Is evolution science or philosophy: How to view the arguments?
darth_versive
evolution is a philosophy or a religion, and that accepting it is
tantamount to believing in a "naturalistic worldview," which denies
the existence of God or anything supernatural.
I would argue that creationists, and more broadly speaking,
evangelicals and fundamentalists in general, are overlooking an
important distinction between science on the one hand, and religious
or philosophical systems on the other.
There's a clear distinction between philosophical naturalism (also
called ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism) and science,
which involves methodological naturalism. This distinction is
apparent to anyone who has ever seriously studied science and
philosophy.
Science makes no metaphysical claims regarding whether everything that
exists is part of the natural realm and whether the supernatural does
or doesn't exist. Science is silent on the issue.
Therefore, one can accept the theory of evolution as good science, and
at the same time, one can believe in one or another religious system
involving a supernatural deity or deities. And many good scientists
do exactly this.
The problem, as we know, is that certain religious systems teach that
their deity or deities were directly involved in the process of
creation, and that that process involved specific miracles rather than
the sorts of natural processes studied by science. Therefore, they
can't reconcile what science teaches with their existing theology and
religious tradition; and they're not willing or able to give this up.
Therefore, they reject modern science--at least those parts of it
which encroach upon those parts of their creation stories which are
important to them to believe for theological reasons.
It's a very interesting psychological and cultural phenomenon, from a
social scientific perspective (although I realize that it doesn't seem
so very interesting to those pro-science folks who keep banging their
heads against a brick wall by trying to reason with those people who
hold to such dogmatic theological views).
It may be that these pro-science folks are destined to continue
banging their heads against this particular brick wall indefinitely,
seeing as how all these philosophical arguments and all this empirical
evidence that demonstrate that evolution is science, not philosophy or
religion, makes so much sense that they feel compelled to continue to
point it out; and seeing as how those who are locked into such
dogmatic theological views don't seem to be weakening in their faith,
in spite of all attempts to get them to see reason and face facts. So
it's something akin to an irresistible force meeting an immovable
object.
So it's a source of unending frustration to many in the pro-science
community. But at the same time, it's a source of unending
fascination for many others in the pro-science community who look at
it from a social science perspective. It's the equivalent of a
star-gazer being treated to a non-stop show of supernovae, comets,
meteor showers, and solar and lunar eclipses. It's just too good to
pass up.
DV
Mark Earnest
"darth_versive" <darth_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8e0e3045.04011...@posting.google.com...
God is fact. Evolution is fact, too. Science and religion have nothing to
do with it. See things from the total perspective.
Steve Knight
<mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
snip
>God is fact. Evolution is fact, too. Science and religion have nothing to
>do with it. See things from the total perspective.
>
Salad Bar christian.
Change your Magic Pixie as needed. Heat for two thousand years. Add
salt. God Soup.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
Tink
--
It seems odd that those who scoff at sun worshippers are apt to worship
a vacuum.
The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS# 8808
EAC Chairman, Division of Skydiving and Sushi consumption.
Mark Earnest
"Tink" <kjg...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C_idnXKtgfZ...@comcast.com...
Most fiction is true. Get used to that.
I Think..Therefore I Am Clayton
"Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
news:buf2er$k...@library1.airnews.net...
>
>
> God is fact.
You seem to be using some strange new meaning of the word "fact" that I
haven't heard of before. Please explain how something for which there is
absolutely no evidence for, no reason for, no need for and which is, from
it's most basic concept, childish, primitive and absurd...is a "fact".
Al Klein
>God is fact.
Objective evidence? There's objective evidence of evolution.
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
Al Klein
(darth_versive) posted in alt.atheism:
>Many creationists argue (falsely, in my view) that the theory of
>evolution is a philosophy or a religion, and that accepting it is
>tantamount to believing in a "naturalistic worldview," which denies
>the existence of God or anything supernatural.
>I would argue that creationists, and more broadly speaking,
>evangelicals and fundamentalists in general, are overlooking an
>important distinction between science on the one hand, and religious
>or philosophical systems on the other.
They're also "overlooking" their lack of knowledge. Evolution is a
fact. There are various theories about it, but a theory isn't a
philosophy.
--
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence.
- (Will Rogers)
MarkA
It is difficult to communicate with someone who insists on using words to
mean the exact opposite of what they are widely accepted to mean. In most
circles, fiction is, by definition, untrue.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
Bobby D. Bryant
> Most fiction is true. Get used to that.
???
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
John Jones
> their deity or deities were directly involved in the process of
> creation, and that that process involved specific miracles rather than
> the sorts of natural processes studied by science.
This problem is solvable.
The objects of evolution are not outlined by materialism, but they are
outlined in nature. And deities work upon nature.
JJ
darth_versive <darth_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8e0e3045.04011...@posting.google.com...
Pithecanthropus Erectus
>>>
>>>God is fact.
Not sure how you determined that God is fact, even if one believes in a
creation, the creator is not established with certainty.
Evolution is fact, too. Science and religion have nothing
>
> to
>
>>>do with it. See things from the total perspective.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Religion is fiction, science is fact. Get used to it.
>
>
> Most fiction is true. Get used to that.
>
>
While good fiction illustrates themes that are true, there is no reason
to call fiction "true."
Martin Crisp
(in message <buf8lt$r...@library2.airnews.net>):
[snip]
>> Religion is fiction, science is fact. Get used to it.
>
> Most fiction is true. Get used to that.
I'll have to start playing a pacifist atheist in NetHack, then, I
guess. [<sob> and I've only just genocided Arch-liches, oh the
guilt, the guilt.]
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #1792
Almost always SMASHed
Mark Earnest
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.01.19....@mail.utexas.edu...
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 00:29:29 +0000, Mark Earnest wrote:
>
> > Most fiction is true. Get used to that.
>
> ???
Consider reality an episode of Dragnet. The names have been changed to
protect the innocent. The rest is like a dream. Good fiction is in symbols
that describe reality.
The symbols are true.
Same thing with God. He may be fiction in many cases, but that means he is
only described in symbols. If God is described as a vinedresser, that does
not mean that he spends all day every day tending vines. But he spends a
lot of time doing it in symbols, by pruning people.
Mark Earnest
"I Think..Therefore I Am Clayton" <cj...@SPAMBLOCKnotmyemail.com> wrote in
message news:400b29e6$0$4047$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
God is such a fact that only the sightless cannot see him.
Which includes most everybody.
Doesn't matter, though, because he is still here, helping people, visibly.
Find the nearest person that knows too much, and you may have found God.
Mark Earnest
"Martin Crisp" <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BC319A3D...@news.ozemail.com.au...
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:29:29 +1100, Mark Earnest wrote
> (in message <buf8lt$r...@library2.airnews.net>):
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Religion is fiction, science is fact. Get used to it.
> >
> > Most fiction is true. Get used to that.
>
> I'll have to start playing a pacifist atheist in NetHack, then, I
> guess. [<sob> and I've only just genocided Arch-liches, oh the
> guilt, the guilt.]
Maybe you were exterminating cockroaches.
Hiero5ant
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.01.19....@mail.utexas.edu...
>
> > Most fiction is true. Get used to that.
>
> ???
Beware the Argumentum Ad Play On Words.
For suitable values of 'fiction' and 'true', Mark Earnest is of course
correct, just as 1+1=3, for suitable values of '1'.
Other than that, of course, the statements are nonsense.
Mark Earnest
"MarkA" <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.01.19....@stopspam.net...
That is too shallow a view. Fiction is rich in truth. Any definition which
implies that fiction is not true is in error.
Martin Crisp
(in message <bufkep$8...@library2.airnews.net>):
This is from so far out in left field I'm not sure how to
respond...
I've never seen a live cockroach in this State (I'm told there are
some), and I don't fancy the expense of travelling interstate
(expensive because it can't be done by land) for the purpose.
But how does redefining 'genocide arch-liches' to 'exterminate
cockroaches' make the former (a fiction) 'true'?
Have Fun
Martin,killed by an invisible gray unicorn
johac
"John Jones" <jivers...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > The problem, as we know, is that certain religious systems teach that
> > their deity or deities were directly involved in the process of
> > creation, and that that process involved specific miracles rather than
> > the sorts of natural processes studied by science.
>
> This problem is solvable.
> The objects of evolution are not outlined by materialism, but they are
> outlined in nature. And deities work upon nature.
How? Please show evidence that deities exist and that they can work on
nature.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, bit in
proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
johac
darth_...@yahoo.com (darth_versive) wrote:
>
> The problem, as we know, is that certain religious systems teach that
> their deity or deities were directly involved in the process of
> creation, and that that process involved specific miracles rather than
> the sorts of natural processes studied by science. Therefore, they
> can't reconcile what science teaches with their existing theology and
> religious tradition; and they're not willing or able to give this up.
> Therefore, they reject modern science--at least those parts of it
> which encroach upon those parts of their creation stories which are
> important to them to believe for theological reasons.
>
I see two problems with creationism. One is that there is no evidence
for the existence of deities. Second, and often overlooked is the
question of how a supernatural being interacts with the natural
universe. Most people define God as a spirit, i. e. a non-material,
non-physical entity. My question is, how would God pick up a pebble,let
alone create the universe? I can pick up the pebble because I am
composed of matter and so is the pebble. I am not aware of any laws of
science that allow the supernatural to interact with the physical
universe. I am not aware of any objective evidence that any
supernatural being ever interacted with our universe.
AC
Word salad. You do know what the word "fiction" means, don't you?
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
AC
Evolution is a fact. I'm afraid I disagree with you on the God bit.
AC
YOu don't get points for this kind of silly rhetorical trick you know. It
does not make you look smart. It makes you look very silly.
No one is asking you to agree with the statement "religion is fiction". But
to try to redefine the word "fiction" to score a point is, to be blunt,
stupid.
Susan S
<mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net>:
God is faith. Evolution is fact. See the difference?
Susan Silberstein
Mark Earnest
Because when you smash whatever the hell it is you're smashing, the effect
goes into something useful (one would hope), like empowering exterminators.
Jim07D4
>Many creationists argue (falsely, in my view) that the theory of
>evolution is a philosophy or a religion, and that accepting it is
>tantamount to believing in a "naturalistic worldview," which denies
>the existence of God or anything supernatural.
>
>I would argue that creationists, and more broadly speaking,
>evangelicals and fundamentalists in general, are overlooking an
>important distinction between science on the one hand, and religious
>or philosophical systems on the other.
>
>There's a clear distinction between philosophical naturalism (also
>called ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism) and science,
>which involves methodological naturalism. This distinction is
>apparent to anyone who has ever seriously studied science and
>philosophy.
