There's no such thing as literal
Cyde Weys
interpretive. Unless you're reading mathematical equations, anyway. But
outside of the realm of mathematics and cold hard numbers, all reading is
done subjectively. There is no "true" interpretation of any given text and
there certainly is no such thing as a definitively literal interpretation.
Of course, this is all relevant when we're talking about works that have
been translated out of the language they were originally written in.
The only way to obtain a literal and correct meaning from any given text is
if you wrote it yourself and remember all the circumstances surrounding the
writing of it. Otherwise, it's still interpretive. I say you have to
remember writing it because I occasionally go back and read my old
talk.origins posts and I can't agree on any single interpretation to assign
to them; it's been too long.
--
~ Cyde Weys ~
Sub veste quisque nudus est.
Double Felix
Cyde Weys <cyde...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just want to say there's no such thing as "literal". All reading is
> interpretive. Unless you're reading mathematical equations, anyway. But
> outside of the realm of mathematics and cold hard numbers, all reading is
> done subjectively. There is no "true" interpretation of any given text and
> there certainly is no such thing as a definitively literal interpretation.
I think you're mistaking the meaning of "literal" here. If Jesus calls
himself a "lamb," he means it figuratively. Taken literally, of course
then Jesus was saying he was actually a juvenile sheep with four legs,
wool, and the lot. That is, he wasn't utilizing a metaphor.
Just because it requires interpretation to understand the meaning, it
doesn't necessarily follow that the meaning can't be literal.
- Felix
someone on the internet
Timberwoof
"someone on the internet" <ja...@justanotherdomain.us> wrote:
> Yes
Those Vorlons! Always with the mysterious, ambiguous answers.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
someone on the internet
but I didn't figure there would be a point to it.
>I think you're mistaking the meaning of "literal" here. If Jesus calls
>himself a "lamb," he means it figuratively. Taken literally, of course
>then Jesus was saying he was actually a juvenile sheep with four legs,
>wool, and the lot. That is, he wasn't utilizing a metaphor.
While Jesus calling himself a lamb might be taken figuratively that is
still an interpretation, there is also interpretation in what exactly
it means by him calling himself the lamb. I thought Jesus was the
shephard and everyone else where lambs. Also Jesus calling himself a
lamb is an analogy, metaphor is "like or as".
Scott Draper
certainly is no such thing as a definitively literal interpretation.
>>
Hmmm....and your evidence for this is what?
Robert J. Kolker
>
> While Jesus calling himself a lamb might be taken figuratively that is
> still an interpretation, there is also interpretation in what exactly
> it means by him calling himself the lamb. I thought Jesus was the
> shephard and everyone else where lambs. Also Jesus calling himself a
> lamb is an analogy, metaphor is "like or as".
Lamb, as in sacrificial. If one lived in the days when livestock was
still slaughtered and cooked in the Mikdash (Temple) that is exactly the
phrase that would have been used.
Bob Kolker
Andrew McClure
> Just because it requires interpretation to understand the meaning, it
> doesn't necessarily follow that the meaning can't be literal.
So that's your interpretation of the word "literal", is it?
neverbetter
Cyde Weys kirjoitti:
> I just want to say there's no such thing as "literal". All reading is
> interpretive. Unless you're reading mathematical equations, anyway. But
> outside of the realm of mathematics and cold hard numbers, all reading is
> done subjectively. There is no "true" interpretation of any given text and
> there certainly is no such thing as a definitively literal interpretation.
I'm not sure what you mean.
David Ewan Kahana
I think you confuse analogy and simile, and interchange
a common usage of the word `simile' with a common
usage of the word `metaphor.'
The three terms actually do overlap to an extent.
I think some have argued that metaphor is an extremely
general phenomenon in language, and that much of
language, even most of language, consists of metaphor,
most of which however is conventional, so conventional
in fact that we do not notice it.
Commonly, simile denotes a rhetorical form using the
words like or as to establish a similarity between words
denoting two things.
Commonly metaphor denotes a rhetorical form which
juxtaposes words denoting two things, without use of
the words like or as. Metaphor thus directly asserts
that one thing is another thing. It directly identifies one
thing with another thing. So metaphorical constructions
may contain an element of tension, where the things denoted
are dissimilar. Something new is made from the juxtaposition,
whether or not there is tension.
Commonly analogy denotes a more general, possibly more
extended rhetorical form, which is used to compare two things,
more specifically, to explain one thing by means of a comparison
to another. Analogy may or may not overlap with simile.
So, here are two similes:
`O, my luve is like a red, red rose,
That's newly sprung in June;
O, my luve is like a melodie
That's sweetly played in tune.'
Here are some simple metaphors:
`War is hell.'
`Heaven is a place where nothing happens.'
Here's a more complex metaphor:
`The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.'
Here is a complex series of metaphors:
`Rough winds do shake the darling buds of may
And summer's lease hath all too short a date.'
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimmed'
Here is an analogy:
`You may abuse a tragedy, though you cannot
write one. You may scold a carpenter who has
made you a bad table, though you cannot make
a table. It is not your trade to make tables.'
The verses in the NT that are relevant to the
present question are:
John 1.29: The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith,
Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
John 1.36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith,
Behold the Lamb of God!
So the writer of the Gospel of John records that John
called Jesus the Lamb of God (amnos tou theou).
So, if it is not meant literally, John's remark would have
to be metaphor, not simile
As far as I know, these are the only two places
in the NT in which Jesus is described directly as
the Lamb of God.
First, I observe that the verses containing John's
references to `Jesus' as `Lamb of God' are,
considered as rhetorical forms, clearly metaphor,
in that the thing `Jesus' denotes is identified
with the thing that `Lamb of God' denotes, without the
use of the words like or as.
Now to read these metaphors figuratively (that is to read
them as consciously intended figures of speech) and
not as stating that Jesus appears in the form of a Lamb,
seems reasonable enough idea on its face judging from
the text itself, since one migh imagine, if Jesus had
appeared to John physically as a lamb, one would
have expected John to remark upon such a
miraculous transformation. (Jesus was previously
referred to as taking human form, in that he was
said to have spoken to the priests and Levites at
John 1.19 and 1.20)
Eg., John 1.36 might have read:
And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he said,
Rabbi, thou hast the cloven foot and thou
chewest the cud, and thy fleece is white as snow:
Behold the Lamb of God!
Such a literal reading of the original may, of course,
be possible. But it seems to be pretty tortured to
me at least, and as far as I understand it, this
is not the way most Christians read these
verses.
If the language is read figuratively then I think that
the metaphor in part establishes a connection to
literary antecedents in the Torah. I can think of two
offhand.
One antecedent is in the story of the binding
of Yitzak:
Gen 22.7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father,
and said, My father: and he said, Here [am] I, my son.
And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where
[is] the lamb for a burnt offering?
Gen 22.8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide
himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of
them together.
Gen 22.9 And they came to the place which God had
told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid
the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid
him on the altar upon the wood.
Gen 22.10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and
took the knife to slay his son.
Gen 22.11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him
out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he
said, Here [am] I.
Gen 22.12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon
the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now
I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not
withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me.
Gen 22.13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and
looked, and behold behind [him] a ram caught in
a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and
took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering
in the stead of his son.
The other antecedent is the story of the pesach
lamb, that according to Torah was sacrificed,
and some of its blood placed on the lintels by
the Israelites so that ha Shem would pass over
their households when he came to destroy the
first born sons of Egypt.
Exod. 12.21 Then Moses called for all the elders
of Israel, and said unto them: 'Draw out, and take
you lambs according to your families, and kill the
passover lamb.
Exod. 12.22 And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip
it in the blood that is in the basin, and strike the lintel
and the two side-posts with the blood that is in the
basin; and none of you shall go out of the door of
his house until the morning.
Exod. 12.23 For the ha Shem will pass through to smite the
Egyptians; and when He seeth the blood upon
the lintel, and on the two side-posts, the ha Shem
will pass over the door, and will not suffer the
destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite
you.
In my view metaphor is inescapable.
