagano replied:
True.
**************************
Paluxy Dave continued:
> Pagano took the first reference that I offered and dismissed it.
Pagano replies:
I did dismiss it with adequate justification and argument. It only met
one of the six standards I set forth---that is the link was "live." By
way of background Paluxy Dave decided to produce several sources, in the
form of 3 links, pointing to documents that would substantiate Sharp's
caricature of the alleged creation scientist position on the second
law. I told Paluxy Dave that I would evaluate his links on the basis of
the following standards:
(1) see if they are "live" links,
(2) see if they are written by credentialed creation scientists and not
lunk heads like me,
(3) see if they address the laws of thermodynamics at all,
(4) post them in their entirety if they are not too long,
(5) explain whether they are consistent or inconsistent with the
consensus position of credentialied creation scientists, and
(6) if consistent show clearly that they don't support the
over-generalized caricature of Sharp
After seeing the six standards Paluxy Dave did not retract the three
links. Here is what I discovered after reviewing the first link (
http://members.truepath.com/hogue/creationism.html ) on 4/15/01 (see my
previous post on that date at google):
(1) The link was live (and still is).
(2) The document referred to in the link was NOT written by a
credentialled creation scientist. THIS MEANS THE LINK PALUXY DAVE
PROVIDED WAS NOT WHAT HE REPRESENTED IT TO BE. It was NOT even written
by someone with any graduate academic credentials. The writer of the
document identified it as a term paper written for what looks like an
undergraduate technical college course.
(3) There was a small paragraph in the paper concerning the second law.
The first sentence of the paragraph was referenced and represented the
classical explanation of the second law. The writer of the paper went
on to present his personal understanding of how the classical
explanation made the Big Bang seem implausible in the absence of a
mechanism. He DID NOT claim anywhere in the paper to present the
position of a single credentialed creation scientist or their consensus
position. THIS MEANS THE LINK PALUXY DAVE PROVIDED WAS NOT WHAT HE
REPRESENTED IT TO BE.
(4) I posted the first half of the paper with the one paragraph
concerning the second law in context (see my post of 4/15/01 at google).
(5) While the writer disclosed that he wholly accepted creationism
nowhere did he present the consensus position of creation scientists
concerning the second law. While the writer portrayed his understanding
of the second law as it applies to origins in a limited, amateur way it
is doubtful that even this justified Sharp's caricature.
(6) Since the writer never presents the consensus position of creation
scientists this link didn't justify Sharp's caricature. THIS MEANS THE
LINK PALUXY DAVE PROVIDED WAS NOT WHAT HE REPRESENTED IT TO BE.
FINAL COMMENTS:
While I fully intended to review the other two links I decided that
embarrassing Paluxy Dave any further was unnecessary, redundant, and a
waste of time. His first link was quite simply a fraud and I provided
a similar argument to that given here on 4/15/01. To say that I
dimissed his first link without justification or argument is silly
nonsense.
Finally Paluxy Dave could have redeemed himself by simply posting the
substance of the other two links and showing that they met the six
standards. As far as I know he has not done so, but can still can.
After having discovered that Paluxy Dave misrepresented the first link,
and his failure to defend the other two I am justified in assuming that
they are also frauds.
Regards,
T Pagano
wf...@ptd.net
Goodrich) wrote:
>
>
>Indeed, since secularists are precommited to a
>naturalistic-materialist-reductionist "explanation".
which has nothing to do with evolution since its supported by
christians, such as the pope...
>
>Secularists typically deny that there are any truth authorities, except of
>course science; they ascribe to the imperialism of science.
actually they dont. some of them USED to, in the ideology of
scientism, but that died in the mid 20's. creationists are historical
revisionists, and scientific illiterates, so they make bizarre
statements like this, hoping that someone will believe their tripe.
Martin Crisp
wrote (in message <3b279520$0$15031$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>):
> Really? how come church sermons are so bloody boring then?
Your pastor/priest doesn't watch cable? [Sermons from my youth were
always most, erm, virulent after the priest had watched Dave Allen two
nights earlier - I assume to gather material to whine about from the
pulpit when the sermon was a bit thin.]
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #(2^8)*(2^3-2^0)
[...]Et sepultus resurrexit; certum est, quia impossibile.
-- Tertullian
Steven J.
>
> > Pagano replies:
> >I'll pipe in with my usual boring drum beat: Apart from drawing some
> >low-level (and in many cases trivial) generalizations the evidence is
> >completely and utterly silent. In fact it is doubtful that any set of
> >evidence no matter how perfect or complete could uniquely define or
> >point to only the one true theory. Artificial intelligence researchers
> >have been disappointed in this regard.
> >
> >Evidence is never gathered in isolation. The gathering of evidence is
> >always preceded by the introduction of a problem to be solved and some
> >preliminary conjecture explaining the problem. It is the conjecture
> >(however preliminary) which suggests where to even look for evidence and
> >how to interpret that evidence once found. Evidence is always, always,
> >always interpreted in the light of our conjectural theories.
>
must be evidence for or against some hypothesis to be evidence at all.
And certainly, evidence is interpreted in light of theories. The
progressive refutation of various scientific assumptions, to which you
so often allude, is evidence that evidence is not always interpreted
as CONFIRMING these theories -- except when "creation scientists" are
proposing the "theories" and evaluating the evidence.
>
> Much as I had to say here:
>
> URL: <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=goodrich+evidence+grid&hl=en&lr=&group=
> talk.origins&safe=off&rnum=1&ic=1&selm=3A343B6F.9E3FD36D%40home.com>
>
>
> >It says
> >nothing without man's wonderful intellectual inventions---his
> >conjectures. The secularists have no explanation of how man creates
> >such new information, such new inventions almost "from nothing." But
> >christians have no trouble explaining this.
> >*****************************
> >
> >
> >Regards to my compatriots,
> >T Pagano
> >
>
>
> Indeed, since secularists are precommited to a
> naturalistic-materialist-reductionist "explanation". But if man is more than
> a mere collection of 'particles' moving in concert, then his thoughts, will,
> and spirit cannot be analyzed by materialism redux. Thus man is not then a
> purely natural entity; the results of his action cannot be explained as the
> result of natural law. This would imply that man is "supernatural" (in the
> literal sense of the term), and the results he produces likewise.
>
then his mind cannot be explained by materialism. However, there is a
difference between "cannot be explained" and "has not been (fully and
convincingly, even to the most biased and scientifically illiterate)
explained." It does not follow that because the human mind *has not*
been explained, in materialist terms, to your satisfaction, that it
*cannot* be so explained. In other words, there are insufficient
grounds for your dogmatic assertion that man is not a purely material
entity. In point of fact, your antimaterialism is at some small pains
to explain the demonstrated impact upon personality and thought by
brain injuries and many drugs, or the observable changes in brains
during different sorts of mental activities. Our minds are evidently
at least partly materialistic in nature and function.
(2nd) If man is not a purely material entity, that is *still* not
enough to prove that man is not a purely natural entity. The
theologian R.C. Sproul argues that science cannot (or at least has
not) told us what energy *is,* but only what it does. This does not
mean that energy, or matter, or gravity, or any of several phenomena
of which the same claim could be made, are not natural phenomena.
They exist and act in our universe. They demonstrate certain
regularities which may be inferred and studied. Interestingly, the
same is true of our minds, REGARDLESS of what they are and how they
work. Even granting your assumption that minds can never be explained
in terms of matter and energy, it does not follow that they do not
exist, and follow the laws of their own nature, in our universe. Our
minds are "natural," in precisely the sense that anything else studied
by science is. So are the results they produce.
(3rd) The same points apply to miracles. A miracle is more than
simply an exception to natural law -- it is an event which reveals
and/or furthers God's purposes in the universe. To call something a
miracle presupposes that God's purposes can be at least partly known,
and that hypotheses based on them can be formulated and tested. Part
of what you call "supernatural" events are hypothetical NATURAL events
(taking place in our universe, producing observable effects, and
following discoverable laws). It should be possible to test, using
the methods and assumptions of "secularist" science, to see if they
occur. Of course, part of what you call "supernatural" events are
just excuses for why you either fail to pose testable hypotheses about
creationism, or why, if you do so, the evidence fails to support them.
>
> Christians have an additional truth authority which trumps all others;
> the revelation of God.
>
Is not creation, the physical, natural universe, itself supposed to be
a revelation of God?
Do you have any reasons why we should regard your additional truth
authority, and, beyond that, your personal interpretation of it?
>
> Secularists typically deny that there are any truth authorities, except of
> course science; they ascribe to the imperialism of science. Since for them,
> science is the only possible truth authority, no wonder they fight so hard
> to prop up thier embattled 'king'. If only they would come to know the true
> and eternal King.
>
It would be more accurate to say that the basic methods of science,
reliance on logic and evidence, are accepted methods of arriving at an
acceptable approximation of truth in day-to-day life. We rely on them
every day, for all manner of questions, and tend to regard as very
eccentric and arrogant demands that propositions be accepted without
for which no evidence is adduced, or which seem grossly offensive to
logic. "Science" is not some "thing" which is set up as king; and its
methods are not based on exotic or arbitrary approaches to dealing
with reality.
>
> my $0.02
>
Yes, but with inflation, two cents isn't worth what it used to be.
>
> Besides, it only takes a few compatriots to start a revolution, no?
>
> -mg
-- Steven J.
Andrew Glasgow
stev...@altavista.com (Steven J.) wrote:
Well Said! Kudos for a reasoned, coherent, and impeccably logical
exposition of what many of us were vaguely thinking but failed to put
into words anywhere near as eloquent.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
Dave Horn
> Dave Horn wrote:
> > [In April], I provided three references to debunk
> > Pagano claims with respect to what another writer
> > had to say about creationist claims concerning
> > thermodynamics. With typical bluster, Pagano
> > claimed that the author had offered a caricature
> > of the "creationist position" as it relates to
> > thermodynamics.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Fact of the matter is I asked that poster (Sharp was
> the name he used) who claimed to be a scientist to
> produce a citation from a creation scientist written
> in the last 50 years which could justify the caricature.
> The alleged "scientist" never replied. I inferred nothing
> from his lack of reply, however, this left his bald
> ridicule completely unsupported.
In fact, the "bald ridicule" was completely supported (only Pagano seemed to
think it was ridicule). Pagano never provided the actual "creationist
position" for comparison and the links I provided demonstrated that the
"caricature," for a single-line representation, was accurate.
> Paluxy Dave continues:
> > A typical evasion by Pagano ensued in which he
> > demanded references (which were provided).
> > Pagano ignored them, at first, but was goaded into
> > responding when I forced the issue.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Since I very rarely engage in back and forth debates
> with anyone (over the last 5 years) the claim that I
> "ignored" and then was "goaded" into responding
> plays fast and loose with the facts. I respond to suit
> my own purposes.
Pagano's purposes are to make claims and vague speeches that are closer to
"fast and loose with the facts" than anything else. When challenged and
debunked, Pagano runs, to later return and claim the same things.
> Paluxy Dave continued:
> > He then stated that he would take the three references
> > and examine them. He promised that he would approach
> > the references with respect to six points that he would
> > make. This was a pretty firm assertion on his part.
>
> Pagano replied:
> True.
>
> Paluxy Dave continued:
> > Pagano took the first reference that I offered and
> > dismissed it.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I did dismiss it with adequate justification and argument.
Wrong again.
I rebutted Pagano's dismissal and demonstrated quite adequately that his
dismissal was without merit. Oddly enough, Pagano then said that I didn't
defend myself with respect to his rather pathetic rebuttal.
> It only met one of the six standards I set forth---that
> is the link was "live."
This, of course, is a lie, as I have already demonstrated. Notice that
Pagano has not responded to the specific rebuttal that I provided which
covered each point.
> By way of background Paluxy Dave decided to
> produce several sources, in the form of 3 links,
> pointing to documents that would substantiate
> Sharp's caricature of the alleged creation scientist
> position on the second law. I told Paluxy Dave
> that I would evaluate his links on the basis of
> the following standards:
>
> (1) see if they are "live" links,
They were.
> (2) see if they are written by credentialed creation
> scientists and not lunk heads like me,
Pagano never told us what a "credentialed creation scientist" was - and he
*was* challenged to present that information. The first link presented the
views of Paul Taylor, a well-known (except to Pagano) creationist. The
other two were directly written by well-known creationists.
> (3) see if they address the laws of thermodynamics
> at all...
They did.
> (4) post them in their entirety if they are not too long,
Which, of course, is not a standard to which I had to adhere.
> (5) explain whether they are consistent or
> inconsistent with the consensus position of
> credentialied creation scientists, and
> (6) if consistent show clearly that they don't
> support the over-generalized caricature of Sharp
And, as explained, Pagano did neither of these things.
Now let's watch Pagano in full misdirection mode.
> After seeing the six standards Paluxy Dave did
> not retract the three links.
Nor should I. The original standard was that they contain something written
by "creation scientists" and that those comments occurred within the last 50
years. The remaining standards were those Pagano placed mostly on himself
(items #4, #5, and #6 on Pagano's own list) *after* the links were provided.
> Here is what I discovered after reviewing the first
> link (http://members.truepath.com/hogue/creationism.html )
> on 4/15/01 (see my previous post on that date at google):
>
> (1) The link was live (and still is).
Indeed it is.
> (2) The document referred to in the link was NOT
> written by a credentialled creation scientist. THIS
> MEANS THE LINK PALUXY DAVE PROVIDED
> WAS NOT WHAT HE REPRESENTED IT TO BE.
Utterly false. I have already conceded that the link, itself, was not
written by a "creation scientist," but I have also argued that it wasn't the
links so much as the *comments* that must come from, well, whatever Pagano
thinks a "creation scientist" is supposed to be.
What I represented it to be was containing a representation by a known
creationist that supported what Sharp had said.
At that time, of course, Pagano never dealt with those direct words. Pagano
has still failed to do so.
> It was NOT even written by someone with any graduate
> academic credentials.
So, for the first time, Pagano decides to tell us what he requires of a
"credentialed creation scientist."
But I'll require more than that.
You see, Geisler has a "graduate academic credential" and has written quite
a bit on creationist.
Is he a "credentialed creation scientist?"
That's just one example I can use.
But, no, the web site was not written by such a person. I've already
allowed for that.
> The writer of the document identified it as a term
> paper written for what looks like an undergraduate
> technical college course.
As conceded.
> (3) There was a small paragraph in the paper concerning
> the second law. The first sentence of the paragraph was
> referenced and represented the classical explanation of
> the second law. The writer of the paper went on to present
> his personal understanding of how the classical explanation
> made the Big Bang seem implausible in the absence of a
> mechanism. He DID NOT claim anywhere in the paper to
> present the position of a single credentialed creation
> scientist or their consensus position.
False.
This is a direct quote from the link:
"The Big Bang Theory is critical in all challenges to Creationism. According
to thermodynamics, the Big Bang could not reorganize into something as
complex and full of energy as our planet, especially by accident. If
Evolution is true, there must be an extremely powerful force or mechanism at
work in the cosmos that can steadily defeat the powerful, ultimate tendency
toward 'disarrangedness' brought by the 2nd law. If such a massive force or
mechanism is in existence, it would seem it should be quite obvious to all
scientists [Taylor 8]."
As explained at the time, Taylor is "Paul Taylor," a well-known creationist.
So it looks like Pagano's third criteria was fulfilled (instead of just one,
as he claims). Thermodynamics was mentioned "at all."
> THIS MEANS THE LINK PALUXY DAVE PROVIDED
> WAS NOT WHAT HE REPRESENTED IT TO BE.
False. See above.
> (4) I posted the first half of the paper with the one paragraph
> concerning the second law in context (see my post of 4/15/01
> at google).
And never commented on the specific comments with respect to the 2nd Law and
the Big Bang. He *still* hasn't done that.
> (5) While the writer disclosed that he wholly accepted
> creationism nowhere did he present the consensus
> position of creation scientists concerning the second law.
In order for Pagano to dispute that, he's going to have to present us with
whatever he thinks is the "concensus position of creation scientists
concerning the second law." He's never done that.
> While the writer portrayed his understanding of the second
> law as it applies to origins in a limited, amateur way it
> is doubtful that even this justified Sharp's caricature.
Why?
Well, Pagano doesn't say. In my rather lengthy series of articles from a
week ago - which Pagano ignored - this is all explained in the necessary
detail.
These can be reposted if necessary.
> (6) Since the writer never presents the consensus
> position of creation scientists this link didn't justify
> Sharp's caricature. THIS MEANS THE LINK
> PALUXY DAVE PROVIDED WAS NOT WHAT
> HE REPRESENTED IT TO BE.
Asked and answered. Pagano tries to evade the issues so badly, and is left
twisting in the wind.
> FINAL COMMENTS:
>
> While I fully intended to review the other two links
> I decided that embarrassing Paluxy Dave any further
> was unnecessary, redundant, and a waste of time.
> His first link was quite simply a fraud and I provided
> a similar argument to that given here on 4/15/01.
I have another theory.
I think that the reason Pagano ducked out on the other links is that he
*did* check them out, discovered that they presented more lengthy commentary
about the issue, discovered that he didn't have a leg to stand on, and ran
from the discussion.
C'mon...let's face it...we all know that if Pagano could have gone into
those links and evaded the issue as he has done with the first link, he
certainly would. If Pagano could have twisted those other links so badly as
he did the first one, he would have done so.
Pagano ran from his own challenge...pure and simple.
> To say that I dimissed his first link without
> justification or argument is silly nonsense.
I have rebutted the dismissal of the first link and answered point-by-point.
Pagano is incapable of dealing with that, so he decides it's "silly
nonsense" without explaining *why*.
Pagano ran from the first link...and he ran from the other two.
> Finally Paluxy Dave could have redeemed himself by
> simply posting the substance of the other two links
> and showing that they met the six standards.
I was never obligated to do this. Pagano did not challenge me to do this,
he said he was going to do it himself and show that the links did not meet
those six standards (remember, I only had to provide references to the words
of creationists written within the last 50 years). The six standards were
not mine to meet - they were Pagano's. He failed to meet his own standards.
> As far as I know he has not done so, but can still can.
> After having discovered that Paluxy Dave misrepresented
> the first link, and his failure to defend the other two I
> am justified in assuming that they are also frauds.
And I say that this is a lie. I posted several rebuttals to this - in
detail - and Pagano ran from them...once again relying on vague assertions.
It is Pagano who is the fraud; and he still owes us for two links.
Stew Dean
the meme pool:
>
>
>Mike Goodrich wrote:
>>
>> Newbie wrote:
>>
>> In article <slrn9f38p...@cx318157-c.chspk1.va.home.com>, Mike Goodrich
>> says...
>> >
>> >In article <1esojxe.162b7jtq0s75sN%wil...@wehi.edu.au>, wilkins wrote:
>> >>Spinto <recip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> No other conclusion was permissable.
>> >>Too right - if the evidence says something, then no other conclusion
>> >>*is* permissible...
>> >
>
>I think Newbie wrote:
>> >Disingenuous. A full disclosure discussion of the nature of evidence
>> >is needed.
>> >
>
>M. Goodrich wrote:
>> Only to whom the evidence does not "say something".. :)
>
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>I'll pipe in with my usual boring drum beat: Apart from drawing some
>low-level (and in many cases trivial) generalizations the evidence is
>completely and utterly silent. In fact it is doubtful that any set of
>evidence no matter how perfect or complete could uniquely define or
>point to only the one true theory. Artificial intelligence researchers
>have been disappointed in this regard.
Explain - what have they been disapointed about?
>Evidence is never gathered in isolation.
And evidence should never be isolated.
> The gathering of evidence is
>always preceded by the introduction of a problem to be solved and some
>preliminary conjecture explaining the problem. It is the conjecture
>(however preliminary) which suggests where to even look for evidence and
>how to interpret that evidence once found.
And this should be objective and not subjective - a very very
important consideration.
> Evidence is always, always,
>always interpreted in the light of our conjectural theories.
That's why it's important it's not subjective and is interpreted
independently by different people.
> It says
>nothing without man's wonderful intellectual inventions---his
>conjectures. The secularists have no explanation of how man creates
>such new information, such new inventions almost "from nothing." But
>christians have no trouble explaining this.
What new information? Explain (someone's left the context out of this
post). We create new inventions by the synthesis of past information
in a problem solving environment. I can happily explain this and how I
reach innovation (having had more than a bit of training in innovative
thinking).
Stewart Dean - ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
alife guide - http://www.webslave.dircon.co.uk/alife
Dave Horn
The first lie.
Pagano wrote:
"I decided that it was a waste of time after clearly demonstrating that the
first link was a fraud. One would have thought that Horn would have been
embarrassed when I discovered that the link was a fraud. He never defended
himself..."
Pagano claims that the first link was a "fraud" because it was not
specifically written by a "creation scientist" or a "credentialed creation
scientist." It was, in fact, written by a student, but Pagano never said
that the reference could not, itself, contain a reference to a creationist
who had said the things Sharp had represented. Pagano wanted a reference
that a "creation scientist" had made such a claim in the last fifty years,
"written by a creation scientist."
I still don't know what Pagano considers a "creation scientist" or a
"credentialed creation scientist," but that link does provide the following:
"According to thermodynamics, the Big Bang could not reorganize into
something as complex and full of energy as our planet, especially by
accident. If Evolution is true, there must be an extremely powerful force or
mechanism at work in the cosmos that can steadily defeat the powerful,
ultimate tendency toward 'disarrangedness' brought by the 2nd law. If such a
massive force or mechanism is in existence, it would seem it should be quite
obvious to all scientists [Taylor 8]."