>
>Science makes no metaphysical claims regarding whether everything that
>exists is part of the natural realm and whether the supernatural does
>or doesn't exist. Science is silent on the issue.
>
>Therefore, one can accept the theory of evolution as good science, and
>at the same time, one can believe in one or another religious system
>involving a supernatural deity or deities. And many good scientists
>do exactly this.
...................
Or, from a psychological perspective, what brings people to defend
one, against the other? Saying one is true, and the other false, is
inadequate as an explanation. Many things are considered true, or
false, or dispensed with as uninterestingly true or false, without
having such a hold on the psyche.
Jim07D4
Kate
Fiction means a story that specifically is not true.
You don't like to communicate accurately, do you?
Religion would not have to be based on faith if it were fact. You
would not have to believe.
to quote someone???
Get used to it. At least until you change your mind and decide to
believe in something else.
Me, I don't have time to play those games. Believing is for people who
can't handle reality.
Martin Crisp
(in message <buftm7$6...@library2.airnews.net>):
>
> "Martin Crisp" <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.BC31B130...@news.ozemail.com.au...
>> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:50:24 +1100, Mark Earnest wrote
>> (in message <bufkep$8...@library2.airnews.net>):
>>
>>>
>>> "Martin Crisp" <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:0001HW.BC319A3D...@news.ozemail.com.au...
>>>> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:29:29 +1100, Mark Earnest wrote
>>>> (in message <buf8lt$r...@library2.airnews.net>):
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>>> Religion is fiction, science is fact. Get used to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most fiction is true. Get used to that.
>>>>
>>>> I'll have to start playing a pacifist atheist in NetHack, then, I
>>>> guess. [<sob> and I've only just genocided Arch-liches, oh the
>>>> guilt, the guilt.]
>>>
>>> Maybe you were exterminating cockroaches.
>>
>> This is from so far out in left field I'm not sure how to
>> respond...
>> I've never seen a live cockroach in this State (I'm told there are
>> some), and I don't fancy the expense of travelling interstate
>> (expensive because it can't be done by land) for the purpose.
>>
>> But how does redefining 'genocide arch-liches' to 'exterminate
>> cockroaches' make the former (a fiction) 'true'?
>
> Because when you smash whatever the hell it is you're smashing,
I'm not smashing anything. I'm playing a computer game. In the
game I manipulate a representation of an elven ranger, when that
representation 'sat' on a 'throne' it was given the opportunity to
'genocide' any (genocidable) monster. I selected arch-liches, even
though none yet existed in the game, so as to prevent their
otherwise-probable creation later in the game. [A bloodless
genocide]
Things that happen in the fiction are only 'true' within the
context of the fiction, the symbolic meaning beyond that
realm/domain is questionable, at best.
> the effect goes into something useful (one would hope), like
> empowering exterminators.
Why would one 'hope' if the fiction had any relevance to reality?
The only useful aspect of the game is it keeps me entertained from
time to time.
Have Fun
Martin,quit while already on Charon's boat
Mark Earnest
If it didn't seem real, it wouldn't be real; but it does seem real, so it
is.
All actions have an effect on things. You wouldn't enjoy them unless they
did.
Mark Earnest
"Kate " <cob...@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:400b855a...@news-west.newscene.com...
If fiction were false, people would not enjoy it.
> You don't like to communicate accurately, do you?
>
> Religion would not have to be based on faith if it were fact. You
> would not have to believe.
One cannot believe unless there is a fact to believe in.
>
> to quote someone???
>
> Get used to it. At least until you change your mind and decide to
> believe in something else.
>
> Me, I don't have time to play those games. Believing is for people who
> can't handle reality.
Believing is the only thing that can effect reality. It is what moves your
arms and legs to go whenever you decide. It is what landed man on the moon.
Mark Earnest
"Susan S" <otoerem...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:s4um00d0p1uhppuoh...@4ax.com...
Faith is not God; faith is what sometimes moves God, if it is done
correctly.
Mark Earnest
"Pithecanthropus Erectus" <tuib...@spam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:k5IOb.18737$zj7....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
The stories you have just read are true. The names have been changed to
protect the innocent.
Get it?
Tim
"Steve Knight" <woo...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ps5m009r18ivm60qv...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:43:16 +0000 (UTC), "Mark Earnest"
> <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >God is fact. Evolution is fact, too. Science and religion have nothing
to
> >do with it. See things from the total perspective.
> >
>
> Change your Magic Pixie as needed. Heat for two thousand years. Add
> salt. God Soup.
>
> Warlord Steve
> BAAWA
> www.sonic.net/~wooly
>
>
Ha ha. ROFLOL.
Fred Stone
God *is* a symbol.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Fred Stone
>>
>>While good fiction illustrates themes that are true, there is no reason
>>to call fiction "true."
>
>
> The stories you have just read are true. The names have been changed to
> protect the innocent.
>
> Get it?
>
Yeah, you're desperately trying to weasel the definition of "fiction"
instead of producing evidence that the stories are true.
TonyJeffs
i.e.
X+6 = 8 so x=2
Philosophy is based on speculation
X+Y = 8 so X might be 4 and Y might be 4, but we don't know for sure.
The theory of evolution is based on evidence, so it is science; not philosophy.
But the evidence doesn't provide absolute proof, so we include the word "theory".
Tony
Richard Uhrich
How much of, say, "The Hitchhiker's Guide" or "2001" are true?
--
Richard Uhrich
--
"Ideology is easier, because you don't have to know anything or search
for anything. You always know the answer to everything. It's not
penetrable to facts." (Former U.S. Treasury Secretary O'Neil on
policymaking in the Bush administration)
Geoff
> Most fiction is true. Get used to that.
Ignorance is strength.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Geoff
> > >Most fiction is true. Get used to that.
> >
> > Fiction means a story that specifically is not true.
>
> If fiction were false, people would not enjoy it.
Assertion. Why do you think so?
Fiction, as a literary form, may have a basis in fact. But this
is not necessary.
I can look at a book like "Seabiscuit" and see readily that it is
not a work of fiction. The characters are historical. The events
did happen. There may be errors, but on balance the work is true.
OTOH, the Lord of the Rings trilogy is fiction. The events
described did not happen. There are elements that reflect
reality (like "Seabiscuit", there are horses), but the story was
entirely from the imagination of Tolkein.
In the middle, are historical works of fiction like "The Killer
Angels" and "Gates of Fire". In broad terms, the events are
true. But specific instances of conversations between Leonidas
and the Spartan warriors are entirely fiction.
> > You don't like to communicate accurately, do you?
> >
> > Religion would not have to be based on faith if it were fact. You
> > would not have to believe.
>
> One cannot believe unless there is a fact to believe in.
Now you're mistaken about the word "faith", To what facts
are you alluding?
> > to quote someone???
> >
> > Get used to it. At least until you change your mind and decide to
> > believe in something else.
> >
> > Me, I don't have time to play those games. Believing is for people who
> > can't handle reality.
>
> Believing is the only thing that can effect reality. It is what moves
your
> arms and legs to go whenever you decide. It is what landed man on the
moon.
Now you've misunderstood the previous poster's intent of usage
with the word "believing". Or purposely mangled it.
Geoff
>
> "I Think..Therefore I Am Clayton" <cj...@SPAMBLOCKnotmyemail.com> wrote in
> message news:400b29e6$0$4047$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >
> > "Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > > God is fact.
> >
> > You seem to be using some strange new meaning of the word "fact" that I
> > haven't heard of before. Please explain how something for which there
is
> > absolutely no evidence for, no reason for, no need for and which is,
from
> > it's most basic concept, childish, primitive and absurd...is a "fact".
>
> God is such a fact that only the sightless cannot see him.
When did you last see god and how did he manifest himself?
> Which includes most everybody.
> Doesn't matter, though, because he is still here, helping people, visibly.
> Find the nearest person that knows too much, and you may have found God.
In my old neighborhood, if you knew too much you likely got a
concrete shoe shine?
So what exactly did you mean by that last statement?
AC
Nonsense. I enjoy a good lie as much as the next guy. As long as it is
stated as being a lie (ie. fiction) from the outset, people have no
difficulty whatsoever.
>
>> You don't like to communicate accurately, do you?
>>
>> Religion would not have to be based on faith if it were fact. You
>> would not have to believe.
>
> One cannot believe unless there is a fact to believe in.
This is also pure nonsense.
>>
>> to quote someone???
>>
>> Get used to it. At least until you change your mind and decide to
>> believe in something else.
>>
>> Me, I don't have time to play those games. Believing is for people who
>> can't handle reality.
>
> Believing is the only thing that can effect reality. It is what moves your
> arms and legs to go whenever you decide. It is what landed man on the moon.
What moves my arms and my legs are nerve impulses from my brain. What
landed men on the moon were multistage rockets, lunar modules and, of
course, men.
Brad Guth
hidden agendas and ulterior motives. Whereas a better form of
government, and thereby science, would be truth; go fish!
Evolution isn't worth squat against terraforming, only as an
afermarket adaptation in order to survive in spite of the mistakes
made by my creator. Such as, I'd certainly evolve and adapt if my
planet were going greenhouse.
Unfortunately, much like Hitler, or much worse being the Pope/Cathar
fiasco, the GW Bush space initiative represents yet another for-real
threat to humanity, and of whatever natural evolution isn't going to
fix that, as it's as real as his personal war in Iraq, and it'll soon
get as bloody as need be. Thereby the Bush space initiative is a
thoroughly bad notion, although the notion of going for our moon on
behalf of humanity isn't such a bad notion, in fact it's a darn good
idea that's way past due.
There's been the rather unfortunate tit for tats that created the
likes of 9/11 and of flight-800, plus another ongoing and rather pesky
and costly war in Iraq, all because of Salem bin Laden and of the
close business associations with our resident warlord "GW Bush". It's
all about the hoarding of energy as well as future technology,
possibly even ET technology. It's absolutely imperative as to keeping
this oil off the spot market, especially of oil that's been outside
the American cartel.
Of life and Consequences, besides O'Neill or Salem bin Laden
It seems a few too many folks have overlooked an important truth or
self right, that of following a lying bastard and hiding within a
collective of energy sucking Borgs is obviously become the moral right
of every snookered American, yet no one owes us that right.
The GW Bush moon; just how incredibly happenstance is our moon?
At least the ulterior lunar focus for the moment should draw deeply
our dastardly attentions away from Cuba, if nothing else it'll drain
whatever reserves for NSA/DoD agendas, while giving us folks a great
deal to think about, and of others to worry about.