David
r norman
wrote:
<snip>
>.... I occasionally go back and read my old
>talk.origins posts and I can't agree on any single interpretation to assign
>to them; it's been too long.
I have the same feeling even the first time I read your posts ;-)
Ron O
Cyde Weys wrote:
> I just want to say there's no such thing as "literal". All reading is
> interpretive. Unless you're reading mathematical equations, anyway. But
> outside of the realm of mathematics and cold hard numbers, all reading is
> done subjectively. There is no "true" interpretation of any given text and
> there certainly is no such thing as a definitively literal interpretation.
> Of course, this is all relevant when we're talking about works that have
> been translated out of the language they were originally written in.
What about the infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1? What about
the infinite number of numbers between 1 and 1000? Can you interpret a
lesser infinity? What is the definition of 1? If 1 can have a set
definition why can't "change in allele frequency over time." be just as
non interpretive as 1+1?
Science depends on set agreed upon definitions or we would have even
more problems communicating. Just because there isn't a universal set
agreed upon by all cultures, religions and human endeavors, doesn't
mean that the scientists or creationists that misuse the definitions
aren't responsible for any miscommunication.
Ron Okimoto
Zachriel
"Cyde Weys" <cyde...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns979180905CB12g...@216.196.97.136...
>I just want to say there's no such thing as "literal".
Should we take that statement literally, or as hyperbole?
--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
Member AMF, Angelic Motive Force: Pushing planets on celestial spheres — one
epoch at a time.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
Marc
someone on the internet wrote:
> but I didn't figure there would be a point to it.
There is also the circumstance that your reply of "yes"
had no indication to whom you had replied and the
context.... as threads can get quite complex here
do try to include enough of a reference to the context
that we don't have to go looking for a message that
says either "no" or "will you marry me" or whatever
that you might be saying "yes" to.
(In Google Groups, use "show options" THEN "reply",
not just the reply link from below the message.)
(signed) marc
.
Peter Barber
> I think you're mistaking the meaning of "literal" here. If Jesus calls
> himself a "lamb," he means it figuratively. Taken literally, of course
> then Jesus was saying he was actually a juvenile sheep with four legs,
> wool, and the lot. That is, he wasn't utilizing a metaphor.
Figuratively? How do you know? They didn't have chlorpromazine 2000
years ago...
Peter Barber
> The only way to obtain a literal and correct meaning from any given text is
> if you wrote it yourself and remember all the circumstances surrounding the
> writing of it. Otherwise, it's still interpretive. I say you have to
> remember writing it because I occasionally go back and read my old
> talk.origins posts and I can't agree on any single interpretation to assign
> to them; it's been too long.
Hi there!
Why not visit my award-winning website at
www.postmodernistsannotatedbible.com, where everyone's exigesis is
valid!
Regards,
JF Lyotard
rev.goetz
So this means that there is no correct meaning of this post.
But I think that there is an original intended meaning of this post,
even if no one understands it or if you already forgot it.
Milan
> interpretive. Unless you're reading mathematical equations, anyway. But
> outside of the realm of mathematics and cold hard numbers, all reading is
> done subjectively. There is no "true" interpretation of any given text
and
> there certainly is no such thing as a definitively literal interpretation.
> Of course, this is all relevant when we're talking about works that have
> been translated out of the language they were originally written in.
>
How should we interpret your post?
regards
Milan
dkomo
> I just want to say there's no such thing as "literal". All reading is
> interpretive.
All generalizations are inaccurate.
Unless you're reading mathematical equations, anyway. But
> outside of the realm of mathematics and cold hard numbers, all reading is
> done subjectively. There is no "true" interpretation of any given text and
> there certainly is no such thing as a definitively literal interpretation.
Except for the text of a computer program. You may interpret it one
way, especially if you wrote it yourself, but when you run it the
computer will always return the "true" interpretation of the text.
Computers are very literal readers.
SeppoP
With a shot or two (maybe three) of Jameson, or some equivalent libation.
(It is weekend, after all, and my understanding is that Cyde is a student with certain duties that people with that
persuation [bless their tiny little soggy hearts...] "sometimes" are forced to endure during weekends).
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
Cyde Weys
Different computers sure as hell interpret different code differently. It
could be even the same computer, just a different compiler (or version of
the compiler). Trust me, I know, I'm a computer scientist. Compare MIPS
with ia64, or Java 1.4.2 with Java 1.5.0 (or any other version, really).
Just look at the endian wars.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Different computers sure as hell interpret different code differently. It
> could be even the same computer, just a different compiler (or version of
> the compiler). Trust me, I know, I'm a computer scientist. Compare MIPS
> with ia64, or Java 1.4.2 with Java 1.5.0 (or any other version, really).
> Just look at the endian wars.
Computers do not execute programs as written in high level language.
They either execute machine oriented codes or interpretative codes which
are mapped into machine instruction sequences. A high level program is
more like a statement of intent than a program.
Bob Kolker
Double Felix
Or, if you will, like a genome that expresses itself differently in
different environments.
- Felix
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Or, if you will, like a genome that expresses itself differently in
> different environments.
Not a bad analogy. I would have used memone rather than genome though.
Bob Kolker
Double Felix
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
But it IS a memone, isn't it? A literal memone, a figurative genome. :)
- Felix
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> But it IS a memone, isn't it? A literal memone, a figurative genome. :)
The the Meme Dawkins' (the real Dawkins please) dangerous idea?
Bob Kolker
T Pagano
>I just want to say there's no such thing as "literal". All reading is
>interpretive.
Cyde Weys seems to be of the mistaken notion that the fact that humans
"interpret" sentences excludes a "literal" interpretation. My opinion
is that this is impossible. If the act of "interpreting" doesn't
begin with the "literal" meaning its task of "clarifying,"
"elucidating," and providing the significance of the sentences under
review never gets off the ground.
>Unless you're reading mathematical equations, anyway. But
>outside of the realm of mathematics and cold hard numbers, all reading is
>done subjectively.
When one deals with "purely" mathematical symbols, signs, and operands
one is engaged in mechanical "manipulation" of MEANINGLESS entities
not "interpretation". However, once one assigns real world meaning
to those otherwise meaningless mathematical symbols such equations
take on, first, a "literal" meaning which can be, then and only then,
further interpreted.
>There is no "true" interpretation of any given text and
>there certainly is no such thing as a definitively literal interpretation.
FIRST, "true" and "literal" are not synonymous labels. The literal
meaning of a sentence is not also an indicator of its truth or
falsity.
SECOND, perhaps Cyde Weys intends to convey the idea that we may
NEVER discern the actual literal meaning that some original author
intended. Taken to its absurd conclusion this would mean that we can
never hope to discern the actual intended literal meaning of every
sentence that has ever been written. This would render written
communication as useless. This is pretty obviously false. But, of
course, Cyde only hoped to render our ability to discern the literal
interpretaion of Scripture as null and void. Unfortunately his sword
cut everything.
LASTLY, while we may never know conclusively that the literal meaning
of a sentence is also objectively true this does not lead to the
conclusion that the literal meaning can never also be objectively
true. Certainly the atheists believe that the literal interpretation
of the sentences making up neoDarwinian theory are also objectively
true. If they did not conjecture them to be also objectively true
there would be no reason to believe that such a process was operative
continuously for the last 1 billion years.
>Of course, this is all relevant when we're talking about works that have
>been translated out of the language they were originally written in.
Now Cyde Weys asserts that the process of converting the sentences of
one language into another prevents literal meaning and truth from
being transmitted. Again, another Cyde Weys theory which is pretty
obviously false.
>
>The only way to obtain a literal and correct meaning from any given text is
>if you wrote it yourself and remember all the circumstances surrounding the
>writing of it. Otherwise, it's still interpretive. I say you have to
>remember writing it because I occasionally go back and read my old
>talk.origins posts and I can't agree on any single interpretation to assign
>to them; it's been too long.