"Taylor" is creationist Paul Taylor, who is well-known to most of us, I'm
sure.
The link was not a "fraud." That it was written by a student is irrelevant.
It contains a representation of that written by a "creation scientist" as
saying that thermodynamics precludes the Big Bang resulting in the creation
of the Earth, specifically.
Now, Pagano claims that I did not defend myself after he discovered this
alleged fraud.
That is a lie. There were, in fact, a few articles by me in "defense."
Here are four of them:
[Begin repost]
"A Pagano" <apa...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:3ADB5B44...@fast.net...
>
> WHAT WERE THE FACTS?
The facts were alredy provided and I directly quoted the appropriate
portions. Pagano, in his need to obscure those facts, paints another
picture, complete with his own spin. Watch:
> Sharp (CMSharp01) produced a caricature of the creation
> science position concerning the first and second laws which
> bears little resemblence to the actual creation science
> position (please see the thread started by CMSharp01
> entitled "Playing tennis with a creationist).
By all means - see that thread. Did Sharp produce a "caricature" or is this
Pagano's representation? Pagano would claim that his opinion of the nature
of Sharp's representation is a fact. He is also claiming that Sharp made a
statement that "bears little resemblence to the actual creation science
position" and stating that this is a "fact" as well. But is it a fact?
Pagano has not explained the "creation science position" nor has he shown
that anything that Sharp (or anyone else has said) does not accurately
represent the "creation science position." Pagano states his opinions as
facts, even though he is far from showing that his opinions have any
relationship with what is know about the "creation science position."
> I suspected (as it turns out in most cases in this forum) that
> such a caricature was both an argument from ignorance of
> the actual creation science position and designed to ridicule
> creationists not to rationally criticize their position.
Is this also one of Pagano's "facts?" No, the facts are that Pagano has no
idea what the "creation science position" is supposed to be, has never been
able to show that the "creation science position" has not been fairly
evaluated and represented and has never provided any response to challenges
put to him to explain otherwise.
Those are facts.
> As far as I know Sharp---who claimed he was a professional
> scientist---evaporated into the ether after offering his
> misrepresentation.
That Sharp did not respond to Pagano can hardly be a problem since there are
many here who ignore Pagano or any thread in which he is involved. But is
it a fact that there was "misrepresentation" on his part? See above. The
fact is that he stated his position directly and fairly and that it is fully
supportable by the things creationists have said in print, on the web, and
in person.
Pagano has yet to provide any facts. Where are the facts?
> WHAT DID I CHALLENGE SHARP TO PROVIDE TO
> SUBSTANTIATE HIS CARICATURE?
We have yet to establish that it was a "caricature." This is not a fact.
This is Pagano attempting to obfuscate the clear fact that Sharp provided an
accurate representation of the "creation science position" and Pagano has
yet to show that it was wrong.
Those are the facts.
> > > Pagano previously wrote to Sharp:
> > > > > > Please produce a single citation written in the last
> > > > > > 50 years by a creation scientist wherein any such
> > > > > > thing is claimed.
>
> SO, FOR THE BENEFITY OF THE HORN: WHAT WERE
> THE "RULES?"
>
> (1) provide a citation,
Done. Three times.
> (2) written by a creation scientist,
No requirement that a web reference could *not* contain such a citation.
> (3) dated within the last 50 years, AND
Done. Three times.
> (4) which corroborated Sharp's caricature
Ignoring the idea that it's a "caricature," this has been done, as well.
The claim was that the laws of thermodynamics somehow falsify the idea of a
Big Bang, as claimed by creationists.
Has Pagano shown this to be a "caricature?" Not hardly. First he ignored
the references (one of which was used by at least one other respondent).
Then he decided to obsfuscate the issues with additional requirements and
claims he made with respect to what the references would actually say. He
is wasting no effort to explain just how Sharp's comment was a "caricature"
of the "creation science position." With typical Pagano arrogance, he
simply claims that it is and states that this is a fact.
The only fact here that I can see is that Pagano has painted himself into
yet another corner. If he wants to dismiss the Hogue link (which does cite
a "creation scientist," though it's likely Pagano never heard of that
specific "creation scientist"), more power to him. It won't be the first
time Pagano ducks out on these things.
> DID THE HORN MEET THE CHALLENGE/RULES?
> Not even close.
Asked and answered. How does Pagano answer the responses and the claims
that I have made with respect to whether or not the offered links meet the
criteria?
Pagano repeats past lies.
> And as I discovered the last time I checked the substance of
> a link the Horn offered as evidence, it was nothing of the
> sort.
Notice that Pagano won't get into details about this again, but this will be
the fifth time he will try to claim that a previous exchange and references
were things that they were not. Pagano wishes to lie again.
> And he's not real happy that I caught him---again!!!!
And now Pagano would try his oft-attempted but never-successful attempts at
mind-reading. I don't have a problem with Pagano's rejection of the link(s)
at all. I fully expected him to squirm beneath the weight of the evidence
that they provide for the REAL POINT, i.e., that Sharp didn't say anything
that wasn't already well-known and often-said by "creation scientists."
> When I produced the proof of this current (disreputable?)
> behavior, the Horn claims I'm the liar and that I changed
> the rules. His whine is reminiscent of the sort one remembers
> from the third grade.
And, of course, Pagano doesn't explain how any of this is so. It is simply
because he says it is so and Pagano is not to be challenged. That is his
own form of argument from authority. Pagano states no "facts," only his
twisted view of things.
Pagano *is* a liar. I have shown this many times and I am far from alone in
this newsgroup. The fact that he is dodging the real issue here is just
another example.
> HOW SHALL I PROCEED?
> I shall review, comment upon, and post the substance pointed
> to by Horn's other two links when time permits. Although if
> he publiclly concedes that the other links are as worthless as
> the first then I would be happy to desist.
This provided a great deal of amusement. No, Pagano is quite free to
comment on the other links - especially since it is clear that he has
nothing of merit to say about the first one, nor can he demonstrate that the
link was either inappropriate to the point or that anything he is claiming
is true. That Pagano presumes to make this kind of "offer" is simply
another means by which he can run when the time comes. He's already paving
that path with "when time permits." Pagano had plenty of time to write this
latest weaseling nonsense, and he had plenty of time to attack wf3h
yesterday, but has nothing to say about two other links that *clearly* show
his own "caricature" is wrong?
No, no, no...by no means do I want Pagano to desist. Let him rant and rave
to his heart's content. Let him obfuscate and misdirect all he wishes.
I'll be sure to return us to the right path; and show what a pompous,
self-important fraud he is. It's all in a days work.
Let's rock.
[End repost]
[Begin repost]
"A Pagano" <apa...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:3ADB5B44...@fast.net...
>
> WHAT WERE THE FACTS?
[Snip]
I've already responded to this article by Pagano, but I did want to add
another point.
Pagano went into this rant in response to an article that I had written.
That article is:
VwwC6.23242$J%5.84...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com
There are a couple of things I want to note.
First, Pagano has made a lot of noise lately about others - particularly Joe
Cummings - rebutting Pagano articles without quoting. Pagano claims that
this is a problem because there is a danger that the party being responded
to is not being represented accurately or fairly.
And yet here we have Pagano responding to an article of mine and not only
did he change the subject header, but he failed to quote any portion of the
article so that we could see if his response actually dealt with the points
I made or if he represented the issues accurately or fairly.
Secondly, Pagano did not respond to the many points that I made with respect
to his "review" of the first link that I provided. He avoided the very
point that he was wrong in claiming that Sharp's representation of the
"creationist position" was a "caricature" or was in any way inaccurate.
Pagano made no attempt to explain what the "creationist position" actually
*is* so that we could compare it to what Sharp had said and see for
ourselves if Sharp's representation was incorrect.
Pagano ignored the fact that a "credentialed creation scientist" (insofar as
most of us understand that - Pagano won't say what *he* means by that for
reasons stated elsewhere) was referenced in the first link.
Pagano ignored the fact that the "creation scientist" to whom the web page
author referred indicated that the laws of thermodynamics made the Big Bang
untenable. This is what Sharp wrote:
"For example, in trying to criticize the Big Bag, I've noticed that YECs
often say that the Big Bang contradicts the 1st and 2nd laws of
thermodynamics."
(How this is a "caricature," Pagano won't say.)
In the first reference that I provided, this is what was said:
"According to thermodynamics, the Big Bang could not reorganize into
something as complex and full of energy as our planet, especially by
accident."
Pagano ignored this when he complained that the website I referenced was not
"written by a creation scientist." That the comments were derived from the
writings of a "creation scientist" made no difference to Pagano, and it
allowed him to avoid the main point, which has to do with whether or not
Sharp's comments were reasonable and accurate with respect to the
"creationist position." Compare the two quoted lines above. Was Sharp's
comment really a "caricature?"
Pagano also ignored a number of other points in the article to which he
responded, but this is the most important point, so the rest can be saved
for another time. I have answered Pagano's responses and showed that his
complaints are groundless and his protestations are impotent whinings. If
there is a need, I will return to the other unanswered points in that
article.
For now, it is clear that Pagano will do his level best to avoid dealing
with yet another thoughtless statement on his part that revealed both the
arrogance and the ignorance which drives him.
[Snip]
[End repost]
Pagano will ignore these, of course:
http://www.lightandmatter.com/evolution/
[This first one is written by a christian who has no problem with what
science says about evolution and the Big Bang - he does have problems with
how creationists are representing them...it would seem this is not one of
Pagano's "confused christians" - or is it?]
Not all of these were written by creationists (a new requirement of Pagano's
to which I am not bound). But those that were not are responses to
creationist claims about thermdynamics, the Big Bang, or both.
The original challenge posed by Pagano to Sharp was to provide evidence that
creationists had made any of the sorts of comments that Sharp had summarized
and that any of these comments had been made in the last 50 years. This was
Pagano's challenge. Sharp wrote:
> > For example, in trying to criticize the Big Bag, I've noticed that
> > YECs often say that the Big Bang contradicts the 1st and 2nd
> > laws of thermodynamics.
To which Sharp added a summarized response:
> > If in fact the total mass-energy of the universe when all
> > contributions are added is zero, the first law is not contradicted,
> > and the 2nd law says nothing about local decreases in entropy.
To which Pagano responded:
> Pagano replies:
> Please produce a single citation written in the last 50 years by a
> creation scientist wherein any such thing is claimed.
Pagano won't like this, but we *will* keep these things in perspective.
What followed were several responses from those in the group who had links.
Pagano ignored them until I forced his hand by repeating the fact that his
"challenge" had been answered. Pagano will do his rhetorical best to
restate the arguments and claim that his point was either not addressed or
not addressed adequately. He's already started to restate the point and the
argument.
It won't be allowed.
Pagano asked for evidence that creationists have claimed what Sharp said
they did. The evidence was provided.
Here's still more evidence:
http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/~wenning/PHY111PBL/Group_2/physics.html
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/02-star9.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-137a.htm
http://biology.ux.com/discussion5/_disc5/00000021.htm
http://www.genesisquest.org/creditcourse/content12.html
http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Cosmo/bang.txt
http://library.thinkquest.org/22016/contribute/evolution.htm
Pagano has 10 days to answer these issues adequately or, by his own
standards, he will be "effectively neutralized."
[End repost]
[Begin repost]
It is Pagano who is not interested in truth. Watch:
"A Pagano" <apa...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:3ADA59A9...@fast.net...
>
> Pagano previously wrote:
> > > > Please produce a single citation written in the last 50 years
> > > > by a creation scientist wherein any such thing is claimed.
> > > The Horn replied:
> > > "Pagano's ignorance of what has been written in creationist
> > > literature has been shown many times, yet he seems to think he
> > > can spring like a mousetrap on any statements such as those
> > > made by Sharp and demand references. This is a true hypocrite
> > > in action. Pagano is finally approaching the four year time
> > > period he has already claimed to have been participating in
> > > talk.origins, and never supports claims he has made - let alone
> > > actually provide references for them. The fact that creationists
> > > invoke their peculiar interpretations of thermodynamics is common
> > > knowledge among those of us familiar with their writings, and
> > > even if someone were to bother to provide specific references,
> > > Pagano will then ignore that as if it never happened. Here are
> > > some examples of articles in which creationists make these kinds
> > > of statements:
> > >
> > > http://members.truepath.com/hogue/creationism.html
> > >
> > > http://www.icr.org/research/df/df-r01.htm
> > >
> > > http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-216.htm
> > >
> > > [End quote]
>
> Pagano happily replies to Horn's first link:
> Horn's first link (http://members.truepath.com/hogue/creationism.html)
> is a live link, was not written by a credentialed creation scientist...
Nor was the first reference intended as such. It was intended as an example
of a creationist claiming the things Pagano presumed to challenge that
included this quoted statement by a "credentialed creation scientist."
"The second law of thermodynamics states that any change in an isolated
system causes the quantity of concentrated, useful energy to decrease
[Audesirk 59]. In other words, any thing that looses concentration, tends to
loose useful energy. The Big Bang Theory is critical in all challenges to
Creationism. According to thermodynamics, the Big Bang could not reorganize
into something as complex and full of energy as our planet, especially by
accident. If Evolution is true, there must be an extremely powerful force or
mechanism at work in the cosmos that can steadily defeat the powerful,
ultimate tendency toward 'disarrangedness' brought by the 2nd law. If such a
massive force or mechanism is in existence, it would seem it should be quite
obvious to all scientists [Taylor 8]."
Pagano made no restrictions that initially required that these "credentialed
creation scientists" could not have been quoted by someone else. This has
come after the fact because Pagano knows he has made a rather huge mistake
in challenging the very idea that creationists make claims about the Big
Bang and how it is somehow falsified by the laws of thermodynamics. Let's
put the exchange back in the context Pagano wishes so desperately and
pathetically to avoid:
[Begin reposted snippet]
> > > Sharp continues:
> > > > For example, in trying to criticize the Big Bag, I've noticed
> > > > that YECs often say that the Big Bang contradicts the 1st
> > > > and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. If in fact the total
> > > > mass-energy of the universe when all contributions are added
> > > > is zero, the first law is not contradicted, and the 2nd law
> > > > says nothing about local decreases in entropy.
> >
> > Pagano responded with:
> >
> > > Pagano replies:
> > > Please produce a single citation written in the last 50 years by
> > > a creation scientist wherein any such thing is claimed.
[End reposted segment]
Pagano's other, more restrictive conditions came *after* the links were
provided. The link provides a citation to a work written by a "creation
scientist" (Pagano has never told us what a "credentialed creation
scientist" is supposed to be) and is representative of what many
creationists have said about the Big Bang and thermdynamics.
Pagano wishes to cloud that with irrelevancies because he has been caught in
yet another intellectual faux pas predicated by his enormous ego.
Consequently, he wishes to obfuscate and evade the responsibility for making
a claim that is so clearly at odds with what is known about creationist
claims. In short, he is trying to lie his way around it.
[Snip bandwidth wasting quote of the paper - the reader is free to check the
link.]
[End repost]
Dave Horn
For the last several weeks, usually after a hit-and-run article by Pagano, I
have been reminding him of the pledge he made - quite publically and as
loudly as one can do in a newsgroup - that he would continue a review of
three links that I provided in response to some claims he had made about a
fellow named Sharp, the things creationists say about thermodynamics and the
Big Bang, and Pagano's challenge to Sharp to provide evidence that Sharp's
statements represent a "caricature" of the "creationist position" on the
subject.
In the midst of that, Pagano was challenged to provide "the creationist
position" and demonstrate why Sharp's representation was inaccurate. We'll
forget for the moment that Pagano never did that (and subsequently
demonstrated once again that he has no idea what the "creationist position"
was really supposed to be - he just wanted to level another of his "harsh
criticisms").
Basically, Sharp said that the creationist position includes the idea that
the laws of thermodynamics preclude the possibility of the Big Bang. Pagano
demanded references indicating that "creation scientists" have said anything
even close to this in the last 50 years. Pagano later changed this to
"credentialed creation scientists," but at no time has he told us what
either term means.
I provided three links to demonstrate that these things have been said by
creationists:
http://members.truepath.com/hogue/creationism.html
http://www.icr.org/research/df/df-r01.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-216.htm
In reply, Pagano made the following pledge:
> Pagano replies:
> I think I'll take advantage of this. Horn has produced three
> links that he claims will justify Sharp's over-generalized
> caricature of the creationist position----that is, that creationists
> willy-nilly wave their hands over the big bang theory and
> simply claim it a violation of the first and second law.
Of course, this isn't exactly what was said - Pagano needed to embellish it
a bit for us, but it's close enough for the moment. But let's also recall
that Pagano said he would do these things with the links:
> I fully intend to go to the documents pointed
> to by these links and
> (1) see if they are "live" links...
Which they were.
> (2) see if they are written by credentialed creation
> scientists and not lunk heads like me...
And it's this one Pagano is using to dodge. The first link was written by a
student - but it included the words of Paul Taylor - a well-known
creationist to most but Pagano, it seems, and he used that as an excuse to
squirm away from what he promised. But I'll get to that. The other two
links contained original text by "credentialed creation scientists."
> (3) see if they address the laws of thermodynamics
> at all...
They *all* did - including the first one. Pagano did not address it.
> (4) post them in their entirety if they are not too long...
Length has never bothered Pagano before, but he did indeed post the first
one. He failed to address the fact that it did represent creationist Paul
Taylor as saying pretty much what Sharp had said.
> (5) explain whether they are consistent or inconsistent
> with the consensus position of credentialied creation
> scientists...
Pagano *never* did this. Not with the first link - not with any of them. I
pointed out at the time that Pagano needed to explain this "consensus
position" before he could examine if Sharp's comments were in line with that
position. Pagano didn't do that, either.
> (6) if consistent show clearly that they don't support
> the over-generalized caricature of Sharp
And if Pagano didn't do #5, he certainly wouldn't be able to do #6.
Now, after many weeks of reminding Pagano that he did not do what he pledged
to do (from the 13th of April), I finally saw this on the 6th of this month:
"I decided that it was a waste of time after clearly demonstrating that the
first link was a fraud. One would have thought that Horn would have been
embarrassed when I discovered that the link was a fraud. He never defended
himself nor did he present the substance of the other two links to show that
I was wrong about them.
This was consistent with a previous instance where Horn (mis)represented six
links as pointing to posts refuting my position (on induction). A review of
those links (which I reposted) revealed that five out of six had nothing to
do with induction. Any link that Horn provides (without accompanying
substance behind it) can safely be assumed to be a fraud."
In this thread, I will respond to this specifically and prove that nearly
every line in this two paragraph evasion is a lie.
[To be contined]
Dave Horn
Pagano actually gave us a rare treat with his evasive article entitled,
"nope." In it, the normally verbose Pagano provided us with exceptionally
clear examples of his hypocrisy and willingness to lie to advance his cause
of "objective truth." Here, again, is the entire text of that article:
"I decided that it was a waste of time after clearly demonstrating that the
first link was a fraud. One would have thought that Horn would have been
embarrassed when I discovered that the link was a fraud. He never defended
himself nor did he present the substance of the other two links to show that
I was wrong about them.
This was consistent with a previous instance where Horn (mis)represented six
links as pointing to posts refuting my position (on induction). A review of
those links (which I reposted) revealed that five out of six had nothing to
do with induction. Any link that Horn provides (without accompanying
substance behind it) can safely be assumed to be a fraud."
Where is the hypocrisy?
Well, let's consider that Pagano has often criticized others - particularly
Joe Cummings - for failing to quote the commentary to which he was
responding. Yet Pagano does that here - and it's not the first time.
Pagano has frequently cut away the commentary to which he is responding (as
opposed to "answering") and his excuse has been that the reader can follow
back in the thread if necessary.
In addition to the hypocrisy, there are several lies. The first lie is that
Pagano "discovered" that the first link was a "fraud." The second lie is
that I never defended myself. The third lie is a misrepresentation. Pagano
claims that I never presented the "substance" of the other two links to show
that he was wrong about them. The fourth lie is Pagano's reference to a
previous exchange where he claims I provided links in response to his claims
about induction. The links I provided during that exchange had to do with
Pagano's general tendency toward evasion and unresponsiveness.
Specifics will follow in this thread. But it's amazing - four lies and a
major hypocrisy...all in two small paragraphs!
I mean...c'mon, folks! You'd have to *pay* for this ride at Disneyland.
[To be continued]
Dave Horn
The Second Lie
Pagano squinked:
"...nor did he present the substance of the other two links to show that I
was wrong about them."
The lie here is that I was ever obligated or even asked to do this. Pagano
represents this in his two-paragraph evasion as if this was something that I
was asked, challenged or expected to do. But all he has done is avoid the
burden of his own pledge.
Pagano tried to weasel out of the first link and didn't really deal with it
honestly. It did demonstrate that Sharp's representation of the
"creationist position" about the Big Bang and thermodynamics was not - shall
we say - as out of bounds as Pagano presumed to claim.
Pagano was provided the three links, but he ignored (or wants us to believe
that he ignored) the other two. Personally, I think he did check them out,
discovered that they were references to ICR articles written by those he
could not deny were "credentialed creation scientists" and so he fled the
exchange.
Pagano has popped into the newsgroup in the six or seven weeks since this
exchange and each time was reminded of his pledge. Each time, he ignored
it.
Now he wants to claim that I never provided "the substance" to prove him
wrong.
How can I do that when he didn't honor his pledge and never reviewed those
links, as he said he would do?
Pagano said, "I shall review, comment upon, and post the substance pointed
to by Horn's other two links when time permits."