The GW Bush moon-base odds are actually relatively piss poor. Just for
starters, we all realize that our resident warlord "GW Bush" lied as
usual (covering some privet agenda plus whatever ulterior motives),
such as about all those WMD, just like those of his educational "high
standards and accountability" lies, that's only been superseded by his
ultimate "so what's the difference" policy (he must have been
referring to all those dead Iraqi souls that don't matter, as well as
the Trade Towers fiasco that he and of his close Salem bin Laden
business partner had supposedly absolutely nothing whatsoever to do
with). Notice how the "all knowing" Dr. H.K. has vanished into thin
air ever since 9/11.
Just because our moon has become the most recent GW Bush topic of the
hour, I'm not switching myself from the far greater importance of
discoveries on Venus over to any moon tactic for the mere sport of it,
as I've been there and done that for a good year's worth of trying to
focus folks (snookered fools) away from the ESE fiasco, over to the
obtainable and doable LSE-CM/ISS alternative, as of what the moon
offers is simply an incredibly terrific gateway to other worlds, such
as Mars and Venus, as well as for providing Earth sciences plus a
bloody jackpot worth of He3/3eH energy that's just sitting there,
waiting to being scooped up and shipped off to mother Earth.
Speaking just a little off topic; of other life within our universe
that doesn't have to continually lie; Sirius is certainly not only
within our universe, but I believe 80,000 years ago it was situated
damn close by.
Within the following rant, I've stipulated upon quite a number of
"what ifs" pertaining greatly to other life on Venus, among
accomplishing a few essential lunar things along the way. Elsewhere
are links to specific LSE-CM/ISS issues, although you'll have to
disconnect from your Borg collective before reading such, as otherwise
the collective may have to terminate your node, and that could hurt
worse than the "Blue Screen of Death".
"Sirius, Earth, Moon and Venus, preferably without GW Bush"
In that order, and in that priority.
In other words, first came Sirius, then we manage to screw up Earth
(almost got that one nailed), then onto our moon for a little He3/3He
snatching, and finish off our supper with the pillaging of Venus. We
don't much have to include the likes of Mars because, it's way to
spendy as well as too CO2 generating upon Earth as for sustaining any
significant to/from enterprise of pillaging, and besides it's already
a thoroughly dead horse (not that folks hadn't managed to live there
once upon a time), except for the remains of some highly
advanced/mutant microbes of which sub-freezing them into dry-ice and
of irradiating those to death probably hasn't quite serialized their
innards, and of those pesky diehard Mars microbes (in our infinite
wisdom or lack thereof), we'll likely be bringing those suckers back
to Earth via some future probe in order to prove how pathetically
stupid we actually are, so go figure.
Never to fear; as if it should perchance turn out that I'm the least
bit wrong about the sanity or perhaps utter insanity, of some folks
going to Mars that is, as then I'll simply impose our resident
warlord's approved "so what's the difference" policy. As certainly
whatever's left of Earth's humanity wont be any worse off for ware,
after all, of my previous efforts at stipulating "I told you so" about
how thoroughly frozen and irradiated to death Mars is, if that simply
hasn't sunk in, nor about how little free energy awaits those arriving
at Mars, but what the hell do I know?
If I were as dumbfounded, and as much of a total moron bastard as our
resident warlord, I guess I'd certainly have Earth's humanity headed
for the likes of Mars. After all, from all of the previous probe
information and of what's new, well, there really isn't anything new,
other than it's still damn cold and thoroughly irradiated to death, as
well as sufficiently strewn with all the expected meteorites and
shards, and as always, being of the most time consuming and spendy as
all get out for just getting there, much less for the task of our
retrieving anything.
Our Unique Moon;
It's rather unfortunate how freaking little we seem to know about our
extremely unique moon, of why it's even where it is, and of it's mass
being so entirely different than Earth, yet thermal nuclear heated
from within and of so influencing Earth in such an entirely positive
sort of way, as well as somewhat intentionally contributing to our
well being as a human race, yet it's been taking advantage of tidal
forces so as to insure that it's never going to come crashing down,
not in a trillion-billion years, not even if we devised a way of
pulling out 5 terawatts continuously between us, as that's merely one
form of unique force that's been so special about our uniquely
synchronized moon.
This one-of-a-kind moon offers us an incredibly stable gravity-well
null point, as an ideal LSE-CM/ISS accommodation that's obviously
situated between Earth and the moon, at roughly 84% of the distance
from Earth, or 16% of the distance towards Earth, with a mere 2.25%
variance at that. It's also the one and only recorded moon that's
rotating itself in perfect harmony, as in absolute synchronization
with it's mother World. All and all, that's better than rolling
different dice on every shot and getting exactly the very same 4&3 as
7's a million times in a row. Not such bad odds.
I mean, how incredibly happenstance is that?
Finding water on the moon isn't such a big factor. With Earth's global
warming, expedited along by GW Bush himself, we'll soon have way more
water than you can possibly shake a flaming stick at, and thankfully
today we've got numerous ways of robotically delivering terrific
amounts of said water to the moon. Actually sending it as pure h2o2
would do lunar and LSE-CM/ISS operations a lot more good. In the good
old days of Apollo, if speaking of a one-way ticket, we could deliver
36,000 lbs worth of whatever, whereas today that figure should be
72,000 lbs worth. And BTW; the lunar environment is absolutely ideal
for that water being in the stabile form of frozen h2o2, whereas
receiving whatever He3 infusions couldn't hurt.
The next issue or topic of worth is that of Venus, of it's environment
being what it is, greenhouse hot and nasty, though not by a long shot
being outside the ballpark of supporting intelligent life, unless
you're only considering upon the pathetic slim-mold based forms of
bigoted life that's here on Earth, especially of those that can no
longer think for themselves, having to depend upon their pagan worship
of skewed as well as conditional laws of physics, as well as reliance
upon numerous toilet bowl morals, as such being easily snookered and
thereby representing the crude forms of life that can't hardly survive
here on Earth without doing far more harm than good, much like dumb
and dumber except on steroids.
Fortunately, the thick and robust atmosphere of Venus is simply chuck
full of benefits, as well as raw energy via thermal as well as
powerful kinetics from just their vertical differentials, then there
are simply loads of surface geothermals and of most likely a crust
that holding onto all sorts of mineral deposits. Those relatively cool
nighttime clouds contain megatonnes of H2SO4, thus H2O, thereby all
sorts of chemical and subsequent reaction cocktails of various
outcomes are possible. With said energy and of the sorts of natural
element resources available, only an absolute idiot moron couldn't
make a go of it.
Of course, it only adds further insult to all the previous injuries by
way of my unvovering a rather significant group of structures, of a
significant community that's way too rational, as in being potentially
life supportive functional as having been established as artificial
(as in man made or perhaps more likely lizard folk made), hardly being
the least bit natural unless those pesky laws of physics as well as
for gravity took a hike for at least a few hundred years, which
according to our NASA community of "all knowing" Borg wizards is
absolutely suggesting what must have happened, somewhat like why all
those Apollo moon pictures are so skewed and why their lunar
reflective index was so incredably bright, as well as for why there's
so few meteorites and of their shards strewn about, much less there
being any recent contributions of micro-meteorites to deal with, nor
is there more radiation exposure than for taking a distant walk around
Chernobyl.
Of another keen interest is that of Sirius may not be so happenstance,
though 80,000 years ago it was certainly darn close, thus extremely
bright and most likely the biggest thing in our sky, bar none, as in
illumination appearing at least as big as our sun but so much
brighter, and that's certainly damn big, though 80,000 years is a mere
geological drop in the bucket. Since then it's been moving away at
roughly 20 miles per second, whereas today it's over 8.5 lightyears
off, and still Sirius represents the next biggest and baddest star(s)
in our sky, and since it's so bright and far away, our best
instruments can only detect the Sirius/a&b, as Sirius/c and of
whatever planets are only known to the Dogon. Go figure that one out.
Seems as though it is as likely as not that planets within the zone of
life, like Mars, Earth and Venus could have been those terraformed by
creators, thus well intending folks that did whatever they could, to
see that their efforts were not in vain. Natural disasters and perhaps
creator mistakes (no one's perfect) may have plaid a role, but mankind
has more than influenced if not sealed the fate of Earth, especially
of lately, with our frequent energy wars and of pagan worshipings, now
we're off snipe hunting for those WMD in order to justify our warlords
taking of thousands of innocent lives. At least the only one of us
that should feel better off is the Pope, as for what their Catholic
church did to those nice Cathars was truly despicable, as certainly
representing nothing at all like what any reasonable terraforming
creators would have intended. As how freaking sick would you have to
be if you were some creator that intentionally constructed such god
offal DNA/RNA and/or manipulated your beings for such a horrific task.
So obviously, mankind is 99% responsible for our own fate, as there's
only so much that a remote world of creators can accomplish from afar,
especially from as far away as Sirius.
I know, I know, there I go again, slipping myself way off the deep end
by suggesting that I'm sufficiently right and that you're the one
that's been snookered and subsequently skewed so way off base. Well,
what can I say, short of getting myself entirely reprogrammed and
connected back into your Borg collective, so that I'll follow our
fearless WMD snipe hunting leaders off the nearest cliff, or back into
their cesspool of life, is always an option.
The fact that privet agendas and ulterior motives have been in full
swing for decades, most recently based entirely upon our dwindling
global energy reserves, our leaders having fought many wars (hot and
cold) over whom has what and of most importantly of whom gets access
to it, and/or selectively partitioning out shares of profits from the
spoils of said energy. This lethal tug-of-war is simply what's been
responsible for the most recent waves of carnage and of collateral
damage, with the undertow of powers struggling to grasp all the energy
rings and then some. Well guess what, the moon has become the next
best thing on the map, as energy wise the moon is by far offering the
biggest energy pot and simultaneous strategic starwars outpost over
the entire Earth, so much so that it'll likely supersede our need of
taking Cuba, of which we've previously tried seven times and badly
failed seven times. Although, with the LSE-CM/ISS tether dipole
element reaching to within 50,000 km of Earth, hosting a few of those
100 GW 0.5 milliradian laser cannons, we could light off an individual
Cuban cigar if we wanted to.
If you think you can contribute to these issues, or to this novel of
life and consequences, I'm all ears, though I've been told that
there's not all that much between them ears because, my Borg
collective interface has been broken down for at least the past three
years and counting, though your's is probably still fully functioning
and synchronized to the collective.
Some good but difficult readings: SADDAM HUSSEIN and The SAND PIRATES
http://mittymax.com/Archive/0085-SaddamHusseinAndTheSandPirates.htm
The latest round of insults to this Mars/Moon/Venus class action
injury:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-what-if.htm
Some other recent file updates:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-gwb-moon.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-interplanetary.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-illumination.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-moon-02.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-04.htm
Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA
Elf M. Sternberg
> God is such a fact that only the sightless cannot see him. Which
> includes most everybody. Doesn't matter, though, because he is still
> here, helping people, visibly. Find the nearest person that knows too
> much, and you may have found God.