To argue that discerning the literal meaning of an author who is long
gone is sometimes difficult does not logically lead to the conclusion
that we can never arrive at the correct literal meaning. Again the
act of "interpretation" must begin with the literal meaning of the
author's words if it is to begin at all.
The atheists, like Cyde Weys, are bailing out a sinking ocean liner
with a paper dixie cup...not too effective and obviously doomed to
fail. I love my job....
Regards,
T Pagano
Cyde Weys
I also said "endian". Endian is as low-level as you can go without delving
into hardware. You might want to read up on endianness.
And, seriously, you're preaching to the choir. I'm three years into a
computer science degree, I *think* I would know that high-level programming
languages are compiled into machine code. I was just pointing out that
depending on the compiler, interpretations differ.
Joe Cummings
wrote:
Well,
Welcome back, Tony.
Before we start a discussion, we need to hear from you whether
you believe the Bible is literally and SCIENTIFICALLY true, as some of
your creationist coleagues claim.
Over to you
Have literal fun,
Joe Cummings
Victor Eijkhout
> Cyde Weys seems to be of the mistaken notion that the fact that humans
> "interpret" sentences excludes a "literal" interpretation. My opinion
> is that this is impossible.
Would you care to give me the literal interpretation of these two
sentences? The word "this" in the second sentence can refer to Cyde
being of a mistaken notion, or to intepreting excluding a literal
reading. Without the context of knowing your history of fundamentalism
it could be possible that you were a Cyde groupie (Cyde: I apologize for
this unsavoury image) and that the first reading was the intended one.
Knowing the context, I know how to interpet your words, but there is no
literal interpretation.
We interpret all the time. We continuously use context to determine what
the author probably intended.
Victor.
--
Victor Eijkhout -- eijkhout at tacc utexas edu
ph: 512 471 5809
Double Felix
"Peter Barber" <peterb...@gmail.com> wrote:
Well put! Suffice it to say that there are many figurative meanings you
could ascribe to Jesus saying "I am the lamb," some more obvious or more
significant than others.
You'd be hard-pressed to provide more than one *literal* meaning of "I
am the lamb." :)
- Felix
P.S. I know someone's going to prove me wrong, that's part of the fun...
T Pagano
<joecu...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:43:03 GMT, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 23:45:23 -0600, Cyde Weys <cyde...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
snip
>
> Well,
>
> Welcome back, Tony.
Who said I was gone? Simply haven't seen any subject lines of
sufficient interest to get my fingers typing.
>
> Before we start a discussion, we need to hear from you whether
>you believe the Bible is literally and SCIENTIFICALLY true, as some of
>your creationist coleagues claim.
FIRST: Every written discourse, including Scripture, has a literal
sense. Surely this is obvious. Scripture is in large part a history
of real events.
SECOND: To ask me if Scripture is "scientifically" true is like
asking me if a book on the history of Winston Churchill is
scientifically true---the question makes no sense. The adjective
"scientifically" is inappropriately applied when modifying an
historical record of non recurring, unique events which are not
reproducible in the laboratory. Such unique events are not directly
accessible to the scientific method.
THIRD: Yes, Scripture is comprised (in part) of verses recording
historical events which actually occurred. This history is conveyed
by the literal sense of those verses much as the literal sense of the
sentences in some favorite history of Winston Churchill (in part)
convey real historical events.
FOURTH: How does one "scientifically" test either the Scriptural
creation stories or the equally fanciful if-so stories that the
secular-atheists tell? The investigator must create models of the
events, determine the empirical consequences suggested by the model
that might be observable today, and search for those empirical
consequences. The investigator must also determine what empirical
consequences should NOT be observed if the models were true and make
rigorous attempts to find the prohibited occurrences.
LASTLY: The "strawmen" Scriptural Literalists who see every word of
Scripture as literal history either don't exist or have little, if
any, sway in Creationist Circles.
POST SCRIPT: This diversion hardly saves Cyde Weys's absurd thesis
that we can never hope to discern the literal sense of our own written
work let alone anyone elses. Cyde Weys and his merry band of atheists
never seemed to have difficulty fathoming Darwin's literal sense.
Regards,
T Pagano
Von R. Smith
Double Felix wrote:
> In article <Xns979180905CB12g...@216.196.97.136>,
> Cyde Weys <cyde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I just want to say there's no such thing as "literal". All reading is
> > outside of the realm of mathematics and cold hard numbers, all reading is
> > there certainly is no such thing as a definitively literal interpretation.
>
> himself a "lamb," he means it figuratively. Taken literally, of course
> then Jesus was saying he was actually a juvenile sheep with four legs,
> wool, and the lot. That is, he wasn't utilizing a metaphor.
That would be a baaaaad interpretation.
John Harshman
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 20:37:36 +0100, Joe Cummings
> <joecu...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:43:03 GMT, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 23:45:23 -0600, Cyde Weys <cyde...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>
>
> snip
>
>
>> Well,
>>
>> Welcome back, Tony.
>
>
> Who said I was gone? Simply haven't seen any subject lines of
> sufficient interest to get my fingers typing.
Last time you submerged, you left a number of threads in which your
claims had been soundly refuted. In fact, being trounced seems to be the
main reason you lose interest. But after a while, you apparently think
everyone will forget and let you start over with a new slate.
>> Before we start a discussion, we need to hear from you whether
>>you believe the Bible is literally and SCIENTIFICALLY true, as some of
>>your creationist coleagues claim.
>
> FIRST: Every written discourse, including Scripture, has a literal
> sense. Surely this is obvious. Scripture is in large part a history
> of real events.
>
> SECOND: To ask me if Scripture is "scientifically" true is like
> asking me if a book on the history of Winston Churchill is
> scientifically true---the question makes no sense. The adjective
> "scientifically" is inappropriately applied when modifying an
> historical record of non recurring, unique events which are not
> reproducible in the laboratory. Such unique events are not directly
> accessible to the scientific method.
Ah, your usual claim. It's wrong, of course. Truly unique events would
perhaps be unaccessible to science. Fortunately, different events have
enough similarity to make this notion moot. Few if any events are unique
enough to be outside the bounds of study by science. And laboratory
science is not at all the only valid sort. We can indeed make reliable
inferences about the past. You yourself do it all the time. Fossils are
indeed the remnants of once-living organisms. Yet each fossilization is
a unique event, so how can you possibly know that?
> THIRD: Yes, Scripture is comprised (in part) of verses recording
> historical events which actually occurred. This history is conveyed
> by the literal sense of those verses much as the literal sense of the
> sentences in some favorite history of Winston Churchill (in part)
> convey real historical events.
>
> FOURTH: How does one "scientifically" test either the Scriptural
> creation stories or the equally fanciful if-so stories that the
> secular-atheists tell?
Note again your conflation of mainstream science with atheism. No matter
how many times you are corrected, you never change your story.
> The investigator must create models of the
> events, determine the empirical consequences suggested by the model
> that might be observable today, and search for those empirical
> consequences. The investigator must also determine what empirical
> consequences should NOT be observed if the models were true and make
> rigorous attempts to find the prohibited occurrences.
Precisely. And when we do that, creationist theories always fail. Of
course creationists never manage to build these models or test them.
"Creation science" is a joke.
> LASTLY: The "strawmen" Scriptural Literalists who see every word of
> Scripture as literal history either don't exist or have little, if
> any, sway in Creationist Circles.
Of course not. They pick which parts to believe and which not to
believe. So why do they choose to believe the silliest parts of Genesis?
> POST SCRIPT: This diversion hardly saves Cyde Weys's absurd thesis
> that we can never hope to discern the literal sense of our own written
> work let alone anyone elses. Cyde Weys and his merry band of atheists
> never seemed to have difficulty fathoming Darwin's literal sense.
Actually, there are a number of passages in Darwin's writings for which
his meaning has been a source of much contention. Here is an example:
Padian, K. 2004. For Darwin, "genealogy alone" did give classification.
Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 42:162-164.
Elmer
>(snip)
> FIRST: Every written discourse, including Scripture, has a literal
> sense.