While everyone understands the time contraints that can curtail newsgroup
participation, Pagano mysteriously had a time problem after so gleefully
being sure he had a case of "fraud." He reviewed the first link (though he
didn't really address it nor did he do all the things he said he would do
with it) and was rough-and-ready to get to the other two. But
then...strangely...he decided that time was an issue. And as if that wasn't
funny enough, he wrote:
"Although if he publiclly concedes that the other links are as worthless as
the first then I would be happy to desist."
So Pagano presumes to offer an "out," and he would be "happy to desist."
Sorry...I ain't buyin' it. It was obvious to me then - and it's obvious
now - that Pagano did see those other two links and found himself caught in
the proverbial ringer again. In presuming to offer me an "out," Pagano was
looking for an "out" for himself, which I refused to grant by replying:
"No, Pagano is quite free to comment on the other links - especially since
it is clear that he has nothing of merit to say about the first one, nor can
he demonstrate that the link was either inappropriate to the point or that
anything he is claiming is true. That Pagano presumes to make this kind of
'offer' is simply another means by which he can run when the time comes.
He's already paving that path with 'when time permits.'"
And, as it turns out, this was an accurate prediction. Pagano did run from
that exchange.
[To be continued]
Dave Horn
The Third Lie
Pagano tried to run this one past us again:
"This was consistent with a previous instance where Horn (mis)represented
six links as pointing to posts refuting my position (on induction). A
review of those links (which I reposted) revealed that five out of six had
nothing to do with induction."
Pagano has brought this up a few times. I have challenged him about it each
time (and reposted specific articles and comments to refute him) and he runs
away - only to bring it up again later.
This is an example of Pagano's inability to actually deal with what a person
says (as opposed to what Pagano would like to represent them as saying) as
well as Pagano's pathological inability to tell the truth. Pagano says my
posted links were about his arguments with induction. I have rebutted this
quite thoroughly - the posted links were about his general lack of
responsiveness in the newsgroup. This issue is over a year old, and Pagano
is still trying to lie about it. Rather than belabor it, I will simply
repost the rebuttal to which Pagano has never responded [of course, the Deja
links will no longer work]:
[Begin repost]
This is Pagano's "Run Away" article.
"A Pagano" <apa...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:38F9EB52...@fast.net...
>
> Horn claimed that my position on corroborations had
> been refuted.
Among other things.
> I challenged him to produce the previous refutations.
Some of which do appear in the lists of links I have provided. Watch what
happened:
[Me to Pagano, April 7th - as part of a much larger discussion]
> Horn continued:
> [Steven J] then said: "If you decline to offer such evidence,
> and still bid me not investigate certain matters if I cannot
> obtain certainty, you bid me not to do science..." In essense,
> your response is to tell him that if he doesn't already believe
> in your "propositions," there is nothing you can do to convince
> him.
>
> Pagano replies:
By, in essense, repeating himself:
> Would a committed secularist or atheist really accept any
> evidence a christian might offer?
This question presupposes that what the "christian" might offer the
"committed secularist or atheist" (whatever *that* is) truly qualifies *as*
evidence.
> Isn't this truly a waste of time?
Let me put it to you this way, Pagano, and we'll pretend for the moment that
I've never challenged you this way before: Present your evidence. If it is
dismissed out of hand and in a manner that is not empirical, objective or
fair, you can show us that at the time and you would go a long way to
showing that the empirical way of thinking - at least as claimed by some of
us in this newsgroup - is a sham. That would do wonders for your
credibility.
When someone asks you for evidence and you defer and complain that we cannot
be convinced anyway, that's juvenile and lacks intellectual veracity and
courage. It's that simple.
> My posts are directed at christians not atheists.
I've already answered this point - you preach to the choir. I submit that
doing so in the manner that you do convinces no one.
> My goal here is not to convert committed atheists but
> to show other christians the weaknesses of the
> modern secular arguments.
And I've answered this, as well. Your articles show no weaknesses except in
your own arguments - especially when those articles are challenged and you
fail to respond to the challenges. It was said to you earlier this year
that this is a newsgroup - a discussion area - not your private soapbox.
When you fail to defend your claims - especially when your claims are
wrong - it shows a serious weakness in your method.
[And...]
> One wonders exactly what evidence Horn would
> accept and I also wonder if Horn could produce
> the same sort of evidence of the contentious claims
> of Big bang, abiogenesis, common descent and
> neoDarwinism.
Pagano...shame on you! Are you going to pretend that evidence has never
been presented to you? Even a cursory reading of responses to you in any
given week in the past few years reveals this to be completely false. In
fact, in one series of exchanges from which you continually dodged, you
claimed that neodarwinism requires abiogenesis and I chased you for months
to tell us what you think neodarwinism is supposed to be and how it required
abiogenesis.
I read an article by you a few months ago in which you claimed that all of
your articles are responses to others and that you were doing nothing more
than criticizing the evolutionary paradigm. I remind you that my articles
to you are *also* responses in which I took vague claims of yours and
challenged you to support them. Your efforts to reverse the burden of proof
are amusing, but futile. No one seems to be fooled by them. Still, I
provided a great deal of evidence and refutation to your claims. You never
responded to any specifics - not once. And I see that record continues. A
fairly recent example was your claim about the lack of evidence for the Big
Bang. You were asked how the red shift and microwave background radiation
failed to provide this evidence. You never responded. There have been
myriad other examples.
[And now this is where Pagano, trapped by his own words, probably reviewed
the exchange and tried to find a way to cloud things up and divert attention
to a single point as he has done]
> Pagano previously wrote;
> The "level of corroboration" standard is most often
> used by secularists, not to instill belief where belief
> did not exist, but to justify a belief that already does.
>
> Horn replies:
> We've been down this road a few times, Pagano. Why
> do you repeat things such as this as if they've never been
> challenged or refuted? Is your ego that vast?
[I said "things such as this." Then:]
> Pagano replies:
> Nonsense. In order to refute my claim about the uselessness
> of level of corroboration for determining truth or probable
> truth of our theories one must first have shown where Hume's
> argument about the invalidity of induction went wrong.
I don't have to do any such thing, Pagano, because I'm not arguing Hume -
with him or against him.
What is being "harshly criticized" here are *your* claims.
> Steven J started out to criticize my attack on induction.
> When I layed out the problem in schematic form---that is the
> apparent clash between the principle of the invalidity of
> induction and principle of empiricism----he left that post
> completely untouched and proceeded to counter argue my
> rebuttal of the rest of his post.
_Non sequiter_. See above.
> What has my ego to do with solving the problem of induction?
_Non sequiter_. The claims being criticized are *yours*, not Hume's or
anyone else's.
> If someone had solved this problem they would have been
> assured a place in history along with Hume, Popper, and Bacon.
And as the recent exchanges about Potter have shown, you don't seem to
understand any of this particularly well. Still - and again - I was not
even discussing any of this.
I was criticizing what *you* have said about specific issues. Your
obfuscation is noted.
[Then I provided the original six links and added]
These are fairly recent examples of refutations to your articles to which
you did not respond to show error on the part of your correspondents. I can
list several more.
[End reposted material]
And I did list several more. Specifically,
http://x31.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=413697278
http://x31.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=420720448
http://x31.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=418537355
http://x31.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=362866518
http://x31.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=360404874
http://x31.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=360408692
http://x31.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=364964931
http://x31.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=352919053
http://x21.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=311131053
http://x21.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=311349786
http://x21.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=298095000
http://x21.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=297837769
http://x21.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=308750927
http://x21.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=297741747
http://x21.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=311410936
http://x21.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=310943176
http://x21.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=279952086
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=442125136
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=442177888
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=553134365
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=553172108
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=553309005
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=554487802
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=554484911
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=554452438
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=551765126
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=521846633
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=509974686
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=508956186
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=505244613
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=505380783
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=512769180
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=556479793
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=556479793
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=452100990
These were posted between 10 and 12 April. Your participation in the group,
Pagano, indicates that you were clearly watching and I happen to know that
the messages that contained these links appeared on your news server. Some
of them cover "corroborations" and some don't. All are articles in which
you were challenged and refuted and that you did not answer - which was
always my primary point. Many of them *do* challenge your use of
"corroborations" just as I have done. You didn't answer any of them.
Instead, on April 13th, you started to back away:
[Reposted segment with my responses]
> I fully intend to take the time to find, post in their
> entirety, and comment on the purported rebuttal
> provided by these six links.
Well, we've seen that these links do contain rebuttals to your comments and
Wes, in particular, demolished you pretty badly with his own response this
morning.
Here it comes, folks:
> After this links will not be accepted as rebuttal from
> Horn.
Ah, I see. So we now have a new condition. I am now limited to the six
links that I provided originally? An interesting movement of the goalposts,
Pagano. So you are not going to address the myriad others I have provided
as well? You are going to claim "did not" to the issue of rebutting and
challenging you and then ignore them...while claiming that it is *me* that's
running?
[End reposted segment]
So after I posted 35 additional links, many of which were specifically
identified as addressing "corroborations," you cowardly decided to limit
yourself to the first six - which *I* *had* *already* *said* were *not*
limited to that single subject? Was it because you were being embarrassed
by your past "hit-and-run" behavior - finally - Pagano?
Ah, but it gets better:
> While I fully expected him "run..."
Pagano can't keep his arguments about this straight. From April 13th:
[Begin reposted segment with my responses]
> I had every reason to believe that Horn would
> offer the best rebuttals.
But...but...but...Pagano...this isn't what you said. You didn't say this at
all. *You* said you expected me to "run." When you didn't see a response
right away, you said:
[[Earlier segment]]
> I challenged him to produce such refutation. Let's see
> him keep his own rule. Or will he run?
>
> After 10 days without producing the refutation he
> claimed was previously and abundantly produced he
> will be effectively neutralized.
>
> After then his claims that "I" run will be hypocritical
> hot air.
[[End earlier segment]]
And
[[Earlier segment]]
> These are fairly recent examples of refutations to your
> articles to which you did not respond to show error on
> the part of your correspondents. I can list several more.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Good for you Horn. I thought you would run.
[[End earlier segment]]
Now while the point of the first six references is pretty clearly explained
to you and summarized in my line above, your response clearly says you
thought I would run.
*Now* you're saying that you "had every reason" to think I would offer "the
best rebuttals?"
Well, which is it, Pagano. Was I going to run or wasn't I?
[End reposted segment]
> ...he did offer six links to previous "refuting" articles.
In general, I offered 41 total links. At this point, I lost count as to how
many specifically address your claims about "corroborations," Pagano, but
there were many and you only acknowledged one of them - and you are still in
a quandry over that one.
> Four of the six links had nothing to do with my position
> on corroborations and a fifth link mentioned my position
> this topic was left unaddressed by the "refuter" (Greene).
Asked and answered.
> Only a sixth link pointing to Elsberry's article addressed
> my position and offered rebuttal. Since only one out of
> six links had anything to do with my position Horn apparently
> didn't bother to read the articles...
False. I certainly did.
> ...which he offered as rebuttal and he apparently never
> thought I would check them. Bad guess this time Horn.
Well, if that had been my guess (and it was - you routinely run from
citations of your past behavior and you are doing so again now), it was a
good one. Just getting you to check those six was an accomplishment, even
if those six were not meant to illustrate what you claim they were (that's
called "lying," by the way, Pagano).
> Concerning Elsberry's rebuttal:
I'll go ahead and snip this part away since it's still alive in that
particular thread. Pagano is wrong about it - pure and simple - if only
because he's misrepresenting the entire argument.
> Elsberry so far has offered no rebuttal. According to Horn
> and the Hornians that would mean that Elsberry is "running."
However, I will go ahead and address this.
Wes is only now answering these articles and it was you who ran from them in
the first place, Pagano. But still, even by your own standard, he can't be
"running" yet:
[Reposted Pagano segment]
> After 10 days without producing the refutation he
> claimed was previously and abundantly produced he
> will be effectively neutralized.
[End reposted Pagano segment]
It would seem you apply this standard rather hypocritically, eh, Pagano?
After all, you were whining at me when you thought two and three days had
gone by without my answering you (I had, of course - you claimed you didn't
see it). Then you decided I had 10 days to answer. Now you're not giving
Wes more than a few hours to answer!
Well, of course, you also claimed I would run from you (why that is you have
never explained - though *I* have, haven't I, Pagano?) and then claimed you
expected me to provide the "best rebuttals."
Consistency is not your specialty.
> I will continue to rebut the remaining portion of Elsberry's
> post if time permits since he is among a small number of
> secularists in this forum who has any credibility at all.
> However this concludes my excercise of showing how
> unreliable and untrustworthy are claims made by The Horn.
But you haven't done that at all, Pagano. It's all been explained, and you
have been found completely inadequate to deal with it.
I think the demonstrated lack of reliability and trustworthiness is your
own. And I will continue to rebut you. For example, you said:
[Reposted segment - refers to me]
> He will have to offer the substantive arguments himself;
> a practice which he is none too familiar with.
[End segment]
Been there/done that. Just recently, I offer these as quick examples:
http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=436154759
http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=433785989
http://x37.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=611244437
> As Ed Conrad says, "the evolutionist vermin' are squirmin'"
> and for good reason.
And as I have said when Pagano said this before, it's amusing to think of
Pagano and Conrad as a duo. To borrow a line - "the resulting torrential
flood of illogic would be *most* entertaining..."
[End repost]
Elmer Bataitis
> Fact of the matter is I asked that poster (Sharp was the name he used)
> who claimed to be a scientist to produce a citation from a creation
> scientist written in the last 50 years which could justify the
> caricature.
Hey Tony, do you want to provide us a list of "creation scientists"
acceptable to you? Otherwise, why should we do the research and post
the evidence only to get a reply like, "Well, that person really isn't
a creation scientist".
Oh wait. You don't believe in naturalism do you? You think naturalism
is false. So why would evidence actually *mean* anything to you??
Al Petterson
Seconded! Enthusiastically! I've tried to say this before but never so
well.
Andrew Glasgow wrote:
>
> In article <127ccf2e.0106...@posting.google.com>,
> stev...@altavista.com (Steven J.) wrote:
>
> > (1st) If man is indeed more than a "mere" collection of particles,
> > then his mind cannot be explained by materialism. However, there
> > is a difference between "cannot be explained" and "has not been
> > (fully and convincingly, even to the most biased and scientifically
> > illiterate) explained."
[snip]
> > (2nd) If man is not a purely material entity, that is *still* not
> > enough to prove that man is not a purely natural entity.
[snip]
> > Even granting your assumption that minds can never be
> > explained in terms of matter and energy, it does not follow that
> > they do not exist, and follow the laws of their own nature, in our
> > universe. Our minds are "natural," in precisely the sense that
> > anything else studied by science is. So are the results they
> > produce.
> >
> > (3rd) The same points apply to miracles. A miracle is more than
> > simply an exception to natural law -- it is an event which reveals
> > and/or furthers God's purposes in the universe. To call something
> > a miracle presupposes that God's purposes can be at least partly
> > known, and that hypotheses based on them can be formulated and
> > tested.
[snip]
> Well Said! Kudos for a reasoned, coherent, and impeccably logical
> exposition of what many of us were vaguely thinking but failed to put
> into words anywhere near as eloquent.
--
"See that? That's the Moon. A long time ago, we used to go there."
Dave Horn
[Snip]
> (6) Since the writer never presents the consensus
> position of creation scientists this link didn't justify
> Sharp's caricature. THIS MEANS THE LINK
> PALUXY DAVE PROVIDED WAS NOT WHAT
> HE REPRESENTED IT TO BE.
Now that we've had time to digest all of the facts of the case, let's
consider this piece of evidence as the final nail in Pagano's coffin.
Pagano said that the links were not what they were represented to be because
the first link did not present "the concensus position of creation
scientists."
But when I presented the links, that was not the intent. They were provided
in response to a Pagano challenge to another party, to wit (and using
Pagano's own words):
"Fact of the matter is I asked that poster (Sharp was the name he used) who
claimed to be a scientist to produce a citation from a creation scientist
written in the last 50 years which could justify the caricature."
(We have seen, however, that it was not a "caricature.")
So Pagano wanted a citation, attributable to a "creation scientist," written
in the last 50 years, which would justify Sharp's comments. What did Sharp
write?
"For example, in trying to criticize the Big Bag, I've noticed that YECs
often say that the Big Bang contradicts the 1st and 2nd laws of
thermodynamics."
"Often say" does not necessarily mean that Sharp is presuming to present a
"concensus position." Pagano added this later.
Pagano responded by wanting his >50 year old citation(s).
In response, I provided three links (there were more, but it started with
three). The first contained a reference to a creationist who has said
something similar to what Sharp said. The other two were full-length
articles by known creationists saying very similar things, as well. In
fact, one other participant in the group used one of those references, as
well, in response to Pagano's challenge.
Pagano says he doesn't engage in debate, so it I was playing "fast and
loose" with the facts when I said that he had to be goaded into responding.
Really!
So why, then, did Pagano demand to see citations if he never intended to
review or discuss them?
At any rate, Pagano is not telling us that the first link was a "fraud"
because it did not present the "concensus opinion" of "creation scientists."
I never said that any of them would do that. What I responded to was a
challenge to present citations that said "any such thing" with respect to
what Sharp was saying. More specifically, Sharp wrote:
"For example, in trying to criticize the Big Bag, I've noticed that YECs
often say that the Big Bang contradicts the 1st and 2nd laws of
thermodynamics. If in fact the total mass-energy of the universe when all
contributions are added is zero, the first law is not contradicted, and the
2nd law says nothing about local decreases in entropy."
To which Pagano replied:
"Please produce a single citation written in the last 50 years by a creation
scientist wherein any such thing is claimed."
This is when I provided the links.
"Any such thing" is not intended to be "concensus position."
After the links were presented, Pagano claimed that they would be compared
to the "concensus position" - *Pagano* was going to do that. Of course, to
do that, he needed to explain what this "concensus position" is. He never
did that - though challenged often to do so.
So the first link I provided did precisely what it was supposed to do. It
contains a reference to a known "creation scientist" (that *Pagano* doesn't
know who Taylor is is actually part of the point, that is, Pagano has once
again criticized someone for not knowing what creationists are saying when
it is, in fact, *Pagano* who is clueless about what creationists are saying)
making a claim about the relationship between the Big Bang and
thermodynamics and how the latter negates the former. There was no original
prohibition that a web reference could not *contain* such a citation. That
restriction came later. Once Pagano discovered his gaffe, he decided to add
criteria.
Pagano demanded references. When he got them, he ignored them until goaded
into responding. When he responded, he made lofty claims about what he was
going to do with them and added additional criteria to them *after* they
were provided. He did not even meet the six criteria - most of which were
requirements of things he said *he* was going to do with respect to the
links. He then presumed that I would withdraw the other two because he had
"exposed" the first as a "fraud." I have shown that this is not the case.
He then ran from the other two and I believe that he did so because those
links were to entire articles written by "creation scientists."
Pagano's entire line of "reasoning" throughout this affair is another
example of misdirection and lies to cover up the fact that Pagano was
ill-informed about the issues and ill-advised in demanding links to things
he knew nothing about.
Pagano is a fraud.
Thank you and good afternoon.
John Stockwell
>>
>M. Goodrich wrote:
>> Only to whom the evidence does not "say something".. :)
> Pagano replies:
>I'll pipe in with my usual boring drum beat: Apart from drawing some
>low-level (and in many cases trivial) generalizations the evidence is
>completely and utterly silent. In fact it is doubtful that any set of
>evidence no matter how perfect or complete could uniquely define or
>point to only the one true theory. Artificial intelligence researchers
>have been disappointed in this regard.
>
>Evidence is never gathered in isolation. The gathering of evidence is
>always preceded by the introduction of a problem to be solved and some
>preliminary conjecture explaining the problem. It is the conjecture
>(however preliminary) which suggests where to even look for evidence and
>how to interpret that evidence once found. Evidence is always, always,
>always interpreted in the light of our conjectural theories. It says
>nothing without man's wonderful intellectual inventions---his
>conjectures. The secularists have no explanation of how man creates
>such new information, such new inventions almost "from nothing." But
>christians have no trouble explaining this.
>*****************************
The statement "the evidence speaks for itself" is a metaphor for that condition
that arises in science, when the formal system of theory+evidence gives an
unambiguous: 'true' or 'false' for an answer. (In science, such statements are
more likely probabilistic, but the idea is the same.)
This, of course, works if the theory contains sufficient precision
such that there are no inconsistencies.
Unfortunately, the system that Pagano and Goodrich choose to operate under is
naturalism+supernaturalism.
In other threads I have defined "natural" to
mean that we consider "phenomena," which is to say that which we can apprehend
with our senses (possibly aided with instrumentation), comprehend with our reason,
and which we can communicate to others. All else is "supernatural". Because
any statement that is formulatable in the system of the "natural" also has its
potential negation in the system of the "supernatural," the system that Pagano
and Goodrich operate in is inconsistent, meaning that all statements are
both "true" and "false" within that system.
Unfortunately, for Pagano and Goodrich, data will never "speak for itself",
but always is a hazy thing that can be whatever Pagano or Goodrich want it to
be. Indeed, there is no such thing as knowledge in the world of the creationist.
There is only ambiguity.
>Regards to my compatriots,
>T Pagano
--
John Stockwell | jo...@dix.Mines.EDU
Center for Wave Phenomena (The Home of Seismic Un*x)
Colorado School of Mines
Golden, CO 80401 | http://www.cwp.mines.edu/cwpcodes
voice: (303) 273-3049
Our new book:
Norman Bleistein, Jack K. Cohen, John W. Stockwell Jr., [2001],
Mathematics of multidimensional seismic imaging, migration, and inversion,
(Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics, V. 13.), Springer-Verlag, New York.