I have never met a person who claimed he was "helped by God"
whose "help" couldn't have been explained by sheer probability. It's
just twisted that every person who has been saved by "God" in a car
accident ignores the sick irony that they're being thankful for being
favored: "Thank you, God, for killing that poor shmoe and not me."
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Proud to be an Extinctionist
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/
With the advance of biogenetics, it is not so much that we are losing
our dignity and freedom but that we realise we never had them in the
first place. - Slavoj Zizek
darth_versive
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 04:50:48 +0000 (UTC),
> Mark Earnest <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote:
> >
> > "MarkA" <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2004.01.19....@stopspam.net...
> >> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 00:29:29 +0000, Mark Earnest wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Tink" <kjg...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:C_idnXKtgfZ...@comcast.com...
> >> >> Mark Earnest wrote:
> >> >> > "darth_versive" <darth_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:8e0e3045.04011...@posting.google.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>Many creationists argue (falsely, in my view) that the theory of
> >> >> >>evolution is a philosophy or a religion, and that accepting it is
> >> >> >>tantamount to believing in a "naturalistic worldview," which denies
> >> >> >>the existence of God or anything supernatural.
<snip>
From the perspective of someone trying to refute this "silly
rhetorical trick" (and banging one's head against a brick wall trying
to get the other party to see reason), I would agree that trying to
redefine the word in this way seems stupid.
But from a social-scientific/historical perspective, it's a very
interesting phenomenon. The "struggle over definitions" has always
been an integral part of the evolution of conceptual frameworks. By
redefining certain words that are ideologically significant, a new and
twisted (but coherent) pattern of reasoning emerges, which enables the
party doing the redefining to apparently defend and strengthen their
ideological position in the face of attacks upon it.
So, from this social-scientific/historical perspective, it's not
stupid at all, but a very clever psychological enterprise. It does
indeed allow them to "get points" for it. And it's also very
important in historiographical terms, helping the researcher to make
sense of the ebb and flow of conceptual and cultural evolution.
DV
Nik the Greek
world than creationism, I'm having trouble applying Popper's Demarcation
criterion on it. Popper's criterion demands that in order for a theory
to be called scientific it has to be refutable - the more falsifiable it
is the more scientific it is. And this is where my ignorance in
evolution and biology comes in: what sort of observation would refute
the theory of evolution? I have the uncomfortable feeling that it is
able to explain any biological phenomenon we observe, which Popper says
is indication of dogmatic thinking and "theory immunization" (like
Marxist historical theory or freudian psychology).
Since evolution discusses extremely length processes and what it does
mostly is explain things that occured in the past it admits of no
predictions that may be tested immediatly as attempts of refutation. The
only form of experiment I can think of is using computerized
simulations, evolutionary algorithms and such.
Can anyone enlighten me as to what sort of observation evolutionary
theory would consider a refutation?
Nik the Greek
darth_versive wrote:
> Many creationists argue (falsely, in my view) that the theory of
> evolution is a philosophy or a religion, and that accepting it is
> tantamount to believing in a "naturalistic worldview," which denies
> the existence of God or anything supernatural.
>
> It's a very interesting psychological and cultural phenomenon, from a
> social scientific perspective (although I realize that it doesn't seem
> so very interesting to those pro-science folks who keep banging their
> heads against a brick wall by trying to reason with those people who
> hold to such dogmatic theological views).
>
> It may be that these pro-science folks are destined to continue
> banging their heads against this particular brick wall indefinitely,
> seeing as how all these philosophical arguments and all this empirical
> evidence that demonstrate that evolution is science, not philosophy or
> religion, makes so much sense that they feel compelled to continue to
> point it out; and seeing as how those who are locked into such
> dogmatic theological views don't seem to be weakening in their faith,
> in spite of all attempts to get them to see reason and face facts. So
> it's something akin to an irresistible force meeting an immovable
> object.
>
> So it's a source of unending frustration to many in the pro-science
> community. But at the same time, it's a source of unending
> fascination for many others in the pro-science community who look at
> it from a social science perspective. It's the equivalent of a
> star-gazer being treated to a non-stop show of supernovae, comets,
> meteor showers, and solar and lunar eclipses. It's just too good to
> pass up.
>
> DV
>
Bobby D. Bryant
> While I find evolutionism convincing and a far better explanation of the
> world than creationism, I'm having trouble applying Popper's Demarcation
> criterion on it. Popper's criterion demands that in order for a theory
> to be called scientific it has to be refutable - the more falsifiable it
> is the more scientific it is. And this is where my ignorance in
> evolution and biology comes in: what sort of observation would refute
> the theory of evolution? I have the uncomfortable feeling that it is
> able to explain any biological phenomenon we observe, which Popper says
> is indication of dogmatic thinking and "theory immunization" (like
> Marxist historical theory or freudian psychology). Since evolution
> discusses extremely length processes and what it does mostly is explain
> things that occured in the past it admits of no predictions that may be
> tested immediatly as attempts of refutation. The only form of experiment
> I can think of is using computerized simulations, evolutionary
> algorithms and such. Can anyone enlighten me as to what sort of
> observation evolutionary theory would consider a refutation?
Hi, Nik. For some opionions see if you can find the thread "Predictions
of the TOE", which started on January 16.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
darth_versive
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.01.19....@mail.utexas.edu...
> >
> > > Most fiction is true. Get used to that.
> >
>
> Beware the Argumentum Ad Play On Words.
> For suitable values of 'fiction' and 'true', Mark Earnest is of course
> correct, just as 1+1=3, for suitable values of '1'.
> Other than that, of course, the statements are nonsense.
From the perspective of someone trying to refute this "Argumentum Ad
Play On Words" (and banging one's head against a brick wall trying to
get the other party to see reason), I would agree that such statements
seem like nonsense.
But from a social-scientific/historical perspective, it's a very
interesting phenomenon. The "struggle over definitions" has always
been an integral part of the evolution of conceptual frameworks. By
redefining certain words that are ideologically significant, a new and
twisted (but coherent) pattern of reasoning emerges, which enables the
party doing the redefining to apparently defend and strengthen their
ideological position in the face of attacks upon it.
So, from this social-scientific/historical perspective, it's not
nonsense at all, but a very clever psychological enterprise. Whole
cultures are built upon precisely such "nonsense." And cultural
anthropologists and social psychologists spend careers studying such
"Argumentum Ad Play On Words," and how they influence the internal
dynamics of a given culture.
And such phenomena are also very important in historiographical terms,
helping the historical researcher to make sense of the ebb and flow of
conceptual and cultural evolution.
As I wrote in the subject header, the issue is: How to view the
arguments?
DV
darth_versive
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:22:39 +0000 (UTC), darth_...@yahoo.com
> (darth_versive) posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >Many creationists argue (falsely, in my view) that the theory of
> >evolution is a philosophy or a religion, and that accepting it is
> >tantamount to believing in a "naturalistic worldview," which denies
> >the existence of God or anything supernatural.
>
> >I would argue that creationists, and more broadly speaking,
> >evangelicals and fundamentalists in general, are overlooking an
> >important distinction between science on the one hand, and religious
> >or philosophical systems on the other.
>
> fact. There are various theories about it, but a theory isn't a
> philosophy.
It's too bad you snipped my post before coming to my main point. I
would have liked to have learned your opinion about it.
DV
darth_versive
> In article <8e0e3045.04011...@posting.google.com>,
> darth_...@yahoo.com (darth_versive) wrote:
> >
> > The problem, as we know, is that certain religious systems teach that
> > their deity or deities were directly involved in the process of
> > creation, and that that process involved specific miracles rather than
> > the sorts of natural processes studied by science. Therefore, they
> > can't reconcile what science teaches with their existing theology and
> > religious tradition; and they're not willing or able to give this up.
> > Therefore, they reject modern science--at least those parts of it
> > which encroach upon those parts of their creation stories which are
> > important to them to believe for theological reasons.
> >
>
> for the existence of deities. Second, and often overlooked is the
> question of how a supernatural being interacts with the natural
> universe. Most people define God as a spirit, i. e. a non-material,
> non-physical entity. My question is, how would God pick up a pebble,let
> alone create the universe? I can pick up the pebble because I am
> composed of matter and so is the pebble. I am not aware of any laws of
> science that allow the supernatural to interact with the physical
> universe. I am not aware of any objective evidence that any
> supernatural being ever interacted with our universe.
darth_versive
Right. Studying what it is about certain conceptual frameworks which
gives them, or enables them to have, a strong hold on the psyche,
while other, seemingly similar ones lack this quality, is one of the
key issues to address when confronting such phenomena from a
psychological perspective.
This is a very good question to ask.
If you'd like to discuss this question at greater length, I would be
agreeable to that.
DV
Ernest Major
<nikth...@hotpop.com> writes
>While I find evolutionism convincing and a far better explanation of the
>world than creationism, I'm having trouble applying Popper's Demarcation
>criterion on it. Popper's criterion demands that in order for a theory
>to be called scientific it has to be refutable - the more falsifiable it
>is the more scientific it is. And this is where my ignorance in
>evolution and biology comes in: what sort of observation would refute
>the theory of evolution? I have the uncomfortable feeling that it is
>able to explain any biological phenomenon we observe, which Popper says
>is indication of dogmatic thinking and "theory immunization" (like
>Marxist historical theory or freudian psychology).
>Since evolution discusses extremely length processes and what it does
>mostly is explain things that occured in the past it admits of no
>predictions that may be tested immediatly as attempts of refutation. The
>only form of experiment I can think of is using computerized
>simulations, evolutionary algorithms and such.
>Can anyone enlighten me as to what sort of observation evolutionary
>theory would consider a refutation?
One ought to distinguish between a theory being not falsifiable because
it's true, and being not falsifiable because it can accommodate any
observation. The reason why creationists can equivocate between these
two positions is that the volume of evidence supporting common descent
with modification by the agency of natural selection and other processes
is so great that it is difficult to conceive of a plausible single
observation that would falsify this. Consequently, while it is trivial
to identify potential observations that would falsify evolution, all the
easy ones have already been eliminated by actual observation.
There are many possible observations which are inconsistent with the
theory of evolution. Some examples of broad scope are
1) No faunal succession in the fossil record.
2) No correlation between genotype and phenotype.
3) No correlation between genotype and reproductive success.
4) No correlation between the distribution between species of
morphological, biochemical and genetic traits.