Yet another Pagano post that critically relies on the assumptions of
naturalism! Say Tony, how do you know this? You claim the naturalism is
false yet you continue to use it all the time and here for reading. to
has yet to get a spiritual posting from you. Say Tony, when are you
going to post an argument that doesn't rely on the assumptions of
naturalism??
T Pagano
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>T Pagano wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 20:37:36 +0100, Joe Cummings
>> <joecu...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:43:03 GMT, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 23:45:23 -0600, Cyde Weys <cyde...@gmail.com>
snip
>Last time you submerged, you left a number of threads in which your
>claims had been soundly refuted. In fact, being trounced seems to be the
>main reason you lose interest. But after a while, you apparently think
>everyone will forget and let you start over with a new slate.
Here I'll call Harshman's bluff. Produce a link to what you consider
the single best refutation of one of my posts written in the last 6
months (any refutation dated prior to 9/25/05 will be ignored). I
will reply and concede if I must. This will prove interesting. I've
only penned about 16 posts to this forum since late September 2005.
This should make Harshman's search fairly easy. Let's see if Harshman
will put up.
>
>>> Before we start a discussion, we need to hear from you whether
>>>you believe the Bible is literally and SCIENTIFICALLY true, as some of
>>>your creationist coleagues claim.
>>
>> FIRST: Every written discourse, including Scripture, has a literal
>> sense. Surely this is obvious. Scripture is in large part a history
>> of real events.
>>
>> SECOND: To ask me if Scripture is "scientifically" true is like
>> asking me if a book on the history of Winston Churchill is
>> scientifically true---the question makes no sense. The adjective
>> "scientifically" is inappropriately applied when modifying an
>> historical record of non recurring, unique events which are not
>> reproducible in the laboratory. Such unique events are not directly
>> accessible to the scientific method.
>
>Ah, your usual claim. It's wrong, of course. Truly unique events would
>perhaps be unaccessible to science. Fortunately, different events have
>enough similarity to make this notion moot.
Really? Notice that Harshman doesn't produce any examples of
historical events that aren't genuinely unique. In any event this
forum concerns the origin of life and the origin of life's diversity.
Perhaps Harshman will produce some events focused on those particulars
which are not genuinely unique.
>Few if any events are unique
>enough to be outside the bounds of study by science.
Atheists never read very carefully. Where exactly did I even imply
that unique events were "out of bounds." I wrote that unique events
were not "directly accessible." Surely this is obvious. One cannot,
for example, directly examine or reproduce in the laboratory the
events wherein a dinosaur forearm transformed into an avian wing.
> And laboratory
>science is not at all the only valid sort.
Never attacked the efficacy or validity of laboratory experimentation,
I simply highlighted the scope of its domain----that is, reproducible
events.
>We can indeed make reliable
>inferences about the past.
>You yourself do it all the time.
How exactly does Harshman know that inferences are "reliable?" And how
does he quantify that reliablity? I suspect that he hasn't a clue how
to answer either question. Furthermore with regard to CONJECTURAL
UNIVERSAL THEORIES I'm not sure what "reliable" inferences are good
for since our goal in scientific discovery is for true inferences.
Reliability is an objective measurable characteristic in technology
and engineering not in scientific discovery.
Nonetheless, let's put Harshman's premise in the best light. Newton's
law of gravity was hypothesized to be universal and it was (and is)
one of the most corroborated theories of all time. Perhaps Harshman
might suggest that the level of corroborative evidence is a measure of
its reliability. Unfortunately the conjecture that Newton's law of
gravity is a universal theory was falsified and superceded by
Einstein's. It provided reliable predictions in most practical
engineering applications but it was nonetheless false as universal
theory.
>Fossils are
>indeed the remnants of once-living organisms. Yet each fossilization is
>a unique event, so how can you possibly know that?
While the geo-chemical process of fossilization is directly accessible
to the scientific method the events in prehistory which provided the
necessary initial conditions for that process to take place in time
and how the individual organisms caught up in those condtions came to
exist are not "directly" accessible.
>
>> THIRD: Yes, Scripture is comprised (in part) of verses recording
>> historical events which actually occurred. This history is conveyed
>> by the literal sense of those verses much as the literal sense of the
>> sentences in some favorite history of Winston Churchill (in part)
>> convey real historical events.
>>
>> FOURTH: How does one "scientifically" test either the Scriptural
>> creation stories or the equally fanciful if-so stories that the
>> secular-atheists tell?
>
>Note again your conflation of mainstream science with atheism. No matter
>how many times you are corrected, you never change your story.
Atheists and secularists either explicitly or implicitly presuppose
that all events in space-time can only be the result of law and
chance. Modern secular scientists make exactly the same
presupposition though often veiled by the label methodological
naturalism. And as far as I know there is not a single atheist or
secularist who eschews secular science. As such the conflation is
hardly inappropriate since both are underpined by the same
metaphysical doctrine.
>
>> The investigator must create models of the
>> events, determine the empirical consequences suggested by the model
>> that might be observable today, and search for those empirical
>> consequences. The investigator must also determine what empirical
>> consequences should NOT be observed if the models were true and make
>> rigorous attempts to find the prohibited occurrences.
>
>Precisely. And when we do that, creationist theories always fail.
Here Harshman like many before him are forced to admit that
creationist models are, at least in principle, empirically testable.
He claims here that the empirical consequences of the creationist
models have been tested and "always fail." Please offer the citation
of the journals providing the refutations. Such refutations would
certainly end the debate. Harshman's bluff called again.
Every false theory in the history of science has garnered some
corroborative evidence. As such Harshman's claim that creationist
models "always" failed empirical tests and never garnered any
corroborative evidence is quite obviously false on its face.
>Of
>course creationists never manage to build these models or test them.
>"Creation science" is a joke.
Here Harshman contradicts himself. Above he argued that creationists
have forumlated testable models, they have been tested, and refuted.
Harshman will say almost anything, but the atheist ship is sinking
much too fast for this double speak.
That creationist have not tested their models to the extent Harshman
thinks necessary is a function of resources not will. Furthermore
secular science doesn't genuinely "test" its pet theories as much as
it sets out to amass corroborative evidence. But we already know that
level of corroborative evidence has no direct or even probablistic
relationship to the verisimilitude of a universal-like theory.
So while the creation models may be a joke (to atheists) they may
nonethess be closer to the truth than the modern secular if-so stories
regardless of the level of verificationist tests conducted.
>
>> LASTLY: The "strawmen" Scriptural Literalists who see every word of
>> Scripture as literal history either don't exist or have little, if
>> any, sway in Creationist Circles.
>
>Of course not. They pick which parts to believe and which not to
>believe.
The only christians who pick and chose which verses to believe as true
are the nominal christians who disbelieve in those verses which
contradict belief in the secular if-so stories.
>So why do they choose to believe the silliest parts of Genesis?
Since Harshman has failed to demonstrate that the secular if-stories
he believes in are true or that creationist models are false this is
the pot calling the kettle.
>
>> POST SCRIPT: This diversion hardly saves Cyde Weys's absurd thesis
>> that we can never hope to discern the literal sense of our own written
>> work let alone anyone elses. Cyde Weys and his merry band of atheists
>> never seemed to have difficulty fathoming Darwin's literal sense.
>
>Actually, there are a number of passages in Darwin's writings for which
>his meaning has been a source of much contention. Here is an example:
>Padian, K. 2004. For Darwin, "genealogy alone" did give classification.
>Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 42:162-164.
How exactly does this save Cyde Weys?
I never argued that the literal sense is always easy to discover. On
the other hand it was Cyde Weys who made the absurd claim that not
only did he have trouble discerning the literal sense of his own work
but that the literal sense of any work was absolutely and universally
inaccessible to the rest of us. In Cyde Weys attempt to punch holes
in Noah's Ark he ended up punching more holes in the ediacaran ship.
Fine by me...
Regards,
T Pagano
Elmer
>(snip)
> Here I'll call Harshman's bluff. Produce a link to what you consider
> the single best refutation of one of my posts written in the last 6
> months (any refutation dated prior to 9/25/05 will be ignored).