Bobby D. Bryant
"John Stockwell" <jo...@dix.mines.edu> wrote:
> Unfortunately, for Pagano and Goodrich, data will never "speak for
> itself", but always is a hazy thing that can be whatever Pagano or
> Goodrich want it to be. Indeed, there is no such thing as knowledge in
> the world of the creationist. There is only ambiguity.
I remember a month or two back when someone (Goodrich, IIRC) posted a
claim that you could tell there was a god (his, of course) because of
the grand feeling you get when you see a mighty mountain, beautiful
sunset, etc. This would appear to be an "evidence speaks for itself"
argument.
In addition to a number of other reasons that the argument is bogus,
the thing that occured to me was: what conclusion would he have drawn if
he had applied the same logic to toothaches, dogpiles, and maggoty
carcasses, rather than to sunsets and pristine wilderness vistas?
Letting the evidence "speak for itself" is a dangerous business, if you
care about the truth. There is absolutely no substitute for peer
review of your conclusions, no matter what field you are in.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
A Pagano
> that arises in science, when the formal system of theory+evidence gives an
> unambiguous: 'true' or 'false' for an answer.
Pagano replies:
Certainly "the evidence speaks for itself" is a figure of speech. I'll
leave it to everyone to check their dictionaries and satisfy themselves
that transferring the term "evidence" to the collective "theory +
evidence" is not a metaphoric use of the label "evidence" but an
equivocal one. If "evidence" (in its uneqivocal use) is "silent" in the
absence of theory then the correct figure of speech should be "the
evidence is silent." This is also NOT a metaphor.
One might, in principle, logically conclude that a theory is false if
one finds an observation prohibited by the theory. Nonetheless no set
of corroborative observations (no matter how large) can "tell" us
whether the theory is "unambiguously" true. The use of the adjective
"unambiguous" when used to modify "truth" seems to indicate a
fundamental understanding. Since there is no criterion for determining
whether a theory is objectively true how in the world can the formal
system of theory+evidence give an unabiguous 'true' for an answer?"
Perhaps Stockwell can answer this.
************************************
Stockwell continues:
> (In science, such statements are
> more likely probabilistic, but the idea is the same.)
Pagano replies:
As far as I know there is no existing probability calculus which can
"convert" level of corroboration into some objective probability that
the theory conjoined to the evidence is true. Bayensians do nothing of
the sort. Since mathematics is Stockwell's strong area, perhaps he
could produce such a probability calculus. However, if he can I would
suggest he save it for publication since such a discovery would place
him in the history books.
**********************
Stockwell continues:
> This, of course, works if the theory contains sufficient precision
> such that there are no inconsistencies.
Pagano replies:
But it can never contain "sufficient" precision(except in the case of
some trivial low-level generalizations) which collapses everything he's
written above.
[snip]
[more to follow if time]
Regards,
T Pagano
Neil W Rickert
>Stockwell responds:
>> The statement "the evidence speaks for itself" is a metaphor for that condition
>> that arises in science, when the formal system of theory+evidence gives an
>> unambiguous: 'true' or 'false' for an answer.
> Pagano replies:
>Certainly "the evidence speaks for itself" is a figure of speech. I'll
>leave it to everyone to check their dictionaries and satisfy themselves
>that transferring the term "evidence" to the collective "theory +
>evidence" is not a metaphoric use of the label "evidence" but an
>equivocal one. If "evidence" (in its uneqivocal use) is "silent" in the
>absence of theory then the correct figure of speech should be "the
>evidence is silent." This is also NOT a metaphor.
As a natural corollary, we should say
the bible is silent
Buckler
>One might, in principle, logically conclude that a theory is false if
>one finds an observation prohibited by the theory.
True, but that leads to a few separate branches. One might modify the
theory to take the new information into account, or one might conclude
that the theory is falsified. Alternatively, one might conclude that
the new information constitutes a miracle, and thus defenestrate
science.
I love the word "defenestrate". The odd thing is that, apparently, at
some time, there were so many people and things being thrown out of
windows that it required a new verb to be coined.
Buckler
Spam block in use. To respond via email, remove the third letter of the alphabet from my username.
Dave Horn
[Snip typical bluster]
[Snip typical, egotistical and ignorant nonsense]
[Repost]
"Nope" doesn't cut it.
[Repost]
[In April], I provided three references to debunk Pagano claims with respect
to what another writer had to say about creationist claims concerning
thermodynamics. With typical bluster, Pagano claimed that the author had
offered a caricature of the "creationist position" as it relates to
thermodynamics. A typical evasion by Pagano ensued in which he demanded
references (which were provided). Pagano ignored them, at first, but was
goaded into responding when I forced the issue. He then stated that he
would take the three references and examine them. He promised that he would
approach the references with respect to six points that he would make. This
was a pretty firm assertion on his part.
Pagano took the first reference that I offered and dismissed it. However,
he failed to fulfill the six points that he said he would fulfill. He then
stated that he would do the same with the other two references.
This Pagano never did. He went from asserting this would be done, to
presuming to offering me an "out" with respect to his presumption of "harsh
criticism" of the references, to stating that he would get to them "when
time permits," after which he treated us to yet another disappearing act.
Since I can predict that Pagano, assuming he works up the courage to respond
at all, will respond with lies and misrepresentations of that even (along
with his typical bluster), I am fully prepared to repost the details of that
exchange. But this was my response to Pagano's last gasp with respect to
that issue, posted April 22nd:
[Begin repost]
"A Pagano" <apa...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:3AE23824...@fast.net...
>
> Oh I'm not finished with Horn yet.
Nor I with Pagano.
> Still two more url links to review and comment on concerning
> his defense of Sharp (for those interested please see the post
> with Subject title: Horn's First Link Proves Nothing but His
> lack of interest in Truth).
An article which I answered and thoroughly refuted all points Pagano made.
Pagano has not responded to that article. This is certainly not a surprise.
> If these two other links are as bad as the first one I will have
> shown conclusively that the Horn has no credibility whatsoever.
I have never worried about Pagano claims with respect to my credibility. If
the concensus of recorded opinion is any indicator at all, it is Pagano who
has a problem in this area, and he will continue to do so.
> I will post the results of my review of those links both in
> the appropriate thread and as new threads so others will
> be sure to see.
And I'll be waiting. I won't be expecting much.
Pagano's lies will be exposed every time he posts. I hope he enjoys the
ride.
I know *I* will...
[End repost]
As we can see above, Pagano stated he would post reviews of the other links
in both "the appropriate thread" and in a new thread "so others will be sure
to see."
Pagano disappeared after that.
Pagano still owes us for two links.
[End Repost]
A Pagano
John Stockwell wrote:
> Unfortunately, the system that Pagano and Goodrich choose to operate under is
> naturalism+supernaturalism.
Pagano replies:
I have argued so many times, in so many different threads for the
falsity of naturalism that this claim of Stockwell's is inexplicable.
In fact I have argued for its falsity in another current thread with
Stockwell. I do presuppose the truth of supernaturalism; naturalism is
false.
Metaphysical Naturalism proposes that our world is a closed set of only
material causes and effects that can never (and was never) influenced by
anything outside of itself. Methodological naturalism as practiced by
modern secular theorists is indistinquishable from metaphysical
naturalism. I assert that metaphysical naturalism is false. I
presuppose the existence of matter and its properties; however, I do not
conjecture that matter and its properties conjoined with chance is the
cause of all that we observe.
Supernaturalism proposes that there is a supernatural being who created
matter and its properties, He created this world and the life in it,
sustains this world, and influences our world to achieve His purpose.
Supernaturalism does NOT exclude any objectively true statements and
propositions about matter or its properties that man can discover.
Naturalism unequivocally excludes supernaturalism.
****************************
Stockwell continues:
> In other threads I have defined "natural" to
> mean that we consider "phenomena," which is to say that which we can apprehend
> with our senses (possibly aided with instrumentation), comprehend with our reason,
> and which we can communicate to others. All else is "supernatural".
Pagano replies:
STOCKWELL'S DEFINITION INCLUDES SUPERNATURAL CAUSATION
Very often we can only observe a part of some "phenomena," that is, we
may only observe some of the empirical consequences of some unknown
and/or unseen cause. This is particularly true with regard prehistoric
events that were unique and non repeating. We cannot see, even aided
with instrumentation, unique prehistoric causes but we might be able to
determine and observe their empirical consequences. The scientist can
invent some material conjectural cause and determine its empirical
consequences. Usually the cause itself is not experimentally testable
or observable, but the empirical consequences could be searched for and
observed or otherwise tested for with instrumentation.
SUPERNATURAL EVENTS CAN HAVE EMPIRICAL CONSEQUENCES
Scripture records several supernatural causes in both the Old Testament
and the New that ALL christians (not just evangelical fundamentalists)
are required to believe as historically true. The supernatural causes
themselves were not observable but their EMPIRICAL CONSEQUENCES were.
Such material consequences were observed and recorded. In 1917 75,000
witnesses (many of whom were atheists and antichristians) came to
Fatima, Portugal to see if the supernatural event predicted 30 days to
the hour, in advance, by three illiterate farm children would come
true. The supernatural cause was not observed but 75,000 people
attested to the EMPIRICAL CONSEQUENCES. The empirical consequences were
of such a magnitude that witnesses feared for their lives and thought
the world was coming to an end. I might add that while some conjectures
have been advanced as to its material cause none can explain how it is
that their singular prediction was so accurate.
A potential problem for creationists is determining if the empirical
consequences of a particular supernatural cause is distinquishable from
some conjectured but equally unobservable material cause.
[snip]
[more to follow if time permits]
Regards,
T Pagano
Noelie S. Alito
news:r5anitsv70p6tkp3c...@4ax.com...
<snip>
>
> I love the word "defenestrate". The odd thing is that, apparently, at
> some time, there were so many people and things being thrown out of
> windows that it required a new verb to be coined.
This is wild speculation on my part, but I'll guess that it
was originally coined to address real problems with
city residents getting rid of things (especially emptying
chamber pots) by tossing them out the window.
Noelie, who once saw a woman drop a toilet out of
a third-story window
Dave Horn
"A Pagano" <apa...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:3B27FD31...@fast.net...
> Dave Horn wrote:
> > [In April], I provided three references to debunk
> > Pagano claims with respect to what another writer
> > had to say about creationist claims concerning
> > thermodynamics. With typical bluster, Pagano
> > claimed that the author had offered a caricature
> > of the "creationist position" as it relates to
> > thermodynamics.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Fact of the matter is I asked that poster (Sharp was
> the name he used) who claimed to be a scientist to
> produce a citation from a creation scientist written
> in the last 50 years which could justify the caricature.
> The alleged "scientist" never replied. I inferred nothing
> from his lack of reply, however, this left his bald
> ridicule completely unsupported.
In fact, the "bald ridicule" was completely supported (only Pagano seemed to
think it was ridicule). Pagano never provided the actual "creationist
position" for comparison and the links I provided demonstrated that the
"caricature," for a single-line representation, was accurate.
> Paluxy Dave continues:
> > A typical evasion by Pagano ensued in which he
> > demanded references (which were provided).
> > Pagano ignored them, at first, but was goaded into
> > responding when I forced the issue.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Since I very rarely engage in back and forth debates
> with anyone (over the last 5 years) the claim that I
> "ignored" and then was "goaded" into responding
> plays fast and loose with the facts. I respond to suit
> my own purposes.
Pagano's purposes are to make claims and vague speeches that are closer to
"fast and loose with the facts" than anything else. When challenged and
debunked, Pagano runs, to later return and claim the same things.
> Paluxy Dave continued:
> > He then stated that he would take the three references
> > and examine them. He promised that he would approach
> > the references with respect to six points that he would
> > make. This was a pretty firm assertion on his part.
>
> Pagano replied:
> True.
>
> Paluxy Dave continued:
> > Pagano took the first reference that I offered and
> > dismissed it.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I did dismiss it with adequate justification and argument.
Wrong again.
I rebutted Pagano's dismissal and demonstrated quite adequately that his
dismissal was without merit. Oddly enough, Pagano then said that I didn't
defend myself with respect to his rather pathetic rebuttal.
> It only met one of the six standards I set forth---that
> is the link was "live."
This, of course, is a lie, as I have already demonstrated. Notice that
Pagano has not responded to the specific rebuttal that I provided which
covered each point.
> By way of background Paluxy Dave decided to
> produce several sources, in the form of 3 links,
> pointing to documents that would substantiate
> Sharp's caricature of the alleged creation scientist
> position on the second law. I told Paluxy Dave
> that I would evaluate his links on the basis of
> the following standards:
>
> (1) see if they are "live" links,
They were.
> (2) see if they are written by credentialed creation
> scientists and not lunk heads like me,
Pagano never told us what a "credentialed creation scientist" was - and he
*was* challenged to present that information. The first link presented the
views of Paul Taylor, a well-known (except to Pagano) creationist. The
other two were directly written by well-known creationists.
> (3) see if they address the laws of thermodynamics
> at all...
They did.
> (4) post them in their entirety if they are not too long,
Which, of course, is not a standard to which I had to adhere.
> (5) explain whether they are consistent or
> inconsistent with the consensus position of
> credentialied creation scientists, and
> (6) if consistent show clearly that they don't
> support the over-generalized caricature of Sharp
And, as explained, Pagano did neither of these things.
Now let's watch Pagano in full misdirection mode.
> After seeing the six standards Paluxy Dave did
> not retract the three links.
Nor should I. The original standard was that they contain something written
by "creation scientists" and that those comments occurred within the last 50
years. The remaining standards were those Pagano placed mostly on himself
(items #4, #5, and #6 on Pagano's own list) *after* the links were provided.
> Here is what I discovered after reviewing the first
> link (http://members.truepath.com/hogue/creationism.html )
> on 4/15/01 (see my previous post on that date at google):
>
> (1) The link was live (and still is).
Indeed it is.
> (2) The document referred to in the link was NOT
> written by a credentialled creation scientist. THIS
> MEANS THE LINK PALUXY DAVE PROVIDED
> WAS NOT WHAT HE REPRESENTED IT TO BE.
Utterly false. I have already conceded that the link, itself, was not
As conceded.
False.
"The Big Bang Theory is critical in all challenges to Creationism. According
to thermodynamics, the Big Bang could not reorganize into something as
complex and full of energy as our planet, especially by accident. If
Evolution is true, there must be an extremely powerful force or mechanism at
work in the cosmos that can steadily defeat the powerful, ultimate tendency
toward 'disarrangedness' brought by the 2nd law. If such a massive force or
mechanism is in existence, it would seem it should be quite obvious to all
scientists [Taylor 8]."
As explained at the time, Taylor is "Paul Taylor," a well-known creationist.
So it looks like Pagano's third criteria was fulfilled (instead of just one,
as he claims). Thermodynamics was mentioned "at all."
> THIS MEANS THE LINK PALUXY DAVE PROVIDED
> WAS NOT WHAT HE REPRESENTED IT TO BE.
False. See above.
> (4) I posted the first half of the paper with the one paragraph
> concerning the second law in context (see my post of 4/15/01
> at google).
And never commented on the specific comments with respect to the 2nd Law and
the Big Bang. He *still* hasn't done that.
> (5) While the writer disclosed that he wholly accepted
> creationism nowhere did he present the consensus
> position of creation scientists concerning the second law.
In order for Pagano to dispute that, he's going to have to present us with
whatever he thinks is the "concensus position of creation scientists
concerning the second law." He's never done that.
> While the writer portrayed his understanding of the second
> law as it applies to origins in a limited, amateur way it
> is doubtful that even this justified Sharp's caricature.
Why?
Well, Pagano doesn't say. In my rather lengthy series of articles from a
week ago - which Pagano ignored - this is all explained in the necessary
detail.
These can be reposted if necessary.
> (6) Since the writer never presents the consensus
> position of creation scientists this link didn't justify
> Sharp's caricature. THIS MEANS THE LINK
> PALUXY DAVE PROVIDED WAS NOT WHAT
> HE REPRESENTED IT TO BE.
Asked and answered. Pagano tries to evade the issues so badly, and is left
twisting in the wind.
I have another theory.
It is Pagano who is the fraud; and he still owes us for two links.
[And jump to the last message in the seven-message thread that Pagano is
avoiding]
wf...@ptd.net
>[This is a continuation of reply to Stockwell.]
>
>John Stockwell wrote:
>> Unfortunately, the system that Pagano and Goodrich choose to operate under is
>> naturalism+supernaturalism.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>I have argued so many times, in so many different threads for the
>falsity of naturalism that this claim of Stockwell's is inexplicable.
>In fact I have argued for its falsity in another current thread with
>Stockwell. I do presuppose the truth of supernaturalism; naturalism is
>false.
the latter has zip to do with evolution. the former is undefined and
untestable.
>
>Metaphysical Naturalism proposes that our world is a closed set of only
>material causes and effects that can never (and was never) influenced by
>anything outside of itself. Methodological naturalism as practiced by
>modern secular theorists is indistinquishable from metaphysical
>naturalism.
modern christians practice MN as well. the world objectively exists.
it functions according to objective laws. thats why MN, as practiced
by christians, is the same as for non christians. perhaps pagano will
tell us what rules in the world are different for fundamentalists as
for normal people.
I assert that metaphysical naturalism is false. I
>presuppose the existence of matter and its properties; however, I do not
>conjecture that matter and its properties conjoined with chance is the
>cause of all that we observe.
how do you test this? where may we see observable, demonstrable events
for non natural causes?
>
>Supernaturalism proposes that there is a supernatural being who created
>matter and its properties, He created this world and the life in it,
>sustains this world, and influences our world to achieve His purpose.
>Supernaturalism does NOT exclude any objectively true statements and
>propositions about matter or its properties that man can discover.
>Naturalism unequivocally excludes supernaturalism.
supernaturalism is undefined in naturalism. since there is no way to
test it, its meaningless. that is different than saying its excluded.
pagano is propagandizing...
>
>SUPERNATURAL EVENTS CAN HAVE EMPIRICAL CONSEQUENCES
>Scripture records several supernatural causes in both the Old Testament
>and the New that ALL christians (not just evangelical fundamentalists)
>are required to believe as historically true
no, they're not. EWTN's website has the following from an article by
father most:
>To illustrate, the first 11 chapters of Genesis, according to Pope John
>Paul II are myth--he picked a poor word, it doesn't mean just fairy tale,
>no basis. No he meant an ancient story made to bring out some things that
>really happened. Here are the chief things: God made all things--in some
>special way (note the broad way of speaking) He made the fist human
>pair--He gave them some command--we do not know if it was about a fruit
>tree--whatever it was, they violated His orders and fell from favor or
>grace.
>The words "literal sense" have two
>meanings: 1) take text as if written by 20th century American: that is
>silly. Ancient Semites are not modern Americans; 2) Learn how the ancient
>Semites wrote, understand it the way the author meant it, the way the
>first readers took it....
> First, we need to know what are called
>literary genres, which means patterns of writing. To illustrate, think of
>a modern historical novel about Civil War. Main line is history,
>background fits--but we expect fill-ins that are fiction, e.g., long
>conversations between Lincoln and Grant. Or a bit of romance among minor
>sideline characters. The key word is ASSERT. Writer meant to assert that
>the mainline is history that the background fits--did not assert these
>fill-ins are real. So we do not charge him with error. We, as natives of
>this culture, naturally know how to take these things. But in a very
>different culture--Ancient Semitic--we must study to see what genres they
>used.
pagano stands refuted since there is little indication most christians
do, in fact, view scripture as literally historically true in all
cases.
.. The supernatural causes
>themselves were not observable but their EMPIRICAL CONSEQUENCES were.
then how do you know what caused them? how do you know some unseen
NATURAL cause didnt cause them?
>Such material consequences were observed and recorded. In 1917 75,000
>witnesses (many of whom were atheists and antichristians) came to
>Fatima, Portugal to see if the supernatural event predicted 30 days to
>the hour, in advance, by three illiterate farm children would come
>true.
unfortunately for pagano, scientists dont have to disprove these
events as history. creationists have already done so.
there's not a single protestant creationist who accepts these
observations as valid. not one. its obvious that your RELIGIOUS
beliefs, rather than OBJECTIVE REALITY determines what you think about
those events. so if CREATIONISTS dont accept them, why should science?
pagano is trying to pretend that scientists should decide on events
creationists themselves disagree on, because of their RELIGIOUS
beliefs.
>The supernatural cause was not observed but 75,000 people
>attested to the EMPIRICAL CONSEQUENCES.
and, as noted, NO protestants accept these. its a RELIGIOUS event, not
an historical one. at least thats what CREATIONISTS say. if they
agreed with pagano, protestants would be lining up to become catholic.
they aint.
>
>A potential problem for creationists is determining if the empirical
>consequences of a particular supernatural cause is distinquishable from
>some conjectured but equally unobservable material cause.
DUH!! occams razor indicates which is favorable. since supernaturalism
WAS science, but FAILED, we know which is favored...
>
A Pagano
Stockwell continues:
> In other threads I have defined "natural" to
> mean that we consider "phenomena," which is to say that which we can apprehend
> with our senses (possibly aided with instrumentation), comprehend with our reason,
> and which we can communicate to others. All else is "supernatural".
Pagano replies:
Stockwell implies that all material causes associated with a phenomenon
are observable----this is false. And he implies that supernatural
causes have no empirical consequences whatsoever----every christian
knows this is false.
*******************************
Stockwell continues:
> Because
> any statement that is formulatable in the system of the "natural" also has its
> potential negation in the system of the "supernatural," the system that Pagano
> and Goodrich operate in is inconsistent, meaning that all statements are
> both "true" and "false" within that system.