A couple of examples of less broad, but still broad, scope are
1) There are a vast number of possible mappings from DNA codons to amino
acids. (Approaching 64^22, which greatly exceeds the number of species
which currently exist, or have ever existed, on the Earth.) If each
species had its own unique mapping this would falsify the theory of
evolution.
1a) So would the existence of a sufficient number of divergent mappings
uncorrelated with the proteome, biochemistry or morphology of their
possessors.
2) An absence of correlation between the members of successive faunas
above the species level. (I.e. that the organisms found in one
stratigraphic zone, are either identical to, or unrelated, to those
found in the preceding and succeeding zones.)
Less direct lines of refutation would be that
1) That the rate of evolutionary change is too small to accommodate
common descent. This requires either
1a) That life is geologically young (refuted by the science of geology)
1b) That evolution is very slow (pretty much refuted by observations in
historical time).
2) That the space of viable organisms/habitats is insufficiently
connected.
--
alias Ernest Major
Jim07D4
>While I find evolutionism convincing and a far better explanation of the
>world than creationism, I'm having trouble applying Popper's Demarcation
>criterion on it. Popper's criterion demands that in order for a theory
>to be called scientific it has to be refutable - the more falsifiable it
>is the more scientific it is. And this is where my ignorance in
>evolution and biology comes in: what sort of observation would refute
>the theory of evolution? I have the uncomfortable feeling that it is
>able to explain any biological phenomenon we observe, which Popper says
>is indication of dogmatic thinking and "theory immunization" (like
>Marxist historical theory or freudian psychology).
>Since evolution discusses extremely length processes and what it does
>mostly is explain things that occured in the past it admits of no
>predictions that may be tested immediatly as attempts of refutation.
While your question is a good one, I don't think this is a real
difficulty. The confirmatory observations we make today are all we
have to go on, and are accepted as enough, and so the refutatory (?)
observations we make today should be accepted as enough. If they are
rejected on the basis that they are only current, that rejection
applies equally to the confirmatory observations.
>The
>only form of experiment I can think of is using computerized
>simulations, evolutionary algorithms and such.
>Can anyone enlighten me as to what sort of observation evolutionary
>theory would consider a refutation?
I think that the real difficulty in refuting evolution theory occurs
due to two reasons:
1. When it is described in such general terms that it is compatible
with any observations that are made, it is more of a paradigm, a la
Thomas Kuhn, than a theory. But "on the ground" far more specific
hypotheses are being tested, and are refutable.
2. When science is seen as a portal to metaphysical truth, rather than
as a model-building enterprise, the results are "outside science".
(Even in the case of creationism, science could say that the best
"model" of what we see is species evolution from a common ancestor.
Creationists could even agree, saying that God had done it in such a
way that that *is* the best "model" but it is not the "truth".)
But certain formulations of evolution, such as Lamarckianism, have
been refuted, I believe. (I'd need to do more research to say how.) I
tend to agree that the general paradigm of evolution is in fact, not
refutable, and so is not a "scientific theory" but is instead a
paradigm. Do its theories match up with the facts, the "real truth"?
That's a metaphysical question.
Jim07D4
Mark Earnest
"Richard Uhrich" <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:aQROb.17716$Se....@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Mark Earnest wrote:
>
> > "Pithecanthropus Erectus" <tuib...@spam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:k5IOb.18737$zj7....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>>>God is fact.
> >>
> >>
> >>Not sure how you determined that God is fact, even if one believes in a
> >>creation, the creator is not established with certainty.
> >>
> >>
> >> Evolution is fact, too. Science and religion have nothing
> >>
> >>>to
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>do with it. See things from the total perspective.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Religion is fiction, science is fact. Get used to it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Most fiction is true. Get used to that.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>While good fiction illustrates themes that are true, there is no reason
> >>to call fiction "true."
> >
> >
> > The stories you have just read are true. The names have been changed to
> > protect the innocent.
> >
> > Get it?
> >
> >
>
> How much of, say, "The Hitchhiker's Guide" or "2001" are true?
Whatever is conceivable by man is true somewhere, somehow.
Jim07D4
>Jim07D4 <Jim...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<94vm00l6c29k1n64i...@4ax.com>...
>> darth_...@yahoo.com (darth_versive) said:
>>
>> >Many creationists argue (falsely, in my view) that the theory of
>> >evolution is a philosophy or a religion, and that accepting it is
>> >tantamount to believing in a "naturalistic worldview," which denies
>> >the existence of God or anything supernatural.
............
>> Or, from a psychological perspective, what brings people to defend
>> one, against the other? Saying one is true, and the other false, is
>> inadequate as an explanation. Many things are considered true, or
>> false, or dispensed with as uninterestingly true or false, without
>> having such a hold on the psyche.
>>
>> Jim07D4
>
>Right. Studying what it is about certain conceptual frameworks which
>gives them, or enables them to have, a strong hold on the psyche,
>while other, seemingly similar ones lack this quality, is one of the
>key issues to address when confronting such phenomena from a
>psychological perspective.
>
>This is a very good question to ask.
>
>If you'd like to discuss this question at greater length, I would be
>agreeable to that.
>
Well, I don't have much more to say. I suppose I am a non-theistic
existentialist. Observation: We want to feel that our lives matter,
and how we feel about that affects our lives. True? False? For some of
us, it seems to have to matter in some cosmic sense, part of a cosmic
narrative drama. That my life matters to me, is enough; I feel no need
to question why it matters, or ask whether it matters in a cosmic
sense. The cosmic drama will work itself out.
So, does non-theistic evolution, or theistic creationism, offer a more
satisfying answer to why your life matters? I suggest that it is not
the evolution/creationism aspect of this that makes the real
difference, it is the non-theistic/theistic aspect that makes the
difference.
Jim07D4
Jim07D4
...
>
>Whatever is conceivable by man is true somewhere, somehow.
>
...
Whether conceivability entails possibility is a question that merits
some thought, and much more so, is whether conceivability entails
actuality.
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/conceivability.html
Jim07D4
Richard Uhrich
That sounds profound, but is so inane.
TonyJeffs
>Can anyone enlighten me as to what sort of observation evolutionary
>theory would consider a refutation?
The fact that there isn't a continual unbroken spectrum of life-forms
from virus to monkey to human, perhaps? There are only descrete
species
...Actually, I don't really understand the question!
(Honesty is a virtue)
If I'm totally off mark perhaps you could clarify Poppers point in
different words?
Tony
John Wilkins
Popper's demarcation criterion has been largely rejected by philosophers
- the classical attack being Lakatos's essay in _Criticism and the
Growth of Knowledge_. Do a Google on "popper demarcation", and in
particular look at the Wiki site:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#The_Criterion_of_Demarcation
>
If the DC fails for sciences like physics and astronomy, which it does,
largely because as Quine and Lakatos observed you cannot really
*falsify* theories simpliciter (so-called Duhem-Quine Thesis), then it
need not be applied to evolution.
Martin Crisp
(in message <bug75k$q...@library2.airnews.net>):
>
> "Martin Crisp" <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.BC31E647...@news.ozemail.com.au...
[...]
>> Why would one 'hope' if the fiction had any relevance to reality?
>> The only useful aspect of the game is it keeps me entertained from
>> time to time.
>
> If it didn't seem real, it wouldn't be real; but it does seem
> real, so it is.
You're equivocating over 'real', the game is real (it really is a game), the
contents of the game are a fiction (there are no elves, frost giants, nagas,
orc-captains in 'reality', if there were they probably wouldn't look like
they do in the game...), i.e. 'not real'.
How real does this seem to you:
<paste>
Hello Vice57, the elven Ranger, welcome back to NetHack!
------------- --------- ------
|...........| |.....^.| |....-#
|....).......######........| |....|# ----------
|...........|##@#o |.H.....| # # #` ## *####.....|# |........|
------|------### |.._.....### ` ## # `## #-.-|--#####.........|
## ### |(@.....| ## #######^###############[# $ |........|
# # -----N---####[ #### # # --.-----|-
### `## ## ### # # # # #### #
## # # # ### ### # #### ###
########################## # # ## #
# # #------|-----c- #)# # #)# ###
### ##$ #|......t....[| * # -------# )# #
-|---- # #.............| ### |.....|# ######### #
|....-#### |............| # |..<..|# #-------.-.--
|....| # * |.........>.)| ### |......# #|.........(|
|....+`# |............| # |.....| #|..........|
------ -------------- ##-.[...| #...........|
|..[.{| |..........|
------- ------------
Vice57 the Reconnoiterer St:18 Dx:18 Co:16 In:16 Wi:21 Ch:7 Chaotic
Dlvl:19 $:0 HP:133(133) Pw:92(92) AC:-34 Xp:13/62990 T:60576 Satiated
</paste>
Is that /really/ a Naga in the bottom doorway of the second room from the
left at top of map? Or is it just an ascii character that /represents/
something the game calls a Naga? Is the H 2 squares above the @ (me) /really/
a 'tame invisible fire giant called Azeroth'? Which of the ^ characters is
really a squeaky board, and which is really a pit my character dug?
> All actions have an effect on things. You wouldn't enjoy them
> unless they did.
So what? That doesn't mean I 'really' killed and ate whatever it was that
made my ranger satiated. Nor does it mean I 'really' wished for a blessed +3
gray dragon scale mail from the Djinn that appeared when I rubbed a blessed
magic lamp [the bugger only gave me +0 :-(, so I ended up using one blessed
and one uncursed scroll of enchant armor to take it to +3].
Your claim was that 'Most fiction is true', not that 'people can interact
with fictional notions'.
Your claim is nonsense.
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #1792
Almost always SMASHed
Nick
>"Hiero5ant" <vze4...@verizon.com> wrote in message
>news:<z6JOb.2725$Wm4...@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>...
>> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2004.01.19....@mail.utexas.edu...
>> > On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 00:29:29 +0000, Mark Earnest wrote:
>> >
>> > > Most fiction is true. Get used to that.
>> >
>> > ???
>>
>> Beware the Argumentum Ad Play On Words.
>> For suitable values of 'fiction' and 'true', Mark Earnest is of course
>> correct, just as 1+1=3, for suitable values of '1'.
>> Other than that, of course, the statements are nonsense.
>
>From the perspective of someone trying to refute this "Argumentum Ad
>Play On Words" (and banging one's head against a brick wall trying to
>get the other party to see reason), I would agree that such statements
>seem like nonsense.
>
>But from a social-scientific/historical perspective, it's a very
>interesting phenomenon.
I'm guessing that no one gives a crap about your "social-scientific/historical
perspective", so maybe you should stop flogging a dead horse. Just a
suggestion, mind ye. Free and country and all that jazz.