I hope any posts made using naturalistic methods will be ignored by
Tony. Please respond to Tony without using naturalistic means - since
Tony claims these means are false.
CreateThis
> Here I'll call Harshman's bluff.
> Let's see if Harshman will put up.
> Notice that Harshman doesn't produce any examples
> Perhaps Harshman will produce some events
> How exactly does Harshman know that inferences are "reliable?" And how
> how does he quantify that reliablity?
> I suspect that he hasn't a clue
> let's put Harshman's premise in the best light
> Perhaps Harshman might suggest
Speaking to somebody in the third person makes you sound like a typical
creationist nutcase. Judging by what you say, that's right.
CT
Steven J.
plausibly be interpreted to mean that literal readings, without
interpretation, *are* possible, or if this reading was just too far
outside the envelope of possible interpretations. That is, I was in
partial agreement with you. But it seems to me that you undercut your
own case, at least as far as I am concerned, with your FIRST point.
I'm pretty sure that by the "true" interpretation of any given text"
Cyde meant the one, literal, sense that the author intended. The
"true" interpretation might be false (perhaps the author was lying, or
mistaken), but it would be the one thing the author meant you to take
from his statement. Cyde was not confusing the senses of "literal" or
"true," but taking advantage of the fact that "true" has multiple
senses of its own.
>
> SECOND, perhaps Cyde Weys intends to convey the idea that we may
> NEVER discern the actual literal meaning that some original author
> intended. Taken to its absurd conclusion this would mean that we can
> never hope to discern the actual intended literal meaning of every
> sentence that has ever been written. This would render written
> communication as useless. This is pretty obviously false. But, of
> course, Cyde only hoped to render our ability to discern the literal
> interpretaion of Scripture as null and void. Unfortunately his sword
> cut everything.
>
with which I am in full agreement. No, wait, your penultimate
sentence is nonsense. Cyde did not hope to render your ability to
discern the literal interpretation of scripture null and void; he hoped
to show that you did not have that ability in the first place. And the
fact that some statements have obvious, literal senses does not mean
that this is true of all sets of statements. The Bible is the product
of another culture, filtered through the centuries of interpretative
communities that produced and transmitted it. You can't assume that
the words have the same sense they would have if they originated in
your own culture, and it's hard to reconstruct the exact culture that
produced them.
Take a simple, relevant point: how does the author (or redactor, or
whatever) of the early chapters of Genesis *know* any of this? The
question has possible answers, but Genesis itself does not offer any,
or show any sign of worrying about the question. Perhaps this
indifference to references or justifications for statements is a
practice of the author's culture, or perhaps the author doesn't expect
us to ask how he knows this, since the literal facticity of his
statements is not quite the point.
>
> LASTLY, while we may never know conclusively that the literal meaning
> of a sentence is also objectively true this does not lead to the
> conclusion that the literal meaning can never also be objectively
> true. Certainly the atheists believe that the literal interpretation
> of the sentences making up neoDarwinian theory are also objectively
> true. If they did not conjecture them to be also objectively true
> there would be no reason to believe that such a process was operative
> continuously for the last 1 billion years.
>
Not all atheists subscribe to "neoDarwinian theory" (at least, so I
have been told, often by creationists), and, of course, not all people
who subscribe to "neoDarwinian theory" are atheists. I believe it has
been pointed out to you (indeed, you have complained about it) that
scientists don't believe their theories are "literally true;" they
regard those theories as the best available explanation for the data,
and, usually, as the closest approximation of the "literal truth," to
which science does not presume it has access.
>
> >Of course, this is all relevant when we're talking about works that have
> >been translated out of the language they were originally written in.
>
> Now Cyde Weys asserts that the process of converting the sentences of
> one language into another prevents literal meaning and truth from
> being transmitted. Again, another Cyde Weys theory which is pretty
> obviously false.
>
It is certainly the case that languages are not perfect substitution
codes for one another: words in each language have ranges of meaning,
and these ranges seldom overlap perfectly between languages. Many
"biblical literalists" agonize over differences in translations,
because they say seemingly different things. Does the fifth verse of
the gospel of John mean that the darkness did not *understand* the
light, or that it did not *overcome* the light, or both (and what
English word encompasses both meanings, if both are intended?)?
>
> >The only way to obtain a literal and correct meaning from any given text is
> >if you wrote it yourself and remember all the circumstances surrounding the
> >writing of it. Otherwise, it's still interpretive. I say you have to
> >remember writing it because I occasionally go back and read my old
> >talk.origins posts and I can't agree on any single interpretation to assign
> >to them; it's been too long.
>
> To argue that discerning the literal meaning of an author who is long
> gone is sometimes difficult does not logically lead to the conclusion
> that we can never arrive at the correct literal meaning. Again the
> act of "interpretation" must begin with the literal meaning of the
> author's words if it is to begin at all.
>
Tony, even many "biblical literalists" do better than that: I was told
many times in church that proper interpretation began with some sense
of the author's culture, audience, and purpose in writing.
>
> The atheists, like Cyde Weys, are bailing out a sinking ocean liner
> with a paper dixie cup...not too effective and obviously doomed to
> fail. I love my job....
>
As Robert Heinlein once noted, delusions are often functional.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-- Steven J.
Shane
Why should he? What part of "different events have enough similarity to
make this notion moot", did you not understand?
I also note a certain similarity between Johns response, and yours in
another thread, where you claimed Irreducibly Complex systems existed,
but you failed to name even one. Why the double standard on your part?
> In any event this
> forum concerns the origin of life and the origin of life's diversity.
> Perhaps Harshman will produce some events focused on those particulars
> which are not genuinely unique.
Why don't you name one that is unique, as you are the one making the
original calim about uniqueness?
wf3h
T Pagano wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 23:45:23 -0600, Cyde Weys <cyde...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I just want to say there's no such thing as "literal". All reading is
> >interpretive.
>
> Cyde Weys seems to be of the mistaken notion that the fact that humans
> "interpret" sentences excludes a "literal" interpretation. My opinion
> is that this is impossible. If the act of "interpreting" doesn't
> begin with the "literal" meaning its task of "clarifying,"
> "elucidating," and providing the significance of the sentences under
> review never gets off the ground.
tony seems to think reading should begin and END with the literal.
this actually comes out of a discussion i had with him several years
ago when i pointed out the catholic catechism says that the beginning
of reading sacred scripture is the examination of the literal message.
but the catechism goes on to say that many ways of reading scripture
are possible. tony disagrees with that.
tony thinks language isn't plastic...that the tens of thousands of
words of the bible can have only 1 meaning...the existence of 30,000
xtian denominations all saying they know the bible notwithstanding....
wf3h
T Pagano wrote:
>
> FOURTH: How does one "scientifically" test either the Scriptural
> creation stories or the equally fanciful if-so stories that the
again we see the equivalence of secularism with atheism in the
christianist/islamist model of reality
atheism is the concept that there is no god
secularism is the idea that makes modern democracy possible...the idea
that all religious beliefs..and no religious beliefs...stand equal
before the law
islamists and christianists want a theocracy so, to them, the ideas are
synonymous, and evil so must be destroyed. it's one reason tony hates
science in general, and evolution in particular...they are ideas
possible only in democratic societies.
>
Zachriel
"T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
news:apagano-6tsb225f3389f...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 00:49:05 GMT, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>T Pagano wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 20:37:36 +0100, Joe Cummings
>>> <joecu...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:43:03 GMT, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 23:45:23 -0600, Cyde Weys <cyde...@gmail.com>
>
> snip
>
>>Last time you submerged, you left a number of threads in which your
>>claims had been soundly refuted. In fact, being trounced seems to be the
>>main reason you lose interest. But after a while, you apparently think
>>everyone will forget and let you start over with a new slate.
>
> Here I'll call Harshman's bluff. Produce a link to what you consider
> the single best refutation of one of my posts written in the last 6
> months (any refutation dated prior to 9/25/05 will be ignored).
What happened on 9/25/05?