Pagano replies:
Quite honestly I have used a similar argument against evolutionists who
are christian who accept both a supernatural Creator AND the truth of
purely materialistic cosmology, purely materialistic origin of life and
the purely materialistic explanation for the diversity of life. It is
they who presupposed the truth of some schizophrenic conjunction of
"naturalism" and "supernaturalism," not I. It is the creationists who
have been arguing that "naturalism" and "supernaturalism" are mutually
exclusive and that naturalism is false.
Again Stockwell's whole argument collapses because his premise that I
presuppose the truth of some conjunction of "naturalism" and
"supernaturalism" is plain wrong. And having already argued for the
falsity of naturalism in another thread with him (which is still current
on most news servers) one wonders what Stockwell is up to.
[snip]
[more to follow]
Regards,
T Pagano
Dave Horn
The first lie.
Pagano wrote:
"I decided that it was a waste of time after clearly demonstrating that the
first link was a fraud. One would have thought that Horn would have been
embarrassed when I discovered that the link was a fraud. He never defended
himself..."
Pagano claims that the first link was a "fraud" because it was not
specifically written by a "creation scientist" or a "credentialed creation
scientist." It was, in fact, written by a student, but Pagano never said
that the reference could not, itself, contain a reference to a creationist
who had said the things Sharp had represented. Pagano wanted a reference
that a "creation scientist" had made such a claim in the last fifty years,
"written by a creation scientist."
I still don't know what Pagano considers a "creation scientist" or a
"credentialed creation scientist," but that link does provide the following:
"According to thermodynamics, the Big Bang could not reorganize into
something as complex and full of energy as our planet, especially by
accident. If Evolution is true, there must be an extremely powerful force or
mechanism at work in the cosmos that can steadily defeat the powerful,
ultimate tendency toward 'disarrangedness' brought by the 2nd law. If such a
massive force or mechanism is in existence, it would seem it should be quite
obvious to all scientists [Taylor 8]."
"Taylor" is creationist Paul Taylor, who is well-known to most of us, I'm
sure.
The link was not a "fraud." That it was written by a student is irrelevant.
It contains a representation of that written by a "creation scientist" as
saying that thermodynamics precludes the Big Bang resulting in the creation
of the Earth, specifically.
Now, Pagano claims that I did not defend myself after he discovered this
alleged fraud.
That is a lie. There were, in fact, a few articles by me in "defense."
Here are four of them:
[Begin repost]
"A Pagano" <apa...@fast.net> wrote in message
Those are facts.
Those are the facts.
> > > > > > Please produce a single citation written in the last
> > > > > > 50 years by a creation scientist wherein any such
> > > > > > thing is claimed.
>
Done. Three times.
Done. Three times.
Pagano repeats past lies.
> HOW SHALL I PROCEED?
> I shall review, comment upon, and post the substance pointed
> to by Horn's other two links when time permits. Although if
> he publiclly concedes that the other links are as worthless as
> the first then I would be happy to desist.
This provided a great deal of amusement. No, Pagano is quite free to
comment on the other links - especially since it is clear that he has
nothing of merit to say about the first one, nor can he demonstrate that the
link was either inappropriate to the point or that anything he is claiming
is true. That Pagano presumes to make this kind of "offer" is simply
another means by which he can run when the time comes. He's already paving
that path with "when time permits." Pagano had plenty of time to write this
latest weaseling nonsense, and he had plenty of time to attack wf3h
yesterday, but has nothing to say about two other links that *clearly* show
his own "caricature" is wrong?
No, no, no...by no means do I want Pagano to desist. Let him rant and rave
to his heart's content. Let him obfuscate and misdirect all he wishes.
I'll be sure to return us to the right path; and show what a pompous,
self-important fraud he is. It's all in a days work.
Let's rock.
[End repost]
[Begin repost]
"A Pagano" <apa...@fast.net> wrote in message
[Snip]
VwwC6.23242$J%5.84...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com
untenable. This is what Sharp wrote:
"For example, in trying to criticize the Big Bag, I've noticed that YECs
often say that the Big Bang contradicts the 1st and 2nd laws of
thermodynamics."
(How this is a "caricature," Pagano won't say.)
In the first reference that I provided, this is what was said:
"According to thermodynamics, the Big Bang could not reorganize into
something as complex and full of energy as our planet, especially by
accident."
Pagano ignored this when he complained that the website I referenced was not
[Snip]
[End repost]
http://www.lightandmatter.com/evolution/
Pagano's challenge. Sharp wrote:
> > For example, in trying to criticize the Big Bag, I've noticed that
> > YECs often say that the Big Bang contradicts the 1st and 2nd
> > laws of thermodynamics.
To which Sharp added a summarized response:
> > If in fact the total mass-energy of the universe when all
> > contributions are added is zero, the first law is not contradicted,
> > and the 2nd law says nothing about local decreases in entropy.
To which Pagano responded:
> Pagano replies:
> Please produce a single citation written in the last 50 years by a
> creation scientist wherein any such thing is claimed.
Pagano won't like this, but we *will* keep these things in perspective.
What followed were several responses from those in the group who had links.
Pagano ignored them until I forced his hand by repeating the fact that his
"challenge" had been answered. Pagano will do his rhetorical best to
restate the arguments and claim that his point was either not addressed or
not addressed adequately. He's already started to restate the point and the
argument.
It won't be allowed.
Pagano asked for evidence that creationists have claimed what Sharp said
they did. The evidence was provided.
Here's still more evidence:
http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/~wenning/PHY111PBL/Group_2/physics.html
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/02-star9.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-137a.htm
http://biology.ux.com/discussion5/_disc5/00000021.htm
http://www.genesisquest.org/creditcourse/content12.html
http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Cosmo/bang.txt
http://library.thinkquest.org/22016/contribute/evolution.htm
Pagano has 10 days to answer these issues adequately or, by his own
standards, he will be "effectively neutralized."
[End repost]
[Begin repost]
It is Pagano who is not interested in truth. Watch:
"A Pagano" <apa...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:3ADA59A9...@fast.net...
>
> Pagano previously wrote:
> > > > Please produce a single citation written in the last 50 years
> > > > by a creation scientist wherein any such thing is claimed.
> > > The Horn replied:
> > > "Pagano's ignorance of what has been written in creationist
> > > literature has been shown many times, yet he seems to think he
> > > can spring like a mousetrap on any statements such as those
> > > made by Sharp and demand references. This is a true hypocrite
> > > in action. Pagano is finally approaching the four year time
> > > period he has already claimed to have been participating in
> > > talk.origins, and never supports claims he has made - let alone
> > > actually provide references for them. The fact that creationists
> > > invoke their peculiar interpretations of thermodynamics is common
> > > knowledge among those of us familiar with their writings, and
> > > even if someone were to bother to provide specific references,
> > > Pagano will then ignore that as if it never happened. Here are
> > > some examples of articles in which creationists make these kinds
> > > of statements:
> > >
> > > http://members.truepath.com/hogue/creationism.html
> > >
> > > http://www.icr.org/research/df/df-r01.htm
> > >
> > > http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-216.htm
> > >
> > > [End quote]
>
> Pagano happily replies to Horn's first link:
> Horn's first link (http://members.truepath.com/hogue/creationism.html)
> is a live link, was not written by a credentialed creation scientist...
Nor was the first reference intended as such. It was intended as an example
of a creationist claiming the things Pagano presumed to challenge that
included this quoted statement by a "credentialed creation scientist."
"The second law of thermodynamics states that any change in an isolated
system causes the quantity of concentrated, useful energy to decrease
[Audesirk 59]. In other words, any thing that looses concentration, tends to
loose useful energy. The Big Bang Theory is critical in all challenges to
Creationism. According to thermodynamics, the Big Bang could not reorganize
into something as complex and full of energy as our planet, especially by
accident. If Evolution is true, there must be an extremely powerful force or
mechanism at work in the cosmos that can steadily defeat the powerful,
ultimate tendency toward 'disarrangedness' brought by the 2nd law. If such a
massive force or mechanism is in existence, it would seem it should be quite
obvious to all scientists [Taylor 8]."
Pagano made no restrictions that initially required that these "credentialed
creation scientists" could not have been quoted by someone else. This has
come after the fact because Pagano knows he has made a rather huge mistake
in challenging the very idea that creationists make claims about the Big
Bang and how it is somehow falsified by the laws of thermodynamics. Let's
put the exchange back in the context Pagano wishes so desperately and
pathetically to avoid:
[Begin reposted snippet]
> > > Sharp continues:
> > > > For example, in trying to criticize the Big Bag, I've noticed
> > > > that YECs often say that the Big Bang contradicts the 1st
> > > > and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. If in fact the total
> > > > mass-energy of the universe when all contributions are added
> > > > is zero, the first law is not contradicted, and the 2nd law
> > > > says nothing about local decreases in entropy.
> >
> > Pagano responded with:
> >
> > > Pagano replies:
> > > Please produce a single citation written in the last 50 years by
> > > a creation scientist wherein any such thing is claimed.
[End reposted segment]
Dick C.
<9gg25l$59s$1...@news.jump.net>:
Spring cleaning can get wicked, can't it.
--
Dick #1349
People think that libraries are safe places, but they're not,
they have ideas.
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
wf...@ptd.net
>[This is a continuation of reply to Stockwell.]
>
>Stockwell continues:
>> In other threads I have defined "natural" to
>> mean that we consider "phenomena," which is to say that which we can apprehend
>> with our senses (possibly aided with instrumentation), comprehend with our reason,
>> and which we can communicate to others. All else is "supernatural".
>
> Pagano replies:
>Stockwell implies that all material causes associated with a phenomenon
>are observable----this is false. And he implies that supernatural
>causes have no empirical consequences whatsoever----every christian
>knows this is false.
unfortunately for pagano, the 'empirical consequences' of
supernaturalism are religion dependent. protestants and catholics have
different views on what these consequences are. so they have no
objective reality. if pagano is saying that gravity is religion
dependent, and catholics behave differently in gravity than
protestants do..by all means, let him prove it.
>*******************************
>
>
>Stockwell continues:
>> Because
>> any statement that is formulatable in the system of the "natural" also has its
>> potential negation in the system of the "supernatural," the system that Pagano
>> and Goodrich operate in is inconsistent, meaning that all statements are
>> both "true" and "false" within that system.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Quite honestly I have used a similar argument against evolutionists who
>are christian who accept both a supernatural Creator AND the truth of
>purely materialistic cosmology, purely materialistic origin of life and
>the purely materialistic explanation for the diversity of life. It is
>they who presupposed the truth of some schizophrenic conjunction of
>"naturalism" and "supernaturalism," not I.
in your view. the trinity itself is a schizoid belief, and that is
accepted by christians as a 'mystery'. there is no reason why faith is
amenable to rational analysis. pagano's attempt to scientize religion
is the religion of scientism. that ideology died in the mid
20's...this idea that everything is explainable by science is a belief
accepted by creationists and no one else. of course their view of
science includes magic...
It is the creationists who
>have been arguing that "naturalism" and "supernaturalism" are mutually
>exclusive and that naturalism is false.
let pagano step out a 10th story window. tell us if naturalism is
false.
A Pagano
Stockwell continues:
> Unfortunately, for Pagano and Goodrich, data will never "speak for itself",
> but always is a hazy thing that can be whatever Pagano or Goodrich want it to
> be.
Pagano replies:
Fact of the matter is that Stockwell agreed at the start of his post
that data DOESN'T "speak for itself." He tried to save this secular
mantra by asserting that "data" was used metaphorically to mean "data +
theory." However, this wouldn't be a metaphoric transform but an
equivocation in the use of the word "data." So when we (Goodrich and I)
use the figure of speech that "the data is silent" we are being more
accurate and fostering understanding. We (or at least I) argue that the
figure of speech "evidence speaks for itself" shouldn't be used at all
because it is false and misleading.
By using "the data speaks for itself" secularists have attempted to
convince the uninformed and indoctrinate the student with the
(inductive) myth that the evidence points always and only to material
causes and that level of corroboration is the touchstone of truth. The
"data" does neither and the data doesn't even tell us if our theories
are probably true via any known probability calculus.
**************************************
Stockwell continues:
>Indeed, there is no such thing as knowledge in the world of the creationist.
> There is only ambiguity.
Pagano replies:
Stockwell is indulging in a little hyperbole.
There is no such thing as the classical notion of scientific knowledge
being secure and sufficiently justified by corroboration; a notion which
flourishes among today's secular and academic elitists (does that
include Stockwell?) All this means is that our knowledge is always
conjectural (which is hardly controversial). Stockwell should satisfy
himself that our knowledge can be conjectural without necessarily also
being ambiguous. And even though our knowledge is conjectural we may
still progress.
I'm done.
Regards,
T Pagano
wf...@ptd.net
>[This is a continuation of a reply to Stockwell.]
>
>Stockwell continues:
>> Unfortunately, for Pagano and Goodrich, data will never "speak for itself",
>> but always is a hazy thing that can be whatever Pagano or Goodrich want it to
>> be.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Fact of the matter is that Stockwell agreed at the start of his post
>that data DOESN'T "speak for itself." He tried to save this secular
>mantra by asserting that "data" was used metaphorically to mean "data +
>theory." However, this wouldn't be a metaphoric transform but an
>equivocation in the use of the word "data." So when we (Goodrich and I)
>use the figure of speech that "the data is silent" we are being more
>accurate and fostering understanding. We (or at least I) argue that the
>figure of speech "evidence speaks for itself" shouldn't be used at all
>because it is false and misleading.
>
>By using "the data speaks for itself" secularists have attempted to
>convince the uninformed and indoctrinate the student with the
>(inductive) myth that the evidence points always and only to material
>causes and that level of corroboration is the touchstone of truth. The
>"data" does neither and the data doesn't even tell us if our theories
>are probably true via any known probability calculus.
pagano believes that, since the sun rose yesterday, it's possible the
tooth fairy will prevent it from rising tomorrow. and there is,
literally, no difference between that statement, and what pagano is
asserting. none. he says magic can cause stuff to happen
by all means, let him prove it. his ONLY 'data' so far is that of
lourdes, and fatima...but since those are RELIGION dependent
experiences, they actually UNDERMINE his argument.
>**************************************
>
>
>Stockwell continues:
>>Indeed, there is no such thing as knowledge in the world of the creationist.
>> There is only ambiguity.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Stockwell is indulging in a little hyperbole.
>
>There is no such thing as the classical notion of scientific knowledge
>being secure and sufficiently justified by corroboration; a notion which
>flourishes among today's secular and academic elitists (does that
>include Stockwell?) All this means is that our knowledge is always
>conjectural (which is hardly controversial). Stockwell should satisfy
>himself that our knowledge can be conjectural without necessarily also
>being ambiguous. And even though our knowledge is conjectural we may
>still progress.
pagano here is saying he believes in the easter bunny. his
lucubrations notwithstanding, he basically says goblins and demons are
demonstrable causes in the world.
one noticeable point: only NON scientists among creationists argue
pagano's point. he gets NO support from creationists with scientific
credentials, like mike behe. its the LAWYERS, not the scientifically
trained among creationists who say what pagano does.
>
>
>
>I'm done.
>
we couldnt get that lucky.
Dave Horn
news:3b2b9b9d....@news.ptdprolog.net...
>
> On 16 Jun 2001 13:42:54 -0400, A Pagano <apa...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> >[This is a continuation of a reply to Stockwell.]
[Snip]
> pagano here is saying he believes in the easter bunny.
> his lucubrations notwithstanding, he basically says
> goblins and demons are demonstrable causes in the
> world.
"And zombies...where the **** are all the zombies...?"
"That's the trouble with zombies...they're unreliable."
- George Carlin, "You're All Diseased"
[Snip]
Dave Horn
>
> [This is a continuation of a reply to Stockwell.]
>
> Stockwell continues:
> > Unfortunately, for Pagano and Goodrich, data will never
> > "speak for itself", but always is a hazy thing that can be
> > whatever Pagano or Goodrich want it to be.
And, in fact, that is the case here - and it's been approached with
"unteachable" Pagano before.
> Pagano replies:
> Fact of the matter is that Stockwell agreed at the start
> of his post that data DOESN'T "speak for itself." He
> tried to save this secular mantra by asserting that "data"
> was used metaphorically to mean "data + theory."
Did he? I don't see that in Stockwell's comments as quoted above. Perhaps
Pagano will be more specific as to where Stockwell said this in the
statement above or where it is implied.
> However, this wouldn't be a metaphoric transform but
> an equivocation in the use of the word "data." So when
> we (Goodrich and I) use the figure of speech that "the
> data is silent" we are being more accurate and fostering
> understanding. We (or at least I) argue that the figure
> of speech "evidence speaks for itself" shouldn't be used
> at all because it is false and misleading.
And this would be despite the fact that Pagano's claims about this have been
shown to be wrong.
Pagano has said many times in the past that evidence never speaks for
itself - it is always interpreted in light of existing theories and
presuppositions. Pagano uses this as an excuse to avoid specific
discussions of evidence, such as red shift, microwave background radiation
and _Archaeopteryx_ - all of which disprove claims Pagano has made over the
years.
But if evidence never speaks for itself, why are there frequent creationists
claims in the literature with respect to a change-in-mind by a given
creationist? Even a cursory reading of much of the creationist literature
over the years will include claims made by these "professional" creationists
with respect to their leanings. They were "evolutionists," they tell us,
until the *evidence* caused them to change their way of thinking and become
creationists. There have even been a number of incidents in this newsgroup
over the years - creationists wander in and tell us that they were
evolutionists (and toss in whatever adjective) until they saw this alleged
evidence that caused them to change their minds.
How can this happen if evidence can never "speak for itself?"
Speaking as a former creationist, I have told Pagano this many times, and
the fact is that there are enough exceptions to Pagano's claim to make it
untenable at best. People *do* change their minds because evidence tells
them that their preconceived notions are wrong. They may or may not
understand or even be aware of specific theories or concepts that are
already addressed by that evidence. A creationist may decide that
transitional forms exist because of the evidence provided by
_Archaeopteryx_, but he or she may not necessarily know how that specimen
fits specifically into a given theory. The evidence can tell us that an old
theory must be discarded and a new one constructed in its place.
Evidence *can* "speak for itself" - and very loudly, too. A lot of it has
to do with how compelling that evidence might be. But sometimes evidence is
so powerful that it can overturn an established paradigm regardless of the
time that paradigm has been in place. Wegener did that. Darwin did that,
too.
[Snip]
Bloody Viking
A Pagano (apa...@fast.net) wrote:
: One might, in principle, logically conclude that a theory is false if
: one finds an observation prohibited by the theory. Nonetheless no set
: of corroborative observations (no matter how large) can "tell" us
: whether the theory is "unambiguously" true. The use of the adjective
: "unambiguous" when used to modify "truth" seems to indicate a
: fundamental understanding. Since there is no criterion for determining
: whether a theory is objectively true how in the world can the formal
: system of theory+evidence give an unabiguous 'true' for an answer?"
And the evidence is in. You are an ape. Just like the rest of us. Get enough
of the right type of ape and put them in front of keyboards you get
newsgroups. Get one named William Shakespeare, and you get Shakespeare. Kind
of helps to use for the "million monkey" experiment those damn chimpanzees who
drive cars and are usually furless. Want to see one of these 'automotive apes'?
Look in the mirror!
Whether there's a god or not, the evidence is in about us evolving from a
precursor ape that also gave rise to the other chimps. Lots of bones, AIDS
with a chimp version, The number of body hair follicles being similar to our
cousins, that damn DNA match, etc.
And there's always those fun little hairs on your arm. Why are they there? And
the irony is that with a last name like Pagano, you are probably Italian, a
nationality known for hairiness. Thank you for testing out my Mark V irony
meter.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
CUIDADO: Las Puertas Estan Listas Para Cerrar.
A Pagano
Steven J
> Charles Darwin not merely admitted, but insisted on this: evidence
> must be evidence for or against some hypothesis to be evidence at all.
> And certainly, evidence is interpreted in light of theories.
Pagano replies:
Steven J can talk the talk, but can he walk the walk.
Then one wonders why I read both in this forum and in popular secular
works that the "mountain" of evidence confirms the fact of evolution or
the "mountain" of evidence confirms big bang. This is usually followed
by "that mountain of evidence speaks for itself," implying that the set
of corroborative evidence does take an independent value of its own and
does speak independently. But Steven J denies this and admits that
observations are interpretations in the light of a theory and for this
reason alone they are apt to seem to support those theories. And
finally if the observations are only made in the light of the theory and
interpreted in the light of the theory what on earth is being
confirmed?
If Steven J admits all this perhaps he can explain why modern
secularists continue to use the toothless "mountain of evidence"
argument when defending evolutionism. We should remember that Newton's
law of gravity while one of the most corroborated theories of all time
was contradicted by some of the evidence and superceded by Einstein's.
Einstein's theory is not a trivial refinement of Newton but a radical
new invention which made predictions (about the bending of light, for
example) which was contrary to what the background knowledge (which
included Newton's) predicted.
***********************
wf...@ptd.net
>
>Steven J
>> Charles Darwin not merely admitted, but insisted on this: evidence
>> must be evidence for or against some hypothesis to be evidence at all.
>> And certainly, evidence is interpreted in light of theories.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Steven J can talk the talk, but can he walk the walk.
>
>Then one wonders why I read both in this forum and in popular secular
>works that the "mountain" of evidence confirms the fact of evolution or
>the "mountain" of evidence confirms big bang. This is usually followed
>by "that mountain of evidence speaks for itself," implying that the set
>of corroborative evidence does take an independent value of its own and
>does speak independently.
i suppose if one confines ones reading to church bulletins like pagano
says, this makes sense. no scientist i've read says such things,
however.