*********************************************
"Why Does That Pickle You?" Zoe from Sluggy Freelance
Mark K. Bilbo
thusly:
> While I find evolutionism convincing and a far better explanation of the
> world than creationism, I'm having trouble applying Popper's Demarcation
> criterion on it. Popper's criterion demands that in order for a theory
> to be called scientific it has to be refutable - the more falsifiable it
> is the more scientific it is. And this is where my ignorance in
> evolution and biology comes in: what sort of observation would refute
> the theory of evolution? I have the uncomfortable feeling that it is
> able to explain any biological phenomenon we observe, which Popper says
> is indication of dogmatic thinking and "theory immunization" (like
> Marxist historical theory or freudian psychology).
> Since evolution discusses extremely length processes and what it does
> mostly is explain things that occured in the past it admits of no
> predictions that may be tested immediatly as attempts of refutation. The
> only form of experiment I can think of is using computerized
> simulations, evolutionary algorithms and such.
> Can anyone enlighten me as to what sort of observation evolutionary
> theory would consider a refutation?
I see someone else already said essentially this but the problem with
trying to come up with something that would falsify evolution is it's
*passed all of the major ones and it's backed by *so much evidence it'd
have to be a doozy of an observation.
I mean all the plausible ones are behind us. For example, in Darwin's day,
heredity was not well understood. The discovery of the mechanism for
heredity was, oh, about a century in the future.
Had we found that genes worked differently (say had some kind of "memory"
a la Lamarck), evolution would have been in serious trouble. But we didn't...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
Martin Crisp
(in message <buhia2$1...@library2.airnews.net>):
>> How much of, say, "The Hitchhiker's Guide" or "2001" are true?
>
> Whatever is conceivable by man is true somewhere, somehow.
Oh good, that means I'm not /really/ an atheist, but am /really/
('somewhere, somehow') a demigod.
<paste>
You offer the Amulet of Yendor to Anhur...--More--
An invisible choir sings, and you are bathed in radiance...--More--
The voice of Anhur thunders: "Congratulations, mortal!"--More--
"In return for thy service, I grant thee the gift of Immortality!"--More--
You ascend to the status of Demigod...--More--
</paste>
Please note: I've conceived that you are wrong, by your argument that
means you are wrong.
Have Fun
Martin [bow before me, mortal]
--
aa #1792
I get lucky by sacrificing freshly-killed animals to pagan gods.
Almost always SMASHed
Mark K. Bilbo
thusly:
> God is such a fact that only the sightless cannot see him.
So's the invisible pink unicorn.
Shrug.
Elf M. Sternberg
> And this is where my ignorance in evolution and biology comes in: what
> sort of observation would refute the theory of evolution? I have the
> uncomfortable feeling that it is able to explain any biological
> phenomenon we observe...
Well, let's turn it around. So far, Einstein's theory of
gravity is able to explain any gravitational phenomenon yet observed, so
is that an indicator (in Popperian terms) that Einstein's theory of
gravity is suspect?
Evolutionary theory as it is practiced in biology has a number
of predictive elements to it. For example, no two species occupying the
exact same niche could do so comfortably; one will always be ascendent
over the other and the reason for such is that the ascendent species
will be more efficient than the other at exploiting that niche. If we
found cases where we found conditions to be otherwise, that would be an
indicator that the "survival of the most fit" thesis would be suspect.
Another is that we all have a common ancestor: if we found a species
whose basic biological machinery was completely different from that of
all other species, the common ancestor thesis would be suspect. And so
on.
Elf
Nik The Greek
The thread discusses such predictions as "no fosill of this or that
kind will ever be found". These are relatively weak predictions: they
are negatory, meaning there is no set experiment that could decide the
matter.
I have a hard time believing that there is any archeological finding
that would be considered a harsh refutation of evolution. If some
ancient species of animal fossils were to be discovered that had no
evolutionary connection with any known anscestors, that would probably
be the only possible refutation of evolution, still I have a suspicion
that the theory would be ammended ad-hoc to accomodate the findings
(for example they could be considered extre-terrestrial). Evolution is
problematic in this sense.
Nik the Greek
Nik The Greek
> Nik The Greek:
> >Can anyone enlighten me as to what sort of observation evolutionary
> >theory would consider a refutation?
>
> The fact that there isn't a continual unbroken spectrum of life-forms
> from virus to monkey to human, perhaps?
refering to living life-forms or fossils? It is certainly conceivable
that intermediate chains in the string of evolutions have perished -
in fact this is held to be the case. Regarding fossils, like I said, I
have a hard time accepting such 'weak' predictions as 'no fossil of
kind X will ever be found', etc.
Nik
Mark Earnest
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 8:33:08 +1100, Mark Earnest wrote
> (in message <buhia2$1...@library2.airnews.net>):
>
> >> How much of, say, "The Hitchhiker's Guide" or "2001" are true?
> >
> > Whatever is conceivable by man is true somewhere, somehow.
>
> Oh good, that means I'm not /really/ an atheist, but am /really/
> ('somewhere, somehow') a demigod.
>
> <paste>
> You offer the Amulet of Yendor to Anhur...--More--
> An invisible choir sings, and you are bathed in radiance...--More--
> The voice of Anhur thunders: "Congratulations, mortal!"--More--
> "In return for thy service, I grant thee the gift of Immortality!"--More--
> You ascend to the status of Demigod...--More--
> </paste>
>
> Please note: I've conceived that you are wrong, by your argument that
> means you are wrong.
A conception is the creation of life; you have shown none.
Mark Earnest
"Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:QKSOb.83533$Rc4.300436@attbi_s54...
> "Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
> news:bufkj1$m...@library2.airnews.net...
> >
> > "I Think..Therefore I Am Clayton" <cj...@SPAMBLOCKnotmyemail.com> wrote
in
> > message news:400b29e6$0$4047$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > >
> > > "Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
> > > news:buf2er$k...@library1.airnews.net...
> > > >
> > > > God is fact.
> > >
> > > You seem to be using some strange new meaning of the word "fact" that
I
> > > haven't heard of before. Please explain how something for which there
> is
> > > absolutely no evidence for, no reason for, no need for and which is,
> from
> > > it's most basic concept, childish, primitive and absurd...is a "fact".
> >
> > God is such a fact that only the sightless cannot see him.
>
Every day. As a human being.
> > Which includes most everybody.
> > Doesn't matter, though, because he is still here, helping people,
visibly.
> > Find the nearest person that knows too much, and you may have found God.
>
> In my old neighborhood, if you knew too much you likely got a
> concrete shoe shine?
>
> So what exactly did you mean by that last statement?
A person whom knows more than a person should be able to know.
Nik The Greek
informative. So, while I check out Lakatos's article tommorow at the
library, perhaps you could elaborate more on your point. I'd
appreciate it.
Nik the Greek
Mark Earnest
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:43:16 +0000 (UTC), "Mark Earnest"
> <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >God is fact.
>
> Objective evidence? There's objective evidence of evolution.
Seeing is believing. He passes right in front of you every day, and you are
blind to him.
John Wilkins
OK. Lakatos objected to Popper's demarcation - well, his notion of the
falsfiability of a theory being the hallmark of science - because it
turns out that you *cannot* falsify a theory without making all kinds of
ancillary assumptions, each of which themselves are open to dispute. The
Duhem-Quine Thesis goes like this:
Assume you are a Newtonian (this works for any theory, but it's easiest
with Newtonian mechanics) and you observe a deviation from the predicted
orbit of Neptune. What do you do? Well, you hypothesise there is another
planet, and you calculate the orbit and mass of that planet from the
Newtonian laws, and go looking for it.
If you find it, well and good, but suppose you don't? Is the hypothesis
falsified? Lakatos proposes that you can, instead, jettison ancillary
assumptions - the telescope is faulty, the operator is incompetent, the
planet has an insufficent albedo to be seen, and so on. There are an
indefinite number of ancillary hypotheses that are being used in any
obsevational act, and so you cannot force the falsification of the major
hypothesis under test. So how do you pick which one to falsify when the
prediction fails? Answer: there is no prior determination as to which
hypothesis gets abandoned.
So Lakatos supposes that instead of these abstract entities
"hypotheses", there are in fact only research programmes (his spelling).
Each programme is composed of a set of core assumptions which are
protected from revision (Quine had famously supposed that *all* beliefs
in a system are open to revision) or at least revision-resistant, and
peripheral assumptions that can be challeneged. If the only way to
protect the planetary hypothesis were to challenge the core beliefs of
the nature ofoptics, then you would of course jettison the planet.
Notice what this does - it undercuts the entire rationale for Popper's
demarcation criterion. Now, instead of a set of clear logical objects
that are scientific (for the falsification thesis relies on hypotheses
being logical objects subject to modus ponens), science comprises a
group of fuzzy objects that are evolving at different rates and which
have different liabilities to rejection. Moreover, in programmes that
are not being "progressive" (never sufficiently defined by Lakatos for
my taste), there is no way to distinguish between alternate hypotheses
and assumptions.
I recommend Alan Chalmers' _What is this thing called science_ as an
intro text, and Philip Kitcher's _The advancement of science_ as a more
sophisticated treatment. Myself, I follow a dual account of science as
semantic models (the so-called semantic conception of Frederick Suppe)
and as an evolutionary process not unlike Lakatos' accoutn, but not
normative (David Hull's view).
Martin Crisp
(in message <bui4rj$r...@library2.airnews.net>):
More equivocation. A little more variety in your fallacies would
be interesting.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conceive
<paste>
con·ceive P Pronunciation Key (k n-s v)
v. con·ceived, con·ceiv·ing, con·ceives
v. tr.
To become pregnant with (offspring).
To form or develop in the mind; devise: conceive a plan to
increase profits.
To apprehend mentally; understand: couldn't conceive the meaning
of that sentence.
To be of the opinion that; think: didn't conceive such a tragedy
could occur.
To begin or originate in a specific way: a political movement
conceived in the ferment of the 1960s.
v. intr.
To form or hold an idea: Ancient peoples conceived of the earth as
flat.
To become pregnant.
</paste>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conception
<paste>
con·cep·tion P Pronunciation Key (k n-s psh n)
n.
Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and
female ovum; fertilization.
The entity formed by the union of the male sperm and female ovum;
an embryo or zygote.
The ability to form or understand mental concepts and
abstractions.
Something conceived in the mind; a concept, plan, design, idea, or
thought. See Synonyms at idea .
Archaic. A beginning; a start.
</paste>
It is clear we had not been talking about conception in terms of
fertilisation, but were talking in terms of the formation of
ideas, or concepts. So why did you try to change the topic?
Have Fun
Martin,killed by brainlessness
Matt Silberstein
(Nik The Greek):
>"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.01.19....@mail.utexas.edu>...
>> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:27:52 +0000, Nik the Greek wrote:
>>
>> > While I find evolutionism convincing and a far better explanation of the
>> > world than creationism, I'm having trouble applying Popper's Demarcation
>> > criterion on it. Popper's criterion demands that in order for a theory
>> > to be called scientific it has to be refutable - the more falsifiable it
>> > is the more scientific it is. And this is where my ignorance in
>> > evolution and biology comes in: what sort of observation would refute
>> > the theory of evolution? I have the uncomfortable feeling that it is
>> > able to explain any biological phenomenon we observe, which Popper says
>> > is indication of dogmatic thinking and "theory immunization" (like
>> > Marxist historical theory or freudian psychology). Since evolution
>> > discusses extremely length processes and what it does mostly is explain
>> > things that occured in the past it admits of no predictions that may be
>> > tested immediatly as attempts of refutation. The only form of experiment
>> > I can think of is using computerized simulations, evolutionary
>> > algorithms and such. Can anyone enlighten me as to what sort of
>> > observation evolutionary theory would consider a refutation?
>>
>> Hi, Nik. For some opionions see if you can find the thread "Predictions
>> of the TOE", which started on January 16.
>
>The thread discusses such predictions as "no fosill of this or that
>kind will ever be found". These are relatively weak predictions: they
>are negatory, meaning there is no set experiment that could decide the
>matter.
Actually, it is the opposite. A claim that "no X will be found"
is a strong claim, the existence of one X falsifies it.
>I have a hard time believing that there is any archeological finding
>that would be considered a harsh refutation of evolution.
You don't mean archaeology, that is the study of old human stuff.
> If some
>ancient species of animal fossils were to be discovered that had no
>evolutionary connection with any known anscestors, that would probably
>be the only possible refutation of evolution, still I have a suspicion
>that the theory would be ammended ad-hoc to accomodate the findings
>(for example they could be considered extre-terrestrial). Evolution is
>problematic in this sense.
Sort of how the theory of gravity was able to deal with things
falling up? The easy answer is that every single evolutionary
biology journal (and most editions of Nature) have articles with
evolutionary predictions. Or you can read Darwin who laid out
predictions in Origins.
Mark K. Bilbo
thusly:
>
Nonsense. I've conceived of many things that are flatly impossible. I
enjoy conceiving of impossible things. It amuses me.
Mark K. Bilbo
thusly:
No, that's a bad example on your part. In that if millions of species save
one can be shown to be related, dumping the entire structure for that one
data point would be *unwarranted.
In fact, I'd say it'd be irresponsible to throw out something that is
backed by so much data and research over a single, possible counterexample.
Rather like throwing out everything we know about gravity because there
appeared to be one, single, possible case of levitation in history. Would
it be warranted to dismiss everything we know because of that?
To overturn a theory with a century and a half behind it, you'd have to
have a *lot of data. Big, honking wads of information that just doesn't
fit. But, then, given that you're taking Popper to this extreme, would you
consider the inevitable revision to be just "ad hoc?" If so, you're
tossing out the process that gives us a lot of our science...
Mark K. Bilbo
thusly:
> "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:QKSOb.83533$Rc4.300436@attbi_s54...
>> "Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
>> news:bufkj1$m...@library2.airnews.net...
>> >
>> > "I Think..Therefore I Am Clayton" <cj...@SPAMBLOCKnotmyemail.com> wrote
> in
>> > message news:400b29e6$0$4047$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> > >
>> > > "Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
>> > > news:buf2er$k...@library1.airnews.net...
>> > > >
>> > > > God is fact.
>> > >
>> > > You seem to be using some strange new meaning of the word "fact" that
> I
>> > > haven't heard of before. Please explain how something for which there
>> is
>> > > absolutely no evidence for, no reason for, no need for and which is,
>> from
>> > > it's most basic concept, childish, primitive and absurd...is a "fact".
>> >
>> > God is such a fact that only the sightless cannot see him.
>>
>> When did you last see god and how did he manifest himself?
>
> Every day. As a human being.
Ooooookay.
I think this is my stop...
Mark Earnest
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:49:07 +1100, Mark Earnest wrote
> (in message <bui4rj$r...@library2.airnews.net>):
>
> >
> > "Martin Crisp" <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:0001HW.BC32CDC6...@news.ozemail.com.au...
> >> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 8:33:08 +1100, Mark Earnest wrote
> >> (in message <buhia2$1...@library2.airnews.net>):
> >>
> >>>> How much of, say, "The Hitchhiker's Guide" or "2001" are true?
> >>>
> >>> Whatever is conceivable by man is true somewhere, somehow.
> >>
> >> Oh good, that means I'm not /really/ an atheist, but am /really/
> >> ('somewhere, somehow') a demigod.
> >>
> >> <paste>
> >> You offer the Amulet of Yendor to Anhur...--More--
> >> An invisible choir sings, and you are bathed in radiance...--More--
> >> The voice of Anhur thunders: "Congratulations, mortal!"--More--
> >> "In return for thy service, I grant thee the gift of
Immortality!"--More--
> >> You ascend to the status of Demigod...--More--
> >> </paste>
> >>
> >> Please note: I've conceived that you are wrong, by your argument that
> >> means you are wrong.
> >
> > A conception is the creation of life; you have shown none.
>
> More equivocation. A little more variety in your fallacies would
> be interesting.
Words mean what they mean. And conceive means to produce life, any way you
look at it.
Mark K. Bilbo
thusly:
>
So does the IPU.
Mark K. Bilbo
thusly:
> If it didn't seem real, it wouldn't be real; but it does seem real, so it
> is.
No, writers make fiction up. They really do. I've done it. None of it was
real. Really.
Mark K. Bilbo
thusly:
> Mark Earnest wrote:
>
>> "Richard Uhrich" <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:aQROb.17716$Se....@twister.socal.rr.com...
>>
>>>Mark Earnest wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Pithecanthropus Erectus" <tuib...@spam.earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:k5IOb.18737$zj7....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>God is fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Not sure how you determined that God is fact, even if one believes in a
>>>>>creation, the creator is not established with certainty.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Evolution is fact, too. Science and religion have nothing
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>do with it. See things from the total perspective.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Religion is fiction, science is fact. Get used to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Most fiction is true. Get used to that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>While good fiction illustrates themes that are true, there is no reason
>>>>>to call fiction "true."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The stories you have just read are true. The names have been changed to
>>>>protect the innocent.
>>>>
>>>>Get it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>How much of, say, "The Hitchhiker's Guide" or "2001" are true?
>>
>>
>> Whatever is conceivable by man is true somewhere, somehow.
>>
>>
>
> That sounds profound, but is so inane.
He's another one of those "I'm so profound I just wet myself!"
Martin Crisp
(in message <bui542$3...@library2.airnews.net>):
>
> "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:QKSOb.83533$Rc4.300436@attbi_s54...
>> "Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
>> news:bufkj1$m...@library2.airnews.net...
<snip earlier>
>>> God is such a fact that only the sightless cannot see him.
>>
>> When did you last see god and how did he manifest himself?
>
> Every day. As a human being.
So, every day you meet people who know more than they should be
able to know (whatever that means, and however you determine such
a seemingly nonsensical state)?
Or are you talking only about yourself (as seen in a mirror)? If
so do you mean to say each person is a god (and thereby knows more
than a person should be able to know)? How do you know how much
you 'should be able to' know?
Or are you using 'sight' metaphorically, if so would you mind not
doing so, or at least explain the metaphor, few (if any) of us are
capable of reading your mind.
[...]
>>> Find the nearest person that knows too much, and you may have
>>> found God.
[...]
>> So what exactly did you mean by that last statement?
> A person whom knows more than a person should be able to know.
How in the name of Zeus can you measure such a thing?
Have Fun
Martin,killed by the wrath of Thoth
--
aa #1792
Kinky:
What I do that you wouldn't.
Perverted:
What you do that I wouldn't.
Almost always SMASHed
Martin Crisp
(in message <bui803$4...@library2.airnews.net>):
>
> "Martin Crisp" <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.BC32EC54...@news.ozemail.com.au...
[snip]
>> More equivocation. A little more variety in your fallacies would
>> be interesting.
>
> Words mean what they mean. And conceive means to produce life,
> any way you look at it.
Which is why you had to snip the definitions from
dictionary.reference.com which clearly showed several usages, and
thereby definitions, of what the words 'conceive' and 'conception'
mean.
Thank you for adding the requested variety, however.
Have Fun
Martin
Mark K. Bilbo
thusly:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:53:37 +1100, Mark Earnest wrote
> (in message <bui542$3...@library2.airnews.net>):
>
>>
>> "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:QKSOb.83533$Rc4.300436@attbi_s54...
>>> "Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
>>> news:bufkj1$m...@library2.airnews.net...
>
> <snip earlier>
>
>>>> God is such a fact that only the sightless cannot see him.
>>>
>>> When did you last see god and how did he manifest himself?
>>
>> Every day. As a human being.
>
> So, every day you meet people who know more than they should be
> able to know (whatever that means, and however you determine such
> a seemingly nonsensical state)?
>
> Or are you talking only about yourself (as seen in a mirror)? If
> so do you mean to say each person is a god (and thereby knows more
> than a person should be able to know)? How do you know how much
> you 'should be able to' know?
>
> Or are you using 'sight' metaphorically, if so would you mind not
> doing so, or at least explain the metaphor, few (if any) of us are
> capable of reading your mind.
And do these "people" have special messages just for him?
Mark K. Bilbo
thusly:
>
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.01.19....@mail.utexas.edu...
>> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 00:29:29 +0000, Mark Earnest wrote:
>>
>> > Most fiction is true. Get used to that.
>>
>> ???
>
> Consider reality an episode of Dragnet. The names have been changed to
> protect the innocent. The rest is like a dream. Good fiction is in symbols
> that describe reality.
> The symbols are true.
>
> Same thing with God. He may be fiction in many cases, but that means he is
> only described in symbols. If God is described as a vinedresser, that does
> not mean that he spends all day every day tending vines. But he spends a
> lot of time doing it in symbols, by pruning people.
Dude. You gonna bogart that?
Mark Earnest
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y...@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.01.20....@hoo.com-amikchi...
> And so upon Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:09:47 +0000 didst Mark Earnest speak
> thusly:
>
> > If it didn't seem real, it wouldn't be real; but it does seem real, so
it
> > is.
>
> No, writers make fiction up. They really do. I've done it. None of it was
> real. Really.
You may just think you made it up. You may have had a dream the night
before that gave you a vision, and it stuck with you, for example.
Mark Earnest
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y...@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.01.20....@hoo.com-amikchi...
Nothing is impossible. Not if it makes sense.
Mark Earnest
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y...@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.01.20....@hoo.com-amikchi...