<snip>
>>>
>>> FOURTH: How does one "scientifically" test either the Scriptural
>>> creation stories or the equally fanciful if-so stories that the
>>> secular-atheists tell?
>>
>>Note again your conflation of mainstream science with atheism. No matter
>>how many times you are corrected, you never change your story.
>
> Atheists and secularists either explicitly or implicitly presuppose
> that all events in space-time can only be the result of law and
> chance. Modern secular scientists make exactly the same
> presupposition though often veiled by the label methodological
> naturalism. And as far as I know there is not a single atheist or
> secularist who eschews secular science. As such the conflation is
> hardly inappropriate since both are underpined by the same
> metaphysical doctrine.
>
>
<snip>
It hardly takes a link as it is contained in your response. You *equated*
Scriptural creation stories and the fancifulness of what I presume is
evolution (though as John Harshman notes, you conflate it with atheism).
Scriptural creation stories are based upon, well scripture. There is no
scientific support for a literal six days of creation. There is a great deal
of scientific evidence indicating a succession of faunal life over eons of
time.
It's ok to believe in Biblical creation, but it is not ok to assert that
there is scientific evidence in support of your belief, nor is it right to
claim that scientific studies of evolution and common descent are "fanciful"
rather than solidly based in empirical evidence.
All you did is waving your hands and pretend no one saw you slip the card up
your sleeve.
--
Zachriel
"The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation,
repeat."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
Ken Shaw
T Pagano wrote:
<snip much handwaving by Pagano>
Tell you what, instead of demanding anything from Dr. Harshman why
don't you follow through on refuting all of the talkorigins archive on
ID that you said you would do back in 2003. You could of course
acknowledge that you can't and I would drop the subject.
Ken
Geoff
news:1143332605.2...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Sheepers, creepers. Wool you please stop with these pun cascades?
Robert J. Kolker
I suspect you long for the silence of the lambs.
Bob Kolker
>
>
John Harshman
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 00:49:05 GMT, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>>T Pagano wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 20:37:36 +0100, Joe Cummings
>>><joecu...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:43:03 GMT, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 23:45:23 -0600, Cyde Weys <cyde...@gmail.com>
>
>
> snip
>
>
>>Last time you submerged, you left a number of threads in which your
>>claims had been soundly refuted. In fact, being trounced seems to be the
>>main reason you lose interest. But after a while, you apparently think
>>everyone will forget and let you start over with a new slate.
>
>
> Here I'll call Harshman's bluff. Produce a link to what you consider
> the single best refutation of one of my posts written in the last 6
> months (any refutation dated prior to 9/25/05 will be ignored). I
> will reply and concede if I must. This will prove interesting. I've
> only penned about 16 posts to this forum since late September 2005.
> This should make Harshman's search fairly easy. Let's see if Harshman
> will put up.
Nah, too lazy. Just look them up yourself. Find one of your posts and
check out the responses to it. You should realize that you have a
reputation here for cuting and running.
>>>> Before we start a discussion, we need to hear from you whether
>>>>you believe the Bible is literally and SCIENTIFICALLY true, as some of
>>>>your creationist coleagues claim.
>>>
>>>FIRST: Every written discourse, including Scripture, has a literal
>>>sense. Surely this is obvious. Scripture is in large part a history
>>>of real events.
>>>
>>>SECOND: To ask me if Scripture is "scientifically" true is like
>>>asking me if a book on the history of Winston Churchill is
>>>scientifically true---the question makes no sense. The adjective
>>>"scientifically" is inappropriately applied when modifying an
>>>historical record of non recurring, unique events which are not
>>>reproducible in the laboratory. Such unique events are not directly
>>>accessible to the scientific method.
>>
>>Ah, your usual claim. It's wrong, of course. Truly unique events would
>>perhaps be unaccessible to science. Fortunately, different events have
>>enough similarity to make this notion moot.
>
> Really? Notice that Harshman doesn't produce any examples of
> historical events that aren't genuinely unique. In any event this
> forum concerns the origin of life and the origin of life's diversity.
> Perhaps Harshman will produce some events focused on those particulars
> which are not genuinely unique.
While we're at it, can you produce an example of two events that are
genuinely identical? You can't really repeat anything, you know. But
many events are similar enough for our purposes.
>>Few if any events are unique
>>enough to be outside the bounds of study by science.
>
> Atheists never read very carefully.
!
> Where exactly did I even imply
> that unique events were "out of bounds." I wrote that unique events
> were not "directly accessible." Surely this is obvious. One cannot,
> for example, directly examine or reproduce in the laboratory the
> events wherein a dinosaur forearm transformed into an avian wing.
You don't understand how science works at all. What's "directly
accessible"? Are protons "directly accessible"? You can infer their
presence in a number of ways, just as you can infer the transformation
of dinosaur forearms. There's really no difference.
>>And laboratory
>>science is not at all the only valid sort.
>
> Never attacked the efficacy or validity of laboratory experimentation,
> I simply highlighted the scope of its domain----that is, reproducible
> events.
Talk about not reading carefully! Try that sentence again. I'm disputing
your claim that laboratory science is the only valid model for science.
>>We can indeed make reliable
>>inferences about the past.
>>You yourself do it all the time.
>
> How exactly does Harshman know that inferences are "reliable?" And how
> does he quantify that reliablity? I suspect that he hasn't a clue how
> to answer either question.
How do you manage to suspect? An inference is reliable if its premises
are tested repeatedly and the logic leading to the conclusion is valid.
Since everything we know comes from inference, we had better have some
method. You, in your ordinary life, have such a method. You just choose
to deny it in regard to evolutionary biology, because that suits you.
> Furthermore with regard to CONJECTURAL
> UNIVERSAL THEORIES I'm not sure what "reliable" inferences are good
> for since our goal in scientific discovery is for true inferences.
> Reliability is an objective measurable characteristic in technology
> and engineering not in scientific discovery.
Again, you have no clue how science works. We have no access to truth.
We can only try to approach it. By "reliable" I mean "having a high
probability of being true, so far as we can ever tell".
> Nonetheless, let's put Harshman's premise in the best light. Newton's
> law of gravity was hypothesized to be universal and it was (and is)
> one of the most corroborated theories of all time. Perhaps Harshman
> might suggest that the level of corroborative evidence is a measure of
> its reliability. Unfortunately the conjecture that Newton's law of
> gravity is a universal theory was falsified and superceded by
> Einstein's. It provided reliable predictions in most practical
> engineering applications but it was nonetheless false as universal
> theory.
If you have a point, I don't see it. Newton's theory was close enough
for a great range of purposes. If our modern theories of evolution are
no better than Newton's theory of gravity, we're doing pretty well. You,
however, are in the position of someone who claims that the speed of a
falling object is proportional to its mass.
>>Fossils are
>>indeed the remnants of once-living organisms. Yet each fossilization is
>>a unique event, so how can you possibly know that?
>
> While the geo-chemical process of fossilization is directly accessible
> to the scientific method the events in prehistory which provided the
> necessary initial conditions for that process to take place in time
> and how the individual organisms caught up in those condtions came to
> exist are not "directly" accessible.
I deny that there is any such difference between "directly accessible"
and whatever its opposite is. Everything we do in science is inference
based on data. We know general principles of fossilization, and we know
general principles of evolution too. How do you know that fossils are
the remains of living creatures? Were you there to see them die and
become preserved?
>>>THIRD: Yes, Scripture is comprised (in part) of verses recording
>>>historical events which actually occurred. This history is conveyed
>>>by the literal sense of those verses much as the literal sense of the
>>>sentences in some favorite history of Winston Churchill (in part)
>>>convey real historical events.
>>>
>>>FOURTH: How does one "scientifically" test either the Scriptural
>>>creation stories or the equally fanciful if-so stories that the
>>>secular-atheists tell?
>>
>>Note again your conflation of mainstream science with atheism. No matter
>>how many times you are corrected, you never change your story.