>If Steven J admits all this perhaps he can explain why modern
>secularists continue to use the toothless "mountain of evidence"
>argument when defending evolutionism.
because its used in every science. thats how science is done. if
pagano would take his head out of his...ahem...hymnal...he would know
that.
We should remember that Newton's
>law of gravity while one of the most corroborated theories of all time
>was contradicted by some of the evidence and superceded by Einstein's.
>Einstein's theory is not a trivial refinement of Newton but a radical
>new invention which made predictions (about the bending of light, for
>example) which was contrary to what the background knowledge (which
>included Newton's) predicted.
unfortunately here's where pagano's test for theory and evidence
fails.
if newtons theory was CORROBORATED and if every theory, according to
pagano, is interpreted by scientists ONLY to confirm them, then how
did we ever find out newton's theory needed to be jettisoned?
pagano fails to realize his argument collapses on its face. and thats
one reason why creationists with scientific credentials NEVER make
this argument. you dont find behe saying it, nor dembski. its only the
scientific illiterates like pagano, and johnson who do so.
A Pagano
> Charles Darwin not merely admitted, but insisted on this: evidence
> must be evidence for or against some hypothesis to be evidence at all.
> progressive refutation of various scientific assumptions, to which you
> so often allude, is evidence that evidence is not always interpreted
> as CONFIRMING these theories -- except when "creation scientists" are
> proposing the "theories" and evaluating the evidence.
Pagano replies:
Not sure what the label "progressive refutation" refers to nor am I
really sure which scientific assumptions you are talking about. And in
the 1400+ posts I've made in the last 5 years I'd hazard a guess that
less than a dozen describe or defend the creation model in any detail.
Please produce a link to a single post of mine where I assert (or even
imply) that corroborative evidence is of greater value when it applies
to the creation model.
****************************
[snip]
Goodrich wrote:
> > Indeed, since secularists are precommited to a
> > naturalistic-materialist-reductionist "explanation". But if man is more than
> > a mere collection of 'particles' moving in concert, then his thoughts, will,
> > and spirit cannot be analyzed by materialism redux. Thus man is not then a
> > purely natural entity; the results of his action cannot be explained as the
> > result of natural law. This would imply that man is "supernatural" (in the
> > literal sense of the term), and the results he produces likewise.
Steven J replied:
> (1st) If man is indeed more than a "mere" collection of particles,
> then his mind cannot be explained by materialism. However, there is a
> difference between "cannot be explained" and "has not been (fully and
> convincingly, even to the most biased and scientifically illiterate)
> explained." It does not follow that because the human mind *has not*
> been explained, in materialist terms, to your satisfaction, that it
> *cannot* be so explained.
Pagano replies:
I should note that "has not fully explained" while not the equivalent to
"cannot explain" is also not an argument in favor of metaphysical
naturalism.
Next, Goodrich does not argue that because the mind has not been
explained in materialistic terms that it cannot be explained that way.
And finally, the modern secular notion that all observations are, in
principle (even if not in practice), explanable with reference to matter
and its properties alone is NOT a first order claim "of" science but a
metaphysical claim "about" science.
And Steven J is arguing with an unfounded confidence about his
materialistic philosophy. Modern secular science has not produced a
detailed, testable theory of how the basic building block of life---that
is, the cell----came to be in the first place let alone how the complex
organs such as the brain and eye came to be. There are only vague
stories (natural selection plus random mutation did it all). As near
as I can determine there does not exist a single fossil creature which
exhibits the existence in prehistory of nascent structures---that is,
structures which represent the beginnings of new structure which did not
previously exist.
***********************
Steven J continues:
> In other words, there are insufficient
> grounds for your dogmatic assertion that man is not a purely material
> entity.
Pagano replies:
Goodrich didn't intend to present a treatise on supernaturalism, but you
agreed that if his premise was true that your metaphysical naturalism
was false. That's certainly a good start. And I can't stress enough
that this is a metaphysical question not an empirical one. Secularists
are loathe to admit this.
*********************
Steven J continues:
> In point of fact, your antimaterialism is at some small pains
> to explain the demonstrated impact upon personality and thought by
> brain injuries and many drugs, or the observable changes in brains
> during different sorts of mental activities. Our minds are evidently
> at least partly materialistic in nature and function.
Pagano replies:
I seems to me that Goodrich's supernatural argument explains creation
and some of the abilities that the rest of the animal kingdom don't
have. Our ability to create new ideas, new conjectural knowledge, and
invent new theories is inexplicable in purely naturalistic terms. The
claim that our minds our "partly" materialistic in nature and function
is not an argument against Goodrich's. And the fact that function can
be impaired by injury and drugs is a recognition of our material
fallibility and frailty.
***********************
Steven J continues:
> (2nd) If man is not a purely material entity, that is *still* not
> enough to prove that man is not a purely natural entity.
Pagano replies:
This conditional is contradictory and nonsensical.
*******************
Steven J continues:
> The
> theologian R.C. Sproul argues that science cannot (or at least has
> not) told us what energy *is,* but only what it does. This does not
> mean that energy, or matter, or gravity, or any of several phenomena
> of which the same claim could be made, are not natural phenomena.
> They exist and act in our universe. They demonstrate certain
> regularities which may be inferred and studied.
Pagano replies:
Creationists don't deny the existence of matter and its properties or
that there exists regularities in nature. Creationists don't deny that
we may conjecture the existence of such regularities and test for them.
Unfortunately Sproul's position is not an argument in favor of the
metaphysical claim that all observations are, in principle, explanable
in terms of matter and its properties.
********************
Steven J continues:
> Interestingly, the
> same is true of our minds, REGARDLESS of what they are and how they
> work. Even granting your assumption that minds can never be explained
> in terms of matter and energy, it does not follow that they do not
> exist, and follow the laws of their own nature, in our universe. Our
> minds are "natural," in precisely the sense that anything else studied
> by science is. So are the results they produce.
Pagano replies:
I find this to be mostly incomprehensible. No one claims that our brain
is not material or that it does not exist. The question is: can its
creation be explained in purely materialistic terms? Can its function,
like our ability to create new information and new knowledge be
explained, even in principle, in purely materialistic terms? Steven J
fails to realize that his commitment to the principle that every
observation and event can, in principle, be explained in purely
materialistic terms is a metaphysical claim about science not a first
order claim of science.
********************
Steven J.
> Steven J
> > Charles Darwin not merely admitted, but insisted on this: evidence
> > must be evidence for or against some hypothesis to be evidence at all.
> > And certainly, evidence is interpreted in light of theories.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Steven J can talk the talk, but can he walk the walk.
>
>
> Then one wonders why I read both in this forum and in popular secular
> works that the "mountain" of evidence confirms the fact of evolution or
> the "mountain" of evidence confirms big bang. This is usually followed
> by "that mountain of evidence speaks for itself," implying that the set
> of corroborative evidence does take an independent value of its own and
> does speak independently. But Steven J denies this and admits that
> observations are interpretations in the light of a theory and for this
> reason alone they are apt to seem to support those theories. And
> finally if the observations are only made in the light of the theory and
> interpreted in the light of the theory what on earth is being
> confirmed?
>
-- used my own "theory" of what you meant, and fit your words to it.
I admit that observations must be interpreted in light of some theory.
I do NOT admit that "for that reason alone they are apt to seem to
support that theory." An erect-walking ape in Pleistocene African
strata will certainly be seen as confirming human evolution. Were the
same fossil found in upper Jurassic North American sediments, it would
be, if not falsification of, at least a very serious disconfirmation
of, and problem for, theories of human evolution. Current theory
holds that no ancestors of ours were than similar to us at that time
(much less that place). A hominid alongside _Allosaurus_ CANNOT be
accomodated by, or explained in terms of, the theory of evolution; it
would have to be, not explained, but explained away (a fraud, a
mistake, a late survival buried deep by early Indians, whatever).
I've explained before that no single observation can falsify a theory,
but some observations do pose major problems for a theory, and many
such observations can force the theory to be modified or abandoned.
At some point, you have to stop explaining facts away and simply admit
that the theory has been falsified.
In other words, one way a theory can let the facts speak is to be
falsified by the facts. Furthermore, a successful theory, supported
by a "mountain of evidence," may be modified by its need to agree with
another theory, equally supported by evidence. Thus Einstein modified
Newton, not so much because new observations falsified Newton, as
because a new theory (Maxwell's) overlapped Newton's but gave
different predictions about the area of overlap. In our own day,
Einstein's theories face the same problem with quantum theory.
Darwin's theory has had to be modified to fit new discoveries about
heredity, and will need, no doubt, to be further modified to
accomodate newer theories, as well as potential disconfirming facts.
>
> If Steven J admits all this perhaps he can explain why modern
> secularists continue to use the toothless "mountain of evidence"
> argument when defending evolutionism. We should remember that Newton's
> law of gravity while one of the most corroborated theories of all time
> was contradicted by some of the evidence and superceded by Einstein's.
> Einstein's theory is not a trivial refinement of Newton but a radical
> new invention which made predictions (about the bending of light, for
> example) which was contrary to what the background knowledge (which
> included Newton's) predicted.
>
"Mountains of evidence" supported Newtonianism, in the sense that
Newton's theories explained them better than any rival theory.
Einstein's theories explained them better, and differently, BUT
Einstein's explanations of what was actually happening, to produce the
data which supported Newtonianism, differed only trivially from
Newton's in. When Einstein's theory superceded Newton's, the earth
did not stop orbiting the sun. It did not stop doing so at a distance
and period correlated, to great precision, by Newton's formulae.
Einstein did not show that the motions attributed to celestial bodies
by Newton were in fact very different; he showed, rather, than
Newton's equations were approximations, for the cases Newton could
study, of a more general rule. It should (but will not, I'm sure)
please you to hear that evolutionary theorists assume the same is true
of the modern synthesis: it will be superceded by some more
complicated and general theory. Common descent with modification, and
mutation and natural selection, however, are no more likely to be
superceded than heliocentrism and the inverse-square law.
> ***********************
>
> [snip]
>
> [more to follow]
>
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-- Steven J.
Bloody Viking
A Pagano (apa...@fast.net) wrote:
: Pagano replies:
: Stockwell implies that all material causes associated with a phenomenon
: are observable----this is false. And he implies that supernatural
: causes have no empirical consequences whatsoever----every christian
: knows this is false.
: *******************************
<BOOM!> Damn. The irony is heavy here. Even my experimental irony gauge had
its needle move, the one for a teraholden.
I think I know what the problem is with people having problems with irony
meters. It's that creationism and creationists have inherent irony. Consider
this:
Creationism's tale itself has the inherent irony of a "garden of eden" which
nicely describes a rainforest. The Adam and Eve characters could just as
easally be bonobos voted out of the troupe as two people made by a god. And of
course apes are found in rainforests.
Inherent irony: rainforest
Creationists, like everyone else have shoulders that evolved in such a way
that you can hold your arms straight up and have a grip able to hold them up
unless they are real fat. This means that we evolved from an animal that
brachiated. Brachiation is something apes do.
Inherent irony: a build for brachiation
Religion has imposed the punishment of draw and quarter whereby the four limbs
are attached to horses made to try to accellerate. Obviously intended to be
painful as fuck, the process is actually difficult as horses can't be
downshifted for better torque to accellerate as tension is applied to the
victim. Thus, the horses "rev up" but one horsepower in too high a gear
doesn't make for too good a traction engine.
Inherent irony: horses can't downshift but try to pull apart an animal evolved
for brachiation
Most if not all male creationists have climbed trees as children.
Inherent irony: arboreal behaviour
Some creationists "homeschool" their kids so as to avoid evolution in the
classroom and other creationists have all but eliminated the topic in the
schools.
Inherent irony: ensuring ignorance in education
The naming of playground equipment as "monkey bars" and creationists using
such equipment as children, including that device like a horizontal ladder
where you swing from rung to rung, gymnast rings, and so on. Swinging on
swings and switching swings mid-flight also adds to this. (I did this as a
kid.) Taking part in gymnastics is obvious.
Inherent irony: brachiation
Having body hair... or lasering it off.
Inherent irony: the remaining fur coat
Can others add to the list of inherent ironies that creationism causes? Add
here!
Steven J.
> Stockwell responds:
> > The statement "the evidence speaks for itself" is a metaphor for that
> > condition
> > that arises in science, when the formal system of theory+evidence gives an
> > unambiguous: 'true' or 'false' for an answer.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> Certainly "the evidence speaks for itself" is a figure of speech. I'll
> leave it to everyone to check their dictionaries and satisfy themselves
> that transferring the term "evidence" to the collective "theory +
> evidence" is not a metaphoric use of the label "evidence" but an
> equivocal one. If "evidence" (in its uneqivocal use) is "silent" in the
> absence of theory then the correct figure of speech should be "the
> evidence is silent." This is also NOT a metaphor.
>
> One might, in principle, logically conclude that a theory is false if
> one finds an observation prohibited by the theory. Nonetheless no set
> of corroborative observations (no matter how large) can "tell" us
> whether the theory is "unambiguously" true. The use of the adjective
> "unambiguous" when used to modify "truth" seems to indicate a
> fundamental understanding. Since there is no criterion for determining
> whether a theory is objectively true how in the world can the formal
> system of theory+evidence give an unabiguous 'true' for an answer?"
> Perhaps Stockwell can answer this.
>
invoking miracles whose only purpose is to explain away evidence, or
it cannot. If the theory can account for a sufficiently large set of
facts, a reasonable person will suspect that either the theory is
true, or that the true explanation, for the facts given, is so similar
as to make no difference. Creationism can be supported only by making
up facts, or by freely invoking miracles the Bible doesn't mention, in
order to explain why we find no signs of those it does. As for
evolution, any theory which explains the same data is going to involve
common descent with (large-scale) modification; mutations will be an
integral part of it, and natural selection will play some role. The
modern synthesis will be replaced by some better theory; you won't
like that theory, though, any more than you like the modern synthesis.
> ************************************
>
>
> Stockwell continues:
> > (In science, such statements are
> > more likely probabilistic, but the idea is the same.)
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> As far as I know there is no existing probability calculus which can
> "convert" level of corroboration into some objective probability that
> the theory conjoined to the evidence is true. Bayensians do nothing of
> the sort. Since mathematics is Stockwell's strong area, perhaps he
> could produce such a probability calculus. However, if he can I would
> suggest he save it for publication since such a discovery would place
> him in the history books.
>
right, technically, but it's a technicality neither you or any sane
person would respect in any area where you didn't feel your faith was
on the line. We sentence people to life imprisonment, or death, in
this country, with no way to convert the "level of corroboration" of
the prosecution's theory into "some objective probability" that the
defendant is guilty. Every fact in "operations science" suffers under
the same handicap -- the existence of atoms (much less subatomic
particles), the existence of planetary orbits, heliocentrism, genes,
the connections between germs and disease. Everything we take for
granted in day-to-day life suffers from this handicap.
Tony, to support creation science, you postulate a word where human
reason doesn't enable us to approach truth -- and what, by the way,
does that say about the Creator? What account can be given for His
making the world in such a way that one thing can appear to be true
(and be supported by multitudinous evidence), and yet be utterly
false, while another appears disconfirmed on every ground, but only
because we (falsely) trust the evidence not to have been tampered with
by the Creator. If God did this to test us, then what passes the test
-- which alleged revelation, the world or the Bible, are we expected
to reject? If His motives are utterly unknowable, then we cannot know
His motive for giving us the Bible -- and dare not assume it was to
correctly inform us about anything.
> **********************
>
>
> Stockwell continues:
> > This, of course, works if the theory contains sufficient precision
> > such that there are no inconsistencies.
>
> Pagano replies:
> But it can never contain "sufficient" precision(except in the case of
> some trivial low-level generalizations) which collapses everything he's
> written above.
>
>
> [snip]
>
> [more to follow if time]
>
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-- Steven J.
Steven J.
> [This is a continuation of a reply to Stockwell.]
>
> Stockwell continues:
> > Unfortunately, for Pagano and Goodrich, data will never "speak for itself",
> > but always is a hazy thing that can be whatever Pagano or Goodrich want it > >to be.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Fact of the matter is that Stockwell agreed at the start of his post
> that data DOESN'T "speak for itself." He tried to save this secular
> mantra by asserting that "data" was used metaphorically to mean "data +
> theory." However, this wouldn't be a metaphoric transform but an
> equivocation in the use of the word "data." So when we (Goodrich and I)
> use the figure of speech that "the data is silent" we are being more
> accurate and fostering understanding. We (or at least I) argue that the
> figure of speech "evidence speaks for itself" shouldn't be used at all
> because it is false and misleading.
>
There is not ONE SOLITARY FACT which has emerged in the last few
centuries which supports the predictions a reasonable person would
draw from the tenets of scientific creationism. A great many facts --
radiometric dates, layers of cracked mud and halite interspersed among
the geological column, feathered dinosaurs -- falsify it. You propose
to save it by arguing that evidence means nothing, because we cannot
know that God did not change the laws of nature to disguise the
evidence.
This is VERY different from merely invoking miracles. Miracles are,
in principle, testable. See if one observes the expected
consequences. See if the miracle supports your theory about God's
intentions. To be sure, at the very best, you will get only the
conjectural, corroborative support that all other theories in science
have -- but miracles (i.e. interventions by an intelligent Designer
who operates according to His Own -- knowable or inferable -- nature)
could, in theory, be accomodated by methodological naturalism.
The trouble is, at least as regards origins, we see NO EVIDENCE which
can be explained by the miracles you invoke. They are disconfirmed at
every turn. Your response is to argue that we cannot know how God
chose to operate in the past, or how He might have chosen to make
nature unknowable. Thus you use miracles to explain why we do not see
evidence of miracles, and declare that the expected consequence of
your explanatory mechanism is that we will not be able to test it.
Methodological naturalism cannot accomodate that. No way of thinking
suitable to life outside a lunatic asylum can accomodate explanations
like that -- "evidence for your theory is no reason to believe it's
true; evidence against mine is no reason to believe it false."
>
> By using "the data speaks for itself" secularists have attempted to
> convince the uninformed and indoctrinate the student with the
> (inductive) myth that the evidence points always and only to material
> causes and that level of corroboration is the touchstone of truth. The
> "data" does neither and the data doesn't even tell us if our theories
> are probably true via any known probability calculus.
>
If induction doesn't work, then operation science doesn't exist. No
laws of science exist. Technology exists, but no one knows why.
"Creation science" exists, but, again, no one knows why -- surely not
in hopes of ever explaining anything in terms of general laws of
nature.
> **************************************
>
>
> Stockwell continues:
> >Indeed, there is no such thing as knowledge in the world of the creationist.
> > There is only ambiguity.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Stockwell is indulging in a little hyperbole.
>
> There is no such thing as the classical notion of scientific knowledge
> being secure and sufficiently justified by corroboration; a notion which
> flourishes among today's secular and academic elitists (does that
> include Stockwell?) All this means is that our knowledge is always
> conjectural (which is hardly controversial). Stockwell should satisfy
> himself that our knowledge can be conjectural without necessarily also
> being ambiguous. And even though our knowledge is conjectural we may
> still progress.
>
Again, God has apparently pleased to create a world where knowledge --
except in the form of dogma enforced by the _auto-da-fe_ -- exists
merely as vagrant fashions in opinion. And progress is possible --
presumably in technology, since "progress" in knowledge seems to mean
nothing except a change of fashions -- but we have no way of
accounting for its existence.
>
>
> I'm done.
>
We should be so lucky.
Steven J.
> [This is a continuation of reply to Stockwell.]
>
> Stockwell continues:
> > In other threads I have defined "natural" to
> > mean that we consider "phenomena," which is to say that which we can
> > apprehend
> > with our senses (possibly aided with instrumentation), comprehend with our > > reason,
> > and which we can communicate to others. All else is "supernatural".
>
> Pagano replies:
> Stockwell implies that all material causes associated with a phenomenon
> are observable----this is false. And he implies that supernatural
> causes have no empirical consequences whatsoever----every christian
> knows this is false.
>
associated with a phenomenon are observable? Note that Stockwell did
not require, that in every case, every material cause actually be
observed. But if we cannot observe a cause, how would we ever know it
existed? You say we cannot infer causes with certainty even *with*
evidence, yet here you say, with great certainty, that we can infer
causes with certainty *without* evidence (since if you could not infer
them, you could hardly say that they existed).
Second, I think there is some equivocation in the term "supernatural."
Now, this is admittedly a hobbyhorse of mine, and maybe you're getting
tired of it; pay attention and I'll stop harping on it. Science
infers causes from regularities of (or in) nature. An empirical event
is a miracle by virtue of revealing and advancing God's purposes in
the world. It is NOT simply an event which happens and seems to
violate natural law -- first, how would we know it truly violated
natural law (we could be mistaken about natural law, or about the
nature of the event), and second, a violation of natural law could
simply be a meaningless, uncaused anomaly, pointing to nothing beyond
itself.
To invoke a supernatural cause implies that we can EXPLAIN the event
in terms of a purpose which can explain and predict other events. In
short, to call something a miracle presupposes a theory -- a theory
about an Entity which may, indeed, exist outside the univers, but acts
within it, and acts according to rules (those of His own nature).
Please note that Christians do indeed commonly suppose that God is
bound by His own nature -- God cannot lie, cannot in various other
ways act against His nature, etc. In that sense, a miracle would,
indeed, be a METHODOLOGICALLY NATURALISTIC event -- a phenomenon (in
Stockwell's sense) with a cause which can be explained by a theory.
Thus one could have a theory which allowed for miracles. Please note
that a claim of a miracle, in this sense, could be falsified.