To get off or to get on?
Mark Earnest
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:53:37 +1100, Mark Earnest wrote
> (in message <bui542$3...@library2.airnews.net>):
>
> >
> > "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:QKSOb.83533$Rc4.300436@attbi_s54...
> >> "Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
> >> news:bufkj1$m...@library2.airnews.net...
>
> <snip earlier>
>
> >>> God is such a fact that only the sightless cannot see him.
> >>
> >> When did you last see god and how did he manifest himself?
> >
> > Every day. As a human being.
>
> So, every day you meet people who know more than they should be
> able to know (whatever that means, and however you determine such
> a seemingly nonsensical state)?
>
> Or are you talking only about yourself (as seen in a mirror)?
No.
If
> so do you mean to say each person is a god (and thereby knows more
> than a person should be able to know)?
No, just some of what appear to be people are in fact, God.
How do you know how much
> you 'should be able to' know?
A person you just met should not act like an old friend, for example.
If he does, it just might be God. Or any of a number of other immortal
beings.
>
> Or are you using 'sight' metaphorically, if so would you mind not
> doing so, or at least explain the metaphor, few (if any) of us are
> capable of reading your mind.
I am using "sight" literally. It is possible to see God, even though very
few are able to. They see him outwardly, but scarcely ever recognize him.
>
>
> [...]
> >>> Find the nearest person that knows too much, and you may have
> >>> found God.
>
> [...]
> >> So what exactly did you mean by that last statement?
>
> > A person whom knows more than a person should be able to know.
>
> How in the name of Zeus can you measure such a thing?
If you tell someone what you do for a living, and he suddenly knows where yo
u work, or someone you work with, for example.
This is not always an indicator of seeing God, but keep up these tests until
you know.
>
> Have Fun
> Martin,killed by the wrath of Thoth
Don't let them kill you. It hurts your character.
AC
TonyJeffs <tony...@aol.com> wrote:
> Nik The Greek:
>>Can anyone enlighten me as to what sort of observation evolutionary
>>theory would consider a refutation?
>
> species
I was unaware that evolutionary theory predicts exactly what you are saying.
Common descent predicts this would be through time, not at the same time.
Beyond that, go look up "ring species" and tell me how this fits in with
your idea of discreet species.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
AC
You certainly don't think so. What is your definition of "fiction" again?
> And conceive means to produce life, any way you
> look at it.
AC
Plenty of things are impossible. For instance I can't jump up to the Moon.
It is impossible for me to propel myself beyond escape velocity using just
my legs.
I'm afraid, Mark, that you come off as more of a cheap religious version
Tony Robins, spouting off silly little platitudes. You stumbled into the
wrong neck of the woods if you think most of the folks here are going to be
impressed, particularly with the word games you have tried to play.
AC
Why don't you just deal with the original assertion that religion is
fiction, rather than playing this rhetorical game?
Mark Earnest
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y...@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.01.20....@hoo.com-amikchi...
Of course they do. If you find them they will have messages for you, too.
From "beyond," if that is your best conception of where they are from.
Mark K. Bilbo
thusly:
>
> "Mark K. Bilbo" <y...@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.01.20....@hoo.com-amikchi...
>> And so upon Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:09:47 +0000 didst Mark Earnest speak
>> thusly:
>>
>> > If it didn't seem real, it wouldn't be real; but it does seem real, so
> it
>> > is.
>>
>> No, writers make fiction up. They really do. I've done it. None of it was
>> real. Really.
>
> You may just think you made it up. You may have had a dream the night
> before that gave you a vision, and it stuck with you, for example.
And I may just have a very, very active, oh, imagination.
Mark K. Bilbo
thusly:
Who says I limit myself to "makes sense?"
Mark K. Bilbo
thusly:
Time to back away slowly.
Mark K. Bilbo
thusly:
> No, just some of what appear to be people are in fact, God.
And *some of them that appear to be people are Arcturians!
Martin Crisp
(in message <buibf3$4...@library2.airnews.net>):
>
> "Martin Crisp" <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.BC32F2B6...@news.ozemail.com.au...
>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:53:37 +1100, Mark Earnest wrote
>> (in message <bui542$3...@library2.airnews.net>):
>>
>>>
>>> "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:QKSOb.83533$Rc4.300436@attbi_s54...
>>>> "Mark Earnest" <mar...@SPAMLESSairmail.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:bufkj1$m...@library2.airnews.net...
>>
>> <snip earlier>
>>
>>>>> God is such a fact that only the sightless cannot see him.
>>>>
>>>> When did you last see god and how did he manifest himself?
>>>
>>> Every day. As a human being.
>>
>> So, every day you meet people who know more than they should be
>> able to know (whatever that means, and however you determine such
>> a seemingly nonsensical state)?
>>
>> Or are you talking only about yourself (as seen in a mirror)?
>
> No.
OK.
> If
>> so do you mean to say each person is a god (and thereby knows more
>> than a person should be able to know)?
>
> No, just some of what appear to be people are in fact, God.
If we performed a standard medical examination of these 'gods'
would we find they had a physiology within normal human bounds?
Oh, do you mean that these various manifestations are
manifestations of one particular 'god', or that there are multiple
'gods' wandering around as people?
> How do you know how much
>> you 'should be able to' know?
>
> A person you just met should not act like an old friend, for example.
It's a shame you don't live in a society with a greater number of
generally amiable people.
> If he does, it just might be God. Or any of a number of other immortal
> beings.
Such as? Maybe my Elven Wizard (the ascension I mentioned in
another reply) is wandering around out there? I recommend asking
each of these people/'gods' "Is your real name Foolish32?", be
warned though, he was last seen carrying the blessed rustproof +2
Magicbane, and is chaotic, so might just slice you up on a whim.
>> Or are you using 'sight' metaphorically, if so would you mind not
>> doing so, or at least explain the metaphor, few (if any) of us are
>> capable of reading your mind.
>
> I am using "sight" literally. It is possible to see God, even though very
> few are able to. They see him outwardly, but scarcely ever recognize him.
Just special people? Like you?
>> [...]
>>>>> Find the nearest person that knows too much, and you may have
>>>>> found God.
>>
>> [...]
>>>> So what exactly did you mean by that last statement?
>>
>>> A person whom knows more than a person should be able to know.
>>
>> How in the name of Zeus can you measure such a thing?
>
> If you tell someone what you do for a living, and he suddenly
> knows where yo u work, or someone you work with, for example.
>
> This is not always an indicator of seeing God, but keep up
> these tests until you know.
So if this isn't always an indicator, how do you ascertain/know
when it is?
>> Have Fun
>> Martin,killed by the wrath of Thoth
>
> Don't let them kill you. It hurts your character.
Well, I generally plan to not die. But since most deaths are due
to stupid mistakes, they're informative, and educational, also
being killed isn't always fatal...
<paste>
Do you want to see your attributes? [ynq] (n)
Final Attributes:
You were the Glory of Arioch.
You were piously aligned.
You were fire resistant.
You were cold resistant.
You were sleep resistant.
You were disintegration-resistant.
You were shock resistant.
You were poison resistant.
You were magic-protected.
You saw invisible.
You were telepathic.
You were warned.
You were clairvoyant.
You had infravision.
You were invisible to others.
You were stealthy.
You could teleport.
You had teleport control.
You were protected.
You were very fast.
You had reflection.
You had free action.
Your life would have been saved.
You were extremely lucky.
You had extra luck.
Good luck did not time out for you.
You survived after being killed once.
</paste>
Obviously being killed doesn't always do a character much harm
[I'd starved to death, and learnt to be more careful regarding the
multiple contributory factors that caused that particular death].
Have Fun
Martin,killed by hallucinogen-distorted Ms. Zonguldak, the
shopkeeper
darth_versive
> darth_...@yahoo.com (darth_versive) said:
>
> >Jim07D4 <Jim...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<94vm00l6c29k1n64i...@4ax.com>...
> >> darth_...@yahoo.com (darth_versive) said:
> >>
> >> >Many creationists argue (falsely, in my view) that the theory of
> >> >evolution is a philosophy or a religion, and that accepting it is
> >> >tantamount to believing in a "naturalistic worldview," which denies
> >> >the existence of God or anything supernatural.
> ............
> >> Or, from a psychological perspective, what brings people to defend
> >> one, against the other? Saying one is true, and the other false, is
> >> inadequate as an explanation. Many things are considered true, or
> >> false, or dispensed with as uninterestingly true or false, without
> >> having such a hold on the psyche.
> >>
> >> Jim07D4
> >
> >Right. Studying what it is about certain conceptual frameworks which
> >gives them, or enables them to have, a strong hold on the psyche,
> >while other, seemingly similar ones lack this quality, is one of the
> >key issues to address when confronting such phenomena from a
> >psychological perspective.
> >
> >This is a very good question to ask.
> >
> >If you'd like to discuss this question at greater length, I would be
> >agreeable to that.
> >
> Well, I don't have much more to say. I suppose I am a non-theistic
> existentialist. Observation: We want to feel that our lives matter,
> and how we feel about that affects our lives. True? False? For some of
> us, it seems to have to matter in some cosmic sense, part of a cosmic
> narrative drama. That my life matters to me, is enough; I feel no need
> to question why it matters, or ask whether it matters in a cosmic
> sense. The cosmic drama will work itself out.
>
> So, does non-theistic evolution, or theistic creationism, offer a more
> satisfying answer to why your life matters? I suggest that it is not
> the evolution/creationism aspect of this that makes the real
> difference, it is the non-theistic/theistic aspect that makes the
> difference.
>
> Jim07D4
Yes. There seems to be something in human nature, something in the
basic structure of the mind, that gives us the tendency to want to
feel that our lives matter. In some way or another.
Sometimes the conceptual frameworks by which we make sense of the
universe around us--and by which are set the parameters of exactly in
what sense our lives matter--involve our lives mattering in a cosmic
sense, and sometimes not. Sometimes it just matters on a personal
level to ourselves and the people around us, and that's enough.
But when we're trying to figure out what makes the real difference in
how strongly such conceptual frameworks have a hold on the psyche, on
how "satisfying" the answers given are, it may not necessarily be the
non-theistic/theistic aspect which is the most important. In fact,
the evidence we have so far seems to indicated that this is *not* the
case. After all, when you look at certain dogmatic ideologies that do
not involve theism, such as Marxism-Leninism or fascism, etc., it
would seem that they can have just as strong a hold on the psyche as
any theistic dogmatic belief system does.
So there must be some other factor/factors involved that we haven't
yet considered, other than just the non-theistic/theistic one. That
stands to reason, when these other, non-theistic systems of thought
can have just as strong a hold on the psyche, doesn't it?
DV