>
> Atheists and secularists either explicitly or implicitly presuppose
> that all events in space-time can only be the result of law and
> chance. Modern secular scientists make exactly the same
> presupposition though often veiled by the label methodological
> naturalism. And as far as I know there is not a single atheist or
> secularist who eschews secular science. As such the conflation is
> hardly inappropriate since both are underpined by the same
> metaphysical doctrine.
So you're saying here that if A is a subset of B, then A equals B,
right? Because otherwise everything you said above is irrelevant. Now, I
know you will adopt the "not true Scotsman" approach here when I tell
you that there are quite a few theists who adopt methodological
naturalism as a necessary tool for doing science. But I'll tell you anyway.
>>>The investigator must create models of the
>>>events, determine the empirical consequences suggested by the model
>>>that might be observable today, and search for those empirical
>>>consequences. The investigator must also determine what empirical
>>>consequences should NOT be observed if the models were true and make
>>>rigorous attempts to find the prohibited occurrences.
>>
>>Precisely. And when we do that, creationist theories always fail.
>
> Here Harshman like many before him are forced to admit that
> creationist models are, at least in principle, empirically testable.
No force about it. Many creationist models are testable. However, they
fall into two categories: testable and falsified, or unfalsified and
untestable. Whenever you falsify a creationist's, model, his response is
generally to change it so that it becomes untestable. Usually this is by
introducing some element of unknowability, such as an omphalos component.
> He claims here that the empirical consequences of the creationist
> models have been tested and "always fail." Please offer the citation
> of the journals providing the refutations. Such refutations would
> certainly end the debate. Harshman's bluff called again.
What I was pointing out was that creationists never test their own
models. It's up to other people to test them. Also, creationist models
are seldom precise enough to test. You have to make reasonable
assumptions about the missing details, and that always leaves them an
out. Refutations don't get into scientific journals for the simple
reason that modern science has moved on from that sort of thing long
ago. Likewise, you will search in vain through chemistry journals for
disproof of the phlogiston theory. All that happened long ago. For
modern refutations of various creationist ideas you have to look through
the anti-creationist literature. The TO archive is a sufficient example.
Of course refutations don't end the debate. Creationists have no
interest in real evidence or argument. Witness Pagano.
> Every false theory in the history of science has garnered some
> corroborative evidence. As such Harshman's claim that creationist
> models "always" failed empirical tests and never garnered any
> corroborative evidence is quite obviously false on its face.
Is it? Show me the evidence for any particular creationist theory. In
every case I know of, this evidence is either nonexistent, false, or
misinterpreted.
>>Of
>>course creationists never manage to build these models or test them.
>>"Creation science" is a joke.
>
> Here Harshman contradicts himself. Above he argued that creationists
> have forumlated testable models, they have been tested, and refuted.
> Harshman will say almost anything, but the atheist ship is sinking
> much too fast for this double speak.
Simple resolution of this apparent contradiction: Creationists make
claims. You can build these claims into testable models and then test
them, but creationists do neither. It's up to other people to do that.
What creationists do is produce ad hoc, often mutually contradictory
apologetics. What is a kind? What sediments mark the beginning and end
of the flood? How and why are fossils sorted in the sedimentary record?
There are plenty of ad hoc explanations, but you will find no actual
hypothesis testing anywhere in the creationist literature.
> That creationist have not tested their models to the extent Harshman
> thinks necessary is a function of resources not will.
Nonsense. It's a function of not being interested in testing. When you
already know the truth before you start, there's no point in testing.
Creationists have plenty of resources. They just don't care. Science
isn't their thing.
> Furthermore
> secular science doesn't genuinely "test" its pet theories as much as
> it sets out to amass corroborative evidence. But we already know that
> level of corroborative evidence has no direct or even probablistic
> relationship to the verisimilitude of a universal-like theory.
While I'm no big admirer of Popper, his model of science is better than
yours. We do test hypotheses against each other. Corroborative evidence,
if it means anything, is evidence for one theory and against another. If
you're claiming that scientists ignore evidence they don't like, that
may be valid for a single scientist. But it that happens, other
scientists jump all over him.
But you could falsify my claims just by showing me the evidence
supporting any creationist theory and falsifying the corresponding
standard theory. Don't forget to take all the relevant evidence into
account, though.
> So while the creation models may be a joke (to atheists) they may
> nonethess be closer to the truth than the modern secular if-so stories
> regardless of the level of verificationist tests conducted.
Again, you conflate mainstream science with atheism. Creation models are
a joke to *scientists* or, in fact, to any educated person. If creation
models are closer to the truth, then creationists should be able to show
that the data fit them better than they do the standard theories. Where
has this been done?
>>>LASTLY: The "strawmen" Scriptural Literalists who see every word of
>>>Scripture as literal history either don't exist or have little, if
>>>any, sway in Creationist Circles.
>>
>>Of course not. They pick which parts to believe and which not to
>>believe.
>
> The only christians who pick and chose which verses to believe as true
> are the nominal christians who disbelieve in those verses which
> contradict belief in the secular if-so stories.
Now *that's* self-contradiction. Is every word literal history or isn't
it? You decided that all the stuff about flat earth, solid sky, sun
moving while the earth stands still, etc., is all non-literal. But you
decide that talking snakes and 600-year-old universe are literal. Go figure.
>>So why do they choose to believe the silliest parts of Genesis?
>
> Since Harshman has failed to demonstrate that the secular if-stories
> he believes in are true or that creationist models are false this is
> the pot calling the kettle.
Let's see your specifics. Are you defending the literal truth of a
6000-year-old universe? That's easy to refute. We see objects more than
6000 light-years away. Now, perhaps you have a theory about light being
created en route, or light traveling faster when we aren't looking. But,
if you were about to do that, those theories are unfalsifiable. See how
that works? I falsify your theory and then you retreat into an
unfalsifiable one.
>>>POST SCRIPT: This diversion hardly saves Cyde Weys's absurd thesis
>>>that we can never hope to discern the literal sense of our own written
>>>work let alone anyone elses. Cyde Weys and his merry band of atheists
>>>never seemed to have difficulty fathoming Darwin's literal sense.
>>
>>Actually, there are a number of passages in Darwin's writings for which
>>his meaning has been a source of much contention. Here is an example:
>>Padian, K. 2004. For Darwin, "genealogy alone" did give classification.
>>Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 42:162-164.
>
> How exactly does this save Cyde Weys?
Don't know. But if it doesn't, your sentence about "fathoming Darwin's
literal sense" is irrelevant. I was just contradicting what you appeared
to be using to make some kind of point.
> I never argued that the literal sense is always easy to discover. On
> the other hand it was Cyde Weys who made the absurd claim that not
> only did he have trouble discerning the literal sense of his own work
> but that the literal sense of any work was absolutely and universally
> inaccessible to the rest of us. In Cyde Weys attempt to punch holes
> in Noah's Ark he ended up punching more holes in the ediacaran ship.
> Fine by me...
The fact is, I haven't read his original post and I have no idea what he
was trying to say. I'm just dealing with your immediate statement in
attacking his position (whatever it is), and pointing out that you were
wrong. His position may still be wrong. As you describe it, it does
sound kind of weird. But of course I have learned not to trust your
descriptions of anything. And this thread has wandered away from what
Cyde Weys said, as threads tend to do.
CreateThis
Is it more surprising that Bob made a joke, or that I got it?
(LOL, Bob.)
CT
Double Felix
"Geoff" <geb...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
Ovine, be that way. I don't have to sit here and suffer your shorn.
- Felix
Von R. Smith
Only for ewe.
TCE
2. "I am".
---
Strange
T Pagano
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
snip
Just as I suspected; all the really good refutations are somewhere
else. Unfortunately the atheists never seems to know where they are.
Here I offered to answer the supposed refutation Harshman claimed
existed----and concede if necessary-----and Harshman's hot air
arrogance disappeared. Who cut and ran this time?
Gotta love this...