Now, the equivocation of which I speak is this -- "supernatural" is
used not only for miracles in this methodologically naturalistic
sense, but for the vague hope many creationists entertain that science
can somehow accomodate miracles which are NOT phenomena (i.e. with
observable consequences), or which cannot be explained by any theory
of the Creator's motivations. "Supernaturalism" in this latter sense
refers to the refusal to allow any evidence can falsify a claim of a
miracle, because the very nature of the miracle might have left the
same evidence as a non-miraculous event (i.e. the miracle might NOT
have revealed the Creator's purposes or nature).
> *******************************
>
>
> Stockwell continues:
> > Because
> > any statement that is formulatable in the system of the "natural" also has its
> > potential negation in the system of the "supernatural," the system that Pagano
> > and Goodrich operate in is inconsistent, meaning that all statements are
> > both "true" and "false" within that system.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Quite honestly I have used a similar argument against evolutionists who
> are christian who accept both a supernatural Creator AND the truth of
> purely materialistic cosmology, purely materialistic origin of life and
> the purely materialistic explanation for the diversity of life. It is
> they who presupposed the truth of some schizophrenic conjunction of
> "naturalism" and "supernaturalism," not I. It is the creationists who
> have been arguing that "naturalism" and "supernaturalism" are mutually
> exclusive and that naturalism is false.
>
I think Stockwell's point was that "supernaturalism," as he and you
use the term, means not merely miracles as explanations, but miracles
as UNTESTABLE explanations. Any evidence can confirm or disconfirm a
claim of a miracle, according to the taste of the supernaturalist, but
the (naturalistic) scientist faces the possibility that his theory
will be refuted by the evidence.
>
> Again Stockwell's whole argument collapses because his premise that I
> presuppose the truth of some conjunction of "naturalism" and
> "supernaturalism" is plain wrong. And having already argued for the
> falsity of naturalism in another thread with him (which is still current
> on most news servers) one wonders what Stockwell is up to.
>
Does God act in the universe? Do these acts occur according to any
discoverable or testable principles? If so, then miracles are
testable, and can take their place along other phenomena under
methodological naturalism. If not, then "miracles" explain nothing;
they are just labels slapped arbitrarily (they must be arbitrary; if
there were sufficient reason, that would imply a discoverable and
testable principle under which they occur) on various phenomena we
don't yet understand -- a "god of the gaps" approach to theory.
Either God's intervention in the universe is studiable under
methodological naturalism, or it cannot be admitted to science.
>
> [snip]
>
> [more to follow]
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-- Steven J.
Steven J.
> [This is a continuation of reply to Stockwell.]
>
> John Stockwell wrote:
> > Unfortunately, the system that Pagano and Goodrich choose to operate under > > is naturalism+supernaturalism.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> I have argued so many times, in so many different threads for the
> falsity of naturalism that this claim of Stockwell's is inexplicable.
> In fact I have argued for its falsity in another current thread with
> Stockwell. I do presuppose the truth of supernaturalism; naturalism is
> false.
>
> Metaphysical Naturalism proposes that our world is a closed set of only
> material causes and effects that can never (and was never) influenced by
> anything outside of itself. Methodological naturalism as practiced by
> modern secular theorists is indistinquishable from metaphysical
> naturalism. I assert that metaphysical naturalism is false. I
> presuppose the existence of matter and its properties; however, I do not
> conjecture that matter and its properties conjoined with chance is the
> cause of all that we observe.
>
naturalism by this: suppose there is a Creator outside the universe.
Suppose he intervenes in the natural order to produce certain effects
which He desires -- to reveal His nature, and advance His purpose. Is
there any way to test to see whether a given phenomenon is a miracle
(the result of a cause from outside the universe)? If we assume that
even causes from outside the universe exhibit understandable and
discoverable (perhaps with the aid of special revelation) regularities
and lawfulness, and act to produce characteristic sorts of phenomena,
then claims of miracles are testable and falsifiable, and fall under
methodological naturalism. If, contrawise, we assume that we can
never understand how God might choose to intervene in nature; if
"supernaturalism" means that no claim of a miracle can ever be
falsified, then claims of a miracle do not fall under methodological
naturalism -- or under any possible sort of science.
You have your choice. Metaphysical naturalism presumes that miracles
never happen, and there is no Designer or Creator. Methodological
naturalism merely assumes that the Creator and Designer, if He exists
and acts in the universe, follows discoverable rules. Note, by the
way, that if the Creator does NOT follow discoverable rules, you've
got real problems -- you can make no assumptions about His nature, or
His reasons for doing ANYTHING -- including giving you the Bible. You
are certainly entitled to no confidence in His truthfulness or
benevolence, if "supernaturalism" means that God acts in our universe,
but that claims about His actions can never be falsified, because we
cannot say what the empirical consequences of His actions might be.
>
> Supernaturalism proposes that there is a supernatural being who created
> matter and its properties, He created this world and the life in it,
> sustains this world, and influences our world to achieve His purpose.
> Supernaturalism does NOT exclude any objectively true statements and
> propositions about matter or its properties that man can discover.
> Naturalism unequivocally excludes supernaturalism.
>
As noted above, this is not strictly true. Naturalism excludes
untestable statements, or "causes" that act in utterly unpredictable
ways (those would not be causes; they would be arbitrary labels on
unrelated anomalies and unexplained facets of nature).
> ****************************
>
>
> Stockwell continues:
> > In other threads I have defined "natural" to
> > mean that we consider "phenomena," which is to say that which we can apprehend
> > with our senses (possibly aided with instrumentation), comprehend with our reason,
> > and which we can communicate to others. All else is "supernatural".
>
> Pagano replies:
>
> STOCKWELL'S DEFINITION INCLUDES SUPERNATURAL CAUSATION
> Very often we can only observe a part of some "phenomena," that is, we
> may only observe some of the empirical consequences of some unknown
> and/or unseen cause. This is particularly true with regard prehistoric
> events that were unique and non repeating. We cannot see, even aided
> with instrumentation, unique prehistoric causes but we might be able to
> determine and observe their empirical consequences. The scientist can
> invent some material conjectural cause and determine its empirical
> consequences. Usually the cause itself is not experimentally testable
> or observable, but the empirical consequences could be searched for and
> observed or otherwise tested for with instrumentation.
>
In other words, Stockwell is CORRECT when he says you combine
naturalism (what science can study) with supernaturalism (what it
cannot)?
>
> SUPERNATURAL EVENTS CAN HAVE EMPIRICAL CONSEQUENCES
> Scripture records several supernatural causes in both the Old Testament
> and the New that ALL christians (not just evangelical fundamentalists)
> are required to believe as historically true. The supernatural causes
> themselves were not observable but their EMPIRICAL CONSEQUENCES were.
> Such material consequences were observed and recorded. In 1917 75,000
> witnesses (many of whom were atheists and antichristians) came to
> Fatima, Portugal to see if the supernatural event predicted 30 days to
> the hour, in advance, by three illiterate farm children would come
> true. The supernatural cause was not observed but 75,000 people
> attested to the EMPIRICAL CONSEQUENCES. The empirical consequences were
> of such a magnitude that witnesses feared for their lives and thought
> the world was coming to an end. I might add that while some conjectures
> have been advanced as to its material cause none can explain how it is
> that their singular prediction was so accurate.
>
Quibbles on supernatural events in the Bible: Aside from the fact
that Christians were compelled (often violently) to assent to them, is
there actual empirical evidence for the historical reality of the
events in the first ten chapters of Genesis? The empirical
consequences with which I'm familiar do not seem compatible with many
of these events. Please note that "the empirical consequences were
observed and recorded" (aside from the fact that for much of the
Bible, there's no reason to assume that those who recorded it observed
it) leaves open the possibility that those who recorded the events
were mistaken, or meant something other than what we infer they meant.
The Bible is a collection of data, but there are many contending
explanations for that data.
Quibbles on the miracle of Fatima: Did all 75,000 witness the same
phenomenon, or is this an inference based on (possibly biased)
sampling and harmonizing discordant accounts? Given that the
prediction CAUSED the witnesses to be present and in a receptive state
of mind on the specific day, how closely did what was predicted
correspond to what was observed? Note that hundreds of millions of
people in other locations observed that the sun did NOT move, so the
miracle, if such it was, took place in the minds of those present --
could there be a naturalistic explanation for this event? In any
case, were I to grant that this was a genuine miracle, is there
equivalent evidence that, say, the universe is less than 10,000 years
old, or than anything except common descent explains the diversity of
life on earth, or any other tenet of creation science?
>
> A potential problem for creationists is determining if the empirical
> consequences of a particular supernatural cause is distinquishable from
> some conjectured but equally unobservable material cause.
>
Yes, that IS a problem. However, the real problem with creationism is
distinguishing empirical consequences which falsify any rational
theory of creation, from empirical consequences which might confirm
such a theory.
>
> [snip]
>
> [more to follow if time permits]
>
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-- Steven J.
Stew Dean
the meme pool:
>[This is a continuation of a reply to Stockwell.]
>
>Stockwell continues:
>> Unfortunately, for Pagano and Goodrich, data will never "speak for itself",
>> but always is a hazy thing that can be whatever Pagano or Goodrich want it to
>> be.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Fact of the matter is that Stockwell agreed at the start of his post
>that data DOESN'T "speak for itself."
The fact of the matter is Stockwell is saying the data will never
speak for its self if you can't comprehend it.
Which is exactly what you've just done with Stockwell's quote.
That does speak for it's self.
> He tried to save this secular
>mantra by asserting that "data" was used metaphorically to mean "data +
>theory."
You can't have a theory without Data. Without data you just have a
hypothesis. This is why creationism is not a theory and the path of
human evolution is. Come to think if it there is not even a theory of
god.
> However, this wouldn't be a metaphoric transform but an
>equivocation in the use of the word "data." So when we (Goodrich and I)
>use the figure of speech that "the data is silent" we are being more
>accurate and fostering understanding.
Information is Data in context (that is many elements of Data that
corralate and overlap). Knowledge is built from Information. So the
less your information matches up to other bits of information the less
it's likely to be good information.
This is not vauge stuff but can be seen in information theory. Also
alot of work is done working out what is good and bad information -
what is all the data really telling us. Data is only silent if you
never ask it a question in effect.
>We (or at least I) argue that the
>figure of speech "evidence speaks for itself" shouldn't be used at all
>because it is false and misleading.
The evidence should lead to the same conclusion in different people
independent of anyone like you. To assume you need a spokesperson for
the evidence is not understanding what it means to be objective. If
what something means has to be explained there is clearly information
missing - it is therefore likely to be subjective.
>By using "the data speaks for itself" secularists have attempted to
>convince the uninformed and indoctrinate the student with the
>(inductive) myth that the evidence points always and only to material
>causes and that level of corroboration is the touchstone of truth.
No. That's paranoid rubbish. By saying the data speaks for it's self
it is mearly saying 'we are confident we are right - please look at
the evidence and draw your own conclusions'. What don't want people to
ignore all the data that has lead to where our general knowledge is
today simply because the next person who looks at it may find out
something we may have missed. There is far too much data for anyone
person to go through even in their life time. The more people explore
it the closer we get to finding out what is happeing and what
happened.
I fit in the 'we are confident' group. If evolution doesnt exist then
that's not what the data doesnt tell us what does. In other words
Darwin need not have existed for us to be having this converstation -
evolution was enevitably part of our common understanding.
Religions are dependent on key people. No christ - no christians
etc...
> The
>"data" does neither and the data doesn't even tell us if our theories
>are probably true via any known probability calculus.
That is false. No data - no theory. See above.
Stewart Dean - ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
alife guide - http://www.webslave.dircon.co.uk/alife
Stew Dean
added to the meme pool:
>The trouble is, at least as regards origins, we see NO EVIDENCE which
>can be explained by the miracles you invoke. They are disconfirmed at
>every turn. Your response is to argue that we cannot know how God
>chose to operate in the past, or how He might have chosen to make
>nature unknowable. Thus you use miracles to explain why we do not see
>evidence of miracles, and declare that the expected consequence of
>your explanatory mechanism is that we will not be able to test it.
>Methodological naturalism cannot accomodate that. No way of thinking
>suitable to life outside a lunatic asylum can accomodate explanations
>like that -- "evidence for your theory is no reason to believe it's
>true; evidence against mine is no reason to believe it false."
Well put.
If we throw away reason - how can we have a discussion? It simply
makes no sense and you might as well argue that the moon does not
exist, for example, if you choose not to look at data.
That fact nearly everyone has seen the moon would mean nothing.
Stewart Dean - ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
wf...@ptd.net
>
> Pagano replies:
>I seems to me that Goodrich's supernatural argument explains creation
>and some of the abilities that the rest of the animal kingdom don't
>have. Our ability to create new ideas, new conjectural knowledge, and
>invent new theories is inexplicable in purely naturalistic terms.
which has nothing to do with evolution since this was never part of
evolutionary theory. nor was basket weaving, or watching 'leave it to
beaver' on TV. pagano is engaging in postmodernism....attempting, as
creationists do...to destroy the very notion of an objectively
existing universe in order to prove an objectively existing god.
>> The
>> theologian R.C. Sproul argues that science cannot (or at least has
>> not) told us what energy *is,* but only what it does. This does not
>> mean that energy, or matter, or gravity, or any of several phenomena
>> of which the same claim could be made, are not natural phenomena.
>> They exist and act in our universe. They demonstrate certain
>> regularities which may be inferred and studied.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Creationists don't deny the existence of matter and its properties or
>that there exists regularities in nature.
sure they do. their assertion that 'we cant know what happened at the
big bang because no one was there', in spite of the presence of the
laws of physics, is EXACTLY an attempt to deny 'regularities' (read
'laws') in nature.
creationism can be true ONLY if nature is based on random chance, and
chaos, with no laws of nature. in that case, supernaturalism IS an
explanation, since anything can happen, and does. there are no
regularities...magic rules.
Steven J.
> Steven J continues:
> > Charles Darwin not merely admitted, but insisted on this: evidence
> > must be evidence for or against some hypothesis to be evidence at all.
> > And certainly, evidence is interpreted in light of theories. The
> > progressive refutation of various scientific assumptions, to which you
> > so often allude, is evidence that evidence is not always interpreted
> > as CONFIRMING these theories -- except when "creation scientists" are
> > proposing the "theories" and evaluating the evidence.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Not sure what the label "progressive refutation" refers to nor am I
> really sure which scientific assumptions you are talking about. And in
> the 1400+ posts I've made in the last 5 years I'd hazard a guess that
> less than a dozen describe or defend the creation model in any detail.
> Please produce a link to a single post of mine where I assert (or even
> imply) that corroborative evidence is of greater value when it applies
> to the creation model.
>
month, on the grounds of its clarity and elegance. I fear I do not
deserve this honor, as you (a major part of its target audience) have
misunderstood every single point I have attempted to make.
First, "progressive refutation" means merely (as you yourself have
pointed out many times -- must I cite examples?) that previously
well-supported theories have been unable to accomodate new evidence,
and been overturned by it instead, (thus, "refutation") and the
theories which replaced them have been overturned in their turn (thus,
"progressive"). Thus, it is shown that not all possible evidence can
be interpreted in terms of, and as supporting, an established
paradigm.
I said nothing about your views concerning corroboration of the
creation model -- although I meant to imply, later on, that I deny any
such model exists to be corroborated.
> ****************************
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Goodrich wrote:
> > > Indeed, since secularists are precommited to a
> > > naturalistic-materialist-reductionist "explanation". But if man is more than
> > > a mere collection of 'particles' moving in concert, then his thoughts, will,
> > > and spirit cannot be analyzed by materialism redux. Thus man is not then a
> > > purely natural entity; the results of his action cannot be explained as the
> > > result of natural law. This would imply that man is "supernatural" (in the
> > > literal sense of the term), and the results he produces likewise.
>
>
> Steven J replied:
> > (1st) If man is indeed more than a "mere" collection of particles,
> > then his mind cannot be explained by materialism. However, there is a
> > difference between "cannot be explained" and "has not been (fully and
> > convincingly, even to the most biased and scientifically illiterate)
> > explained." It does not follow that because the human mind *has not*
> > been explained, in materialist terms, to your satisfaction, that it
> > *cannot* be so explained.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I should note that "has not fully explained" while not the equivalent to
> "cannot explain" is also not an argument in favor of metaphysical
> naturalism.
>
Noted and conceded, in the original post.
>
> Next, Goodrich does not argue that because the mind has not been
> explained in materialistic terms that it cannot be explained that way.
> And finally, the modern secular notion that all observations are, in
> principle (even if not in practice), explanable with reference to matter
> and its properties alone is NOT a first order claim "of" science but a
> metaphysical claim "about" science.
>
Tony, Goodrich does not argue at all; he makes vague assertions. He's
worse than you in that regard. My point is that he does not present
any reason to accept those assertions, except the assertions
themselves.
By the way, a major point of this post is that "modern secular
science" does NOT hold that all observations are in principle
explainable with reference to matter and its properties. Rather,
modern secular science holds that all observations are explained in
terms of general principles acting in a uniform manner. They need not
pertain to matter; they could in principle pertain to any sort of
regularly acting cause. To be a cause, something needs to act
according to regularities or laws; if it does not, it is not a cause
(just a label attached arbitrarily to uncomprehended phenomena).
Science demands that every explanation be in terms of regularities and
laws, acting in nature (and therefore natural laws); that is what
"explanation" means.
>
> And Steven J is arguing with an unfounded confidence about his
> materialistic philosophy. Modern secular science has not produced a
> detailed, testable theory of how the basic building block of life---that
> is, the cell----came to be in the first place let alone how the complex
> organs such as the brain and eye came to be. There are only vague
> stories (natural selection plus random mutation did it all). As near
> as I can determine there does not exist a single fossil creature which
> exhibits the existence in prehistory of nascent structures---that is,
> structures which represent the beginnings of new structure which did not
> previously exist.
>
I have little interest in the deficiencies of your understanding of
paleontology. It is actually irrelevant to my point, in this post,
that materialism be true, or that miracles be false (and those two
claims are not synonymous, by the way). You have argued nothing here
that I did not concede in the original post, and you have done it at
tedious length.
> ***********************
>
>
> Steven J continues:
> > In other words, there are insufficient
> > grounds for your dogmatic assertion that man is not a purely material
> > entity.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Goodrich didn't intend to present a treatise on supernaturalism, but you
> agreed that if his premise was true that your metaphysical naturalism
> was false. That's certainly a good start. And I can't stress enough
> that this is a metaphysical question not an empirical one. Secularists
> are loathe to admit this.
>
I am defending methodological naturalism.
Furthermore, I agreed only that if humans have a nonphysical
component, then materialism is false. That would not prove that
methodological naturalism (the idea that claims should be testable) is
false; it would not even prove that metaphysical naturalism is false.
It would only prove that the universe contained some phenomena which
are not material. Call in dualistic metaphysical naturalism (the idea
that spirits exist, and are natural phenomena), as opposed to
materialistic metaphysical naturalism. In other words, "spirit" could
conceivably be a purely natural, uncreated phenomenon, as much so as
hydrogen, but governed by its own laws and regularities rather than
those of physics. If this is true, then science is incomplete, since
we have no detailed theory of spirit, but such a theory need not, so
far as I can see, invoke a creator any more that a theory of atoms, or
a theory of gravity.
> *********************
>
>
> Steven J continues:
> > In point of fact, your antimaterialism is at some small pains
> > to explain the demonstrated impact upon personality and thought by
> > brain injuries and many drugs, or the observable changes in brains
> > during different sorts of mental activities. Our minds are evidently
> > at least partly materialistic in nature and function.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> I seems to me that Goodrich's supernatural argument explains creation
> and some of the abilities that the rest of the animal kingdom don't
> have. Our ability to create new ideas, new conjectural knowledge, and
> invent new theories is inexplicable in purely naturalistic terms. The
> claim that our minds our "partly" materialistic in nature and function
> is not an argument against Goodrich's. And the fact that function can
> be impaired by injury and drugs is a recognition of our material
> fallibility and frailty.
>
No, explanations are, I insist, in terms of general laws. They can
explain, why *this* and not *that.* Creationism does not explain, it
pastes the labels "creation" or "miracle" or "design" over the gaps in
our knowledge. Your own explanation of why function can be impaired
(or restored, sometimes and to some extent) by drugs is an example --
"our own fallibility and frailty" is just another term for "aspects of
ourselves that are explainable in material terms."
> ***********************
>
>
> Steven J continues:
> > (2nd) If man is not a purely material entity, that is *still* not
> > enough to prove that man is not a purely natural entity.
>
> Pagano replies:
> This conditional is contradictory and nonsensical.
>
False, and obviously so. If I understand you correctly, you, and
Goodrich, side with Descartes in saying we have both a material body,
governed by the laws of physics, and a nonmaterial spirit governed by
other laws, nonphysical laws. Both the body and the spirit exist in
nature. Both have their own characteristic natures, which they obey.
They are thus natural entities. This is true whether or not they owe
their existence to a Creator. If God creates a rock, the act is
supernatural -- but is the rock? Likewise, if God creates a spirit,
or soul, it is still an entity with its own nature and laws, acting
and existing in our universe. Man is a purely natural entity, within
the meaning of methodological naturalism, regardless of his origin.
> *******************
>
> Steven J continues:
> > The
> > theologian R.C. Sproul argues that science cannot (or at least has
> > not) told us what energy *is,* but only what it does. This does not
> > mean that energy, or matter, or gravity, or any of several phenomena
> > of which the same claim could be made, are not natural phenomena.
> > They exist and act in our universe. They demonstrate certain
> > regularities which may be inferred and studied.
>
> Pagano replies:
> Creationists don't deny the existence of matter and its properties or
> that there exists regularities in nature. Creationists don't deny that
> we may conjecture the existence of such regularities and test for them.
> Unfortunately Sproul's position is not an argument in favor of the
> metaphysical claim that all observations are, in principle, explanable
> in terms of matter and its properties.
>
*sign* IT IS *NO* PART OF MY ARGUMENT THAT ALL OBSERVATIONS ARE, IN
PRINCIPLE, EXPLANABLE IN TERMS OF MATTER AND ITS PROPERTIES.
Tony, the irony of this is that I came to the conclusions in this post
by trying to figure out WHY science cannot deal with supernatural
claims. It seemed to me that this statement was either arrogance
masquerading as humility, or a secular version of the ontological
proof of God, an attempt to win an argument by playing word games.
Sproul's statement was one aid in coming to an understanding.
"Natural" does not mean, "materialistic" or "explainable in terms of
the laws of physics;" it means, "operating in our universe, under
observable, inferable regularities." A nonmaterialistic naturalism is
possible in principle, assuming that it somehow effects material
things (since our senses are material. How, exactly, a nonmaterial
cause could produce material effects (the "ghost in the machine"
problem) is a classic mystery with this sort of dualism, but it does
NOT render dualism "supernaturalist;" at most it renders it
incoherent.
The other insight was a passage in Johnson's _Darwin on Trial_ in
which in confronts a version of the "panda's thumb" argument. The
argument is that a rational intelligent Designer would not use the
imperfect, jury-rigged designs that pop up so often in nature.
Johnson retorted that scientists should do science, and not insert
theological arguments. This struck me with the force of a blow: the
ID crowd wants to invoke God as an explanatory mechanism, but without
making theological statements! It is as if Newton's theory of gravity
refused to say anything about how gravity was supposed to work. Of
course, the ID crowd would like to make all sorts of statements about
God, and back them up with the authority of science, but without the
necessity of making them testable and exposing them to falsification.
At last I truly understood WHY methodological (NOT metaphysical)
naturalism is necessary to science.
I argue that all observations WHICH ARE EXPLAINABLE AT ALL are, in
principle, explainable in terms of regularities which occur in nature.
Some of these regularities pertain to matter and energy (the laws of
physics). Some may pertain to phenomena, created or otherwise, which
are not governed by the laws of physics but which produce effects on
matter and energy, and are governed by laws of their own (the
hypothetical laws of spirit). Some may pertain to a Creator who does
not exist in the universe at all, but acts in it according to the laws
of His own Nature, which may be discovered or revealed. All
explanations are, however, in terms of regular laws.
An observation which cannot be explained in terms of natural laws
(whether the laws concern the nature of matter, or spirit, or the
Creator) cannot be explained at all. It will forever remain an
anomaly, a mystery, an event which can be neither understood nor
attributed to any cause. An explanation which is not in terms of
natural laws is a contradiction in terms; such things are meaningless
labels, not explanations.
> ********************
>
>
>
> Steven J continues:
> > Interestingly, the
> > same is true of our minds, REGARDLESS of what they are and how they
> > work. Even granting your assumption that minds can never be explained
> > in terms of matter and energy, it does not follow that they do not
> > exist, and follow the laws of their own nature, in our universe. Our
> > minds are "natural," in precisely the sense that anything else studied
> > by science is. So are the results they produce.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> I find this to be mostly incomprehensible. No one claims that our brain
> is not material or that it does not exist. The question is: can its
> creation be explained in purely materialistic terms? Can its function,
> like our ability to create new information and new knowledge be
> explained, even in principle, in purely materialistic terms? Steven J
> fails to realize that his commitment to the principle that every
> observation and event can, in principle, be explained in purely
> materialistic terms is a metaphysical claim about science not a first
> order claim of science.
>
You have understood nothing that I have said.
I think this may be deliberate. As long as you can pretend that I am
advocating unrelenting materialism and atheism as the only basis of
science, you can stare aghast at my obstinence and arrogance.
If you admit that all I am asking is that the creation model be an
actual model -- that it make some testable predictions, and that you
stop implying that miracles the Bible does not mention are an
acceptable explanation for why we see no evidence of some of the
miracles it DOES mention -- then you must admit that the creationist
enterprise is hopeless.
The "supernaturalism" of creation science offers no explanation in
terms of God's nature and purposes for the material aspects of
creation. It offers no falsifiable hypotheses. It depends,
critically, on conflating two very different meanings of
"supernatural:" one, that some phenomena have testable explantions in
terms of general rules that are not confined to, and do not originate
in, the created universe, and two, that some phenomena have
"explanations" in terms of no general rules whatsoever, untestable
even in principle.
I am open to supernaturalism in the first sense, though skeptical of
it; I think that methodological naturalism is open to supernaturalism
in the first sense.
I am not, methodological naturalism is not, and science cannot be,
open to "explanations" that defy the very definition of the term,
"definition."
> ********************
>
>
> snip
>
> more to follow if time permits
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-- Steven J.
Testing
"Stew Dean" <stew...@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3b2e79e5...@news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Pagano's argument ends up being indistinguishable from
solipsism.
Elmer Bataitis
> Stockwell implies that all material causes associated with a phenomenon
> are observable----this is false.
Give us examples otherwise Tony.
> And he implies that supernatural
> causes have no empirical consequences whatsoever----every christian
> knows this is false.
Again Tony, this is contradicted by the existence of other religions.
Why the discrepency otherwise? But I for one would love to hear you
expound on the evidence for the existence of "supernaturalism" and why
"naturalism" is false as you claim. You use nothing but "naturalism".
You have never once communicated to this newsgroup "supernaturally".
Why?
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
Proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor,
the straight jacket of conventional thought.
**********************************************************
John Stockwell
>> The statement "the evidence speaks for itself" is a metaphor for that condition
>> that arises in science, when the formal system of theory+evidence gives an
>> unambiguous: 'true' or 'false' for an answer.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Certainly "the evidence speaks for itself" is a figure of speech. I'll
>leave it to everyone to check their dictionaries and satisfy themselves
>that transferring the term "evidence" to the collective "theory +
>evidence" is not a metaphoric use of the label "evidence" but an
>equivocal one. If "evidence" (in its uneqivocal use) is "silent" in the
>absence of theory then the correct figure of speech should be "the
>evidence is silent." This is also NOT a metaphor.
>
>One might, in principle, logically conclude that a theory is false if
>one finds an observation prohibited by the theory. Nonetheless no set
>of corroborative observations (no matter how large) can "tell" us
>whether the theory is "unambiguously" true. The use of the adjective
>"unambiguous" when used to modify "truth" seems to indicate a
>fundamental understanding. Since there is no criterion for determining
>whether a theory is objectively true how in the world can the formal
>system of theory+evidence give an unabiguous 'true' for an answer?"
>Perhaps Stockwell can answer this.
We do not test "theories," we test predictions made by theories. For example,
the Michelson-Morely experiment demonstrated that speed of the Earth's motion through
space was neither added nor subtracted from the value from the speed of light, as
measured by their very elegant apparatus. Thus, the prediction from the naive theory
of the aether that the speed of light should obey this law was shown to be
shown unambiguously and unequivocably to be wrong. One might say that the data
"spoke for itself" in that situation.
>************************************
>
>
>Stockwell continues:
>> (In science, such statements are
>> more likely probabilistic, but the idea is the same.)
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>As far as I know there is no existing probability calculus which can
>"convert" level of corroboration into some objective probability that
>the theory conjoined to the evidence is true. Bayensians do nothing of
>the sort. Since mathematics is Stockwell's strong area, perhaps he
>could produce such a probability calculus. However, if he can I would
>suggest he save it for publication since such a discovery would place
>him in the history books.
The issue of how scientists actually *do* inferences is an unresolved one, but it
is also irrelevant to our discussion. How scientists *report* their results
is the issue. That is currently done with a variety of statistical prescriptions.
>**********************
>
>
>Stockwell continues:
>> This, of course, works if the theory contains sufficient precision
>> such that there are no inconsistencies.
>
> Pagano replies:
>But it can never contain "sufficient" precision(except in the case of
>some trivial low-level generalizations) which collapses everything he's
>written above.
Hardly. The history of science is filled with instances where significant results
turned the tide of science. Of course, if Pagano wants to argue that these are generally
in hindsight, I would agree with him. The history of science as presented by scientists
is not the true history, but a didactical aid push students in the direction of the
newest results, without miring them in the issues of the past. Indeed, such histories
also reflect the nature of scientific papers.
Scientific papers are not records of experiments and observations, but are rather
reports written a formalized language, with the intent of presenting a condensed
treatment of the relevant issues a fashion, allowing the reader to have access
to the most relevant parts of the the author's results. The reader may then make use
of the author's result for further work.
Of course, no scientific theory can be "sufficient in precision" for Pagano and
other "dark skeptics of Biblical literalism."
>T Pagano
--
John Stockwell | jo...@dix.Mines.EDU
Center for Wave Phenomena (The Home of Seismic Un*x)
Colorado School of Mines
Golden, CO 80401 | http://www.cwp.mines.edu/cwpcodes
voice: (303) 273-3049
Our new book:
Norman Bleistein, Jack K. Cohen, John W. Stockwell Jr., [2001],
Mathematics of multidimensional seismic imaging, migration, and inversion,
(Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics, V. 13.), Springer-Verlag, New York.
John Stockwell
>
>John Stockwell wrote:
>> Unfortunately, the system that Pagano and Goodrich choose to operate under is
>> naturalism+supernaturalism.
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>I have argued so many times, in so many different threads for the
>falsity of naturalism that this claim of Stockwell's is inexplicable.
>In fact I have argued for its falsity in another current thread with
>Stockwell. I do presuppose the truth of supernaturalism; naturalism is
>false.
It is irrelevant to the practice of science whether or not Naturalism is false.
>Metaphysical Naturalism proposes that our world is a closed set of only
>material causes and effects that can never (and was never) influenced by
>anything outside of itself.
Yes. That is true.
>Methodological naturalism as practiced by
>modern secular theorists is indistinquishable from metaphysical
>naturalism.
Metaphysical naturalism is not "practised" it is either believed or not believed.
Metaphysical naturalism is a "worldview philosophy," a grand leap of saying "this
is the way the world is".
Methodological naturalism (as I have defined it) is treating phenomena as they are
identified (apprehended through the human senses, possibly augmented through intrumentation),
comprehendable through human reason, and communicatable through human language. That's
the methodology part. The metaphysical part is that we expect, based on the fact that
we do not live in a world that is chaotic, that such communication occur in a formalized
language which can be made free of ambiguities and contradictions. This is merely
a formalization of "common sense" at the most basic level. Indeed, the results of
methdological naturalism is to say "this is the way the world appears to be, today".
At most, the believer in Metaphysical Naturalism can say that the results of science
are consistent with Metaphysical Naturalism.
>I assert that metaphysical naturalism is false. I
>presuppose the existence of matter and its properties; however, I do not
>conjecture that matter and its properties conjoined with chance is the
>cause of all that we observe.
>
>Supernaturalism proposes that there is a supernatural being who created
>matter and its properties, He created this world and the life in it,
>sustains this world, and influences our world to achieve His purpose.
>Supernaturalism does NOT exclude any objectively true statements and
>propositions about matter or its properties that man can discover.
>Naturalism unequivocally excludes supernaturalism.
Metaphysical naturalism may indeed be false and some form of supernaturalism may indeed
be true. Indeed, that which we call "gravity" and describe by mathematical equations
may, indeed, be the Finger of God, always applying the same touch, always behaving
regularly. So, in this kind of supernaturalism, which would be more properly
called "Super Naturalism", our methods of science would allow us to study phenomena
that we could apprehend with our senses (possibly augmented by instrumentation),
formulate explanations and theories that we could understand with our reason, and
communicate with our precise language. Hence, methodological naturalism is also
consistent with "Super Naturalism" of this variety. Indeed, this sort of Super Natural
Deity is like the Deity of Spinoza, or the Deity of the Deists.
Now, of course, if this was the sort of deity that Pagano was interested in having
us accept, then there would be no problem. The only difference between mainstream science
and "Spinoza-science" would be that, in addition to the scientifically-derived description
of phenomena in terms of models, Spinoza-science would include the interpretation that
these items in terms of the will of God or God's plan.
This isn't the kind of science that Pagano is proposing, however. Being a Biblicist,
Pagano wants to view all of the items in the Bible, most importantly *including
those which are not comprehensible by human reason*, as being "scientific evidence",
or "scientific facts". Because Pagano believes in the Bible absolutely (or more
precisely, his literalist interpretation of it), his
view of this evidence is that it has to be "absolute", which is where the problem
occurs.
For the sake of argument, let us accept the Bible as a source of scientific evidence.
If we follow the rules of science we must be free to test this evidence and accept
or discount it, based purely on the methods of science. Many of the events recounted
in the Bible have no parallel in our day to day world, and therefore cannot be
evaluated in a scientific way. Some inferences from the Bible, such as the claim that
the sediments we observe around the world were deposited in global flood or
that the earth is only a few thousand years old, are scientifically testable.
By our current scientific understanding (which includes worldwide geological
investigations) there is little reason to believe in a worldwide flood, or that
the earth is only a few thousand years old.
By the rules of conventional science, the scientific evidence against the young
earth global flood view of the world is so strong that overwhelming majority of
earth scientists do not give this view a second thought when evaluating
observations and doing day to day geological investigations.
In Pagano-science, we are required, however, to believe in the young-earth global-flood
scenario, absolutely. To do this requires an endless series of ad hoc assumptions,
to the point that the mechanisms required to justify this are either absurd or
are beyond human comprehension. At the very least the Pagano world requires
the acceptance of "fact" which are mutually exclusive with the continuum of observations
of geology.
Hence, in the Pagano world the combination of supernaturalism + methodological
naturalism yields a system which is not internally consistent, as I have pointed
out in previous messages.
>****************************
>
>Stockwell continues:
>> In other threads I have defined "natural" to
>> mean that we consider "phenomena," which is to say that which we can apprehend
>> with our senses (possibly aided with instrumentation), comprehend with our reason,
>> and which we can communicate to others. All else is "supernatural".
>
> Pagano replies:
>
>STOCKWELL'S DEFINITION INCLUDES SUPERNATURAL CAUSATION
>Very often we can only observe a part of some "phenomena," that is, we
>may only observe some of the empirical consequences of some unknown
>and/or unseen cause. This is particularly true with regard prehistoric
>events that were unique and non repeating. We cannot see, even aided
>with instrumentation, unique prehistoric causes but we might be able to
>determine and observe their empirical consequences. The scientist can
>invent some material conjectural cause and determine its empirical
>consequences. Usually the cause itself is not experimentally testable
>or observable, but the empirical consequences could be searched for and
>observed or otherwise tested for with instrumentation.
Actually, we do have "instrumentation" that gives us information about the past,
which is to say, we have physical evidence provided by the rocks. The assumption
of uniformity of the laws of physics allows us to model the processes, which
may have made those rocks, and our ability to compare our expectations to what
we see in the rocks allows us to test those ideas. If physics were grossly
different in the past, we would see a total collection of inconsistent results,
so we can say that the technique works, in that it provides a consistent
collection of answers.
>SUPERNATURAL EVENTS CAN HAVE EMPIRICAL CONSEQUENCES
>Scripture records several supernatural causes in both the Old Testament
>and the New that ALL christians (not just evangelical fundamentalists)
>are required to believe as historically true. The supernatural causes
>themselves were not observable but their EMPIRICAL CONSEQUENCES were.
>Such material consequences were observed and recorded.
There is a vast difference between sectarian requirements of belief and
history. There is little that is "verifiable" from independent historical
sources regarding many events in the Bible. There is even less in the way
of physical evidence to study regarding many of those events. Indeed, we
might argue that the only "history" that exists in the Bible consists of
those events and descriptions, which can be agreed upon as being true by
*every expert* regardless of his or her sectarian or religious beliefs.
> In 1917 75,000
>witnesses (many of whom were atheists and antichristians) came to
>Fatima, Portugal to see if the supernatural event predicted 30 days to
>the hour, in advance, by three illiterate farm children would come
>true. The supernatural cause was not observed but 75,000 people
>attested to the EMPIRICAL CONSEQUENCES. The empirical consequences were
>of such a magnitude that witnesses feared for their lives and thought
>the world was coming to an end. I might add that while some conjectures
>have been advanced as to its material cause none can explain how it is
>that their singular prediction was so accurate.
>
>A potential problem for creationists is determining if the empirical
>consequences of a particular supernatural cause is distinquishable from
>some conjectured but equally unobservable material cause.
I have discussed this in another thread.
The only reports of this event that we have of this are from two newspaper accounts.
The nature of the "event" was not predicted, only that it would be seen by
"everyone". The event was not seen by "everyone". The newspaper articles claimed that
the events were witnessed by 50,000 people (a number that has become inflated to
75,000), but actually only recounts the witness reports of three people.
Given the fact that what people reported, which was seeing the Sun appear to bounce around,
we can either concluded that people were staring at the Sun and experiencing an
autokinetic effect, or that what was seen has no scientific explanation.
John Stockwell
>
>> In other threads I have defined "natural" to
>> mean that we consider "phenomena," which is to say that which we can apprehend
>> with our senses (possibly aided with instrumentation), comprehend with our reason,
>> and which we can communicate to others. All else is "supernatural".
>
> Pagano replies:
>causes have no empirical consequences whatsoever----every christian
>knows this is false.
Pagano should try to read what I wrote.
As I said above, "phenomena" (look up the meaning of the word in the dictionary some
time) are those things which we can apprehend with our senses, comprehend with our
reason, and communicate information about to others.
We do not necessarily apprehend every aspect of phenomena. However, because we have
a requirement that we must be able to "comprehend phenomena with human reason" those
aspects of phenomena which are unobservable, must be comprehendable by human reason.
Now, a person claiming to experience a supernatural event may or may not be apprehending
anything with their senses, but have some emotional experience which they may or may not
be able to communicate with human language. Ultimately, however, they are attempting to
characterize or explain that event as something that is beyond human reason.
Pagano's point that "every Christian knows..." points out the subjectiveness of claims
of the supernatural. The supernatural is not part of "common knowledge", nor is it
"common sense" or any extension of "common sense" for this reason.
>*******************************
>
>
>Stockwell continues:
>> Because
>> any statement that is formulatable in the system of the "natural" also has its
>> potential negation in the system of the "supernatural," the system that Pagano
>> and Goodrich operate in is inconsistent, meaning that all statements are
>> both "true" and "false" within that system.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Quite honestly I have used a similar argument against evolutionists who
>are christian who accept both a supernatural Creator AND the truth of
>purely materialistic cosmology, purely materialistic origin of life and
>the purely materialistic explanation for the diversity of life. It is
>they who presupposed the truth of some schizophrenic conjunction of
>"naturalism" and "supernaturalism," not I. It is the creationists who
>have been arguing that "naturalism" and "supernaturalism" are mutually
>exclusive and that naturalism is false.
>
>Again Stockwell's whole argument collapses because his premise that I
>presuppose the truth of some conjunction of "naturalism" and
>"supernaturalism" is plain wrong. And having already argued for the
>falsity of naturalism in another thread with him (which is still current
>on most news servers) one wonders what Stockwell is up to.
When I say "natural" above, I mean "natural in methodology", not "metaphysical naturalism".
Pagano's failure to understand the difference between the two, combined with his requirement
of the absolute truth of a particular interpretation of the Biblical, that is the source of
his erroneous argument that a person cannot simultaneously accept the existence of a
supernatural Creator and accept the results of mainstream science.
>Regards,
John Stockwell
>>Indeed, there is no such thing as knowledge in the world of the creationist.
>> There is only ambiguity.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Stockwell is indulging in a little hyperbole.
>
>There is no such thing as the classical notion of scientific knowledge
>being secure and sufficiently justified by corroboration; a notion which
>flourishes among today's secular and academic elitists (does that
>include Stockwell?) All this means is that our knowledge is always
>conjectural (which is hardly controversial). Stockwell should satisfy
>himself that our knowledge can be conjectural without necessarily also
>being ambiguous. And even though our knowledge is conjectural we may
>still progress.
Actually, no. In the world of science we all accept that our knowledge is tentative
and dependent on the current findings of our investigations. We don't insist
on "absolute" knowledge or that the results of science yield absolute knowledge. To us,
tentative is good enough. Why? Because we trust the process of science to eliminate
the errors, and we trust our fellow scientists to play by the rules. We trust, as well,
that if our fellow scienists do not play by the rules, the truth will come out, anyway.
The mindset of the Biblical literalist is quite different. It is that of the extreme
skeptic who trusts no one and nothing that can be identified as "of this world"
or a "work of Man". The Biblical literalist trusts only in his or her interpretation
of Scripture. Indeed, that world must be defended at all cost, even though that
view may contain profound contradictions, and may conflict profoundly with the
everyday world. Unfortunately for Biblical literalist, he does not realize that
his "everyday world" also contains the results of modern science.
>I'm done.
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
>
>
--
Dene Bebbington
Steven J. wrote in message
<127ccf2e.01061...@posting.google.com>...
This reminds me of a TV programme I saw some time ago. There was a group of
believers who claimed that the sun changed colour. It struck me as being not
too surprising that frequently looking at the sun (as they did at the time
of the supposed miraculous event) could well give the appearance of it
changing colour.
[...]
--
Dene Bebbington
"Miller, still with a stake in the old socialist faith surveys
the immediate scene against the distant vision of the just
city, and his indignation stems from the assumption that
men could act better than they do" - Irving Wardle