Regards,
T Pagano
T Pagano
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>T Pagano wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 00:49:05 GMT, John Harshman
>> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>T Pagano wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 20:37:36 +0100, Joe Cummings
>>>><joecu...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:43:03 GMT, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 23:45:23 -0600, Cyde Weys <cyde...@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>> snip
>>
>>
snip
>>>Ah, your usual claim. It's wrong, of course. Truly unique events would
>>>perhaps be unaccessible to science. Fortunately, different events have
>>>enough similarity to make this notion moot.
>>
>> Really? Notice that Harshman doesn't produce any examples of
>> historical events that aren't genuinely unique. In any event this
>> forum concerns the origin of life and the origin of life's diversity.
>> Perhaps Harshman will produce some events focused on those particulars
>> which are not genuinely unique.
>
>While we're at it, can you produce an example of two events that are
>genuinely identical? You can't really repeat anything, you know.
Really? I suggest there are probably quite a few physicists, chemists
and engineers who would disagree. Perhaps Harshman forgets that we
actually have laws of nature. In some properties matter-space-time
behave in PRECISELY reproducible ways. If it didn't there would be no
Physics, no Chemistry, no laboratory science whatsoever, and no
technological exploitation of those regularities. We'd still be
dragging our spouses around by the hair and carrying a club.
Nonetheless in a back-handed way Harshman has conceded that, in fact,
historical events (as opposed to regularities of nature) are ALWAYS
"genuinely" unique. This does place those events outside of science's
direct domain of competence which deals with reproducible, observable,
events.
Harshman again buries himself. Fine by me...
>But many events are similar enough for our purposes.
Fair enough. An example of this might be the mutation rate. We know
that today (not 300 million years ago) the mutation rate is fairly
stable (and therefore predictable) in a particular population, that
the mutations have a known probability distribution across the loci,
and that most of the mutations are neutral, etc.. Even if we make a
uniformitarian presumption this still doesn't give us direct access
to how an avian wing emerged and matured. All that exists is an
interesting neoDarwinian if-so story that is substantially untestable
and not directly observable.
I ask Harshman again: produce examples of prehistoric events which
are "similar enough for our purposes" to allow observational science
direct access to them? And Harshman will have to demonstrate how on
earth he knows some particular event that took place 300 million years
ago is "similar enough for our purposes?"
This is not to cast stones at science but to place in view science's
limitations. Atheists think it has no limitations.
snip
Regards,
T Pagano
Joe Cummings
wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 20:37:36 +0100, Joe Cummings
><joecu...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:43:03 GMT, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 23:45:23 -0600, Cyde Weys <cyde...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>
>snip
>
>>
>> Well,
>>
>> Welcome back, Tony.
>
>Who said I was gone? Simply haven't seen any subject lines of
>sufficient interest to get my fingers typing.
That isn't true, is it? You disappeared because you were
consistently shot down.
>>
>> Before we start a discussion, we need to hear from you whether
>>you believe the Bible is literally and SCIENTIFICALLY true, as some of
>>your creationist coleagues claim.
>
>FIRST: Every written discourse, including Scripture, has a literal
>sense. Surely this is obvious. Scripture is in large part a history
>of real events
Nobody said it didn't have a literal sense, the difficulty for
creationists is that they claim the Bible is literally and
scientifically true - you know, just like I said in the posting you're
supposed to be answering...
>
>SECOND: To ask me if Scripture is "scientifically" true is like
>asking me if a book on the history of Winston Churchill is
>scientifically true---the question makes no sense. The adjective
>"scientifically" is inappropriately applied when modifying an
>historical record of non recurring, unique events which are not
>reproducible in the laboratory. Such unique events are not directly
>accessible to the scientific method.
From this I have to assume that you are criticising those of
your club who say the Bible is literally true.
² Here, for example from the Institution for Creation research:
"The Bible consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of
the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New
Testament, is the divinely inspired revelation of the Creator to man.
Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings
as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely
authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of
any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological."
I'm glad you're learning a bit of sense.
Let's see if it lasts to the end of your posting.
>
>THIRD: Yes, Scripture is comprised (in part) of verses recording
>historical events which actually occurred. This history is conveyed
>by the literal sense of those verses much as the literal sense of the
>sentences in some favorite history of Winston Churchill (in part)
>convey real historical events.
>
>FOURTH: How does one "scientifically" test either the Scriptural
>creation stories or the equally fanciful if-so stories that the
>secular-atheists tell?
Now why don't you tell me?
> The investigator must create models of the
>events, determine the empirical consequences suggested by the model
>that might be observable today, and search for those empirical
>consequences. The investigator must also determine what empirical
>consequences should NOT be observed if the models were true and make
>rigorous attempts to find the prohibited occurrences.
Eighteen hundred years ago, Origen did just this. He found
great difficulty in reconciling the claim that God made days before he
made the Sun. Perhaps you could help him out?
>
>LASTLY: The "strawmen" Scriptural Literalists who see every word of
>Scripture as literal history either don't exist or have little, if
>any, sway in Creationist Circles.
See above, then ask Sean Pitman if he agrees with you.
>
>POST SCRIPT: This diversion hardly saves Cyde Weys's absurd thesis
>that we can never hope to discern the literal sense of our own written
>work let alone anyone elses. Cyde Weys and his merry band of atheists
>never seemed to have difficulty fathoming Darwin's literal sense.
Ooh, I sugest you enrol for an English Literature class
sometime. It will do you a world of good.
>
<snip>
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
Matthew Isleb
> SECOND, perhaps Cyde Weys intends to convey the idea that we may
> NEVER discern the actual literal meaning that some original author
> intended.
What does an author's intended meaning have to do with the literal
meaning of a sentence? Can't an original author intend to write an
allegory or myth with symbolic rather than literal meaning?
> Taken to its absurd conclusion this would mean that we can
> never hope to discern the actual intended literal meaning of every
> sentence that has ever been written.
It is only absurd because you premise is mistaken.
This would render written
> communication as useless. This is pretty obviously false.
Indeed.
But, of
> course, Cyde only hoped to render our ability to discern the literal
> interpretaion of Scripture as null and void. Unfortunately his sword
> cut everything.
No, his sword cut your strawman, not everything.
> LASTLY, while we may never know conclusively that the literal meaning
> of a sentence is also objectively true this does not lead to the
> conclusion that the literal meaning can never also be objectively
> true.
What does literal meaning have to do with truth again?
Certainly the atheists believe that the literal interpretation
> of the sentences making up neoDarwinian theory are also objectively
> true. If they did not conjecture them to be also objectively true
> there would be no reason to believe that such a process was operative
> continuously for the last 1 billion years.
That seems like a rather pointless statement.
>>Of course, this is all relevant when we're talking about works that have
>>been translated out of the language they were originally written in.
>
> Now Cyde Weys asserts that the process of converting the sentences of
> one language into another prevents literal meaning and truth from
> being transmitted.
It may not prevent, but it is certainly an obsticle. There are many
phrases and words in foreign languages that simply do not translate
literally. There are words that have no equivilent meaning. There are
idomatic expressions. Translations are often "good enough," but
they are usually not literally accurate. Literal translations often do
not make much sense. Now, the truth, on the other hand, can be preserved
since it is not tied to literal meaning. You should keep that in mind the
next time you read the Bible.
> To argue that discerning the literal meaning of an author who is long
> gone is sometimes difficult does not logically lead to the conclusion
> that we can never arrive at the correct literal meaning. Again the
> act of "interpretation" must begin with the literal meaning of the
> author's words if it is to begin at all.
By all means, begin with the literal meaning. But when that doesn't make
much sense (as in the literal meaning of Genesis) one is compelled
to explore the possible symbolic meanings or simply discard it as nonsense.
-matthew
Cyde Weys
> 1. Read the periodic table.
First of all the periodic table only has so many decimal points for things
like atomic weight. Past the limited precision they give you it's all
guessing/interpretation.
> 2. "I am".
I am what? Does that mean I exist? I am something I haven't yet had time
to say (or write down)? Who said I am?
C'mon, those two examples you just gave were entirely not possible to
interpret one and only one literal way.
--
~ Cyde Weys ~
Sub veste quisque nudus est.
Elmer
> (snip)
> Nonetheless in a back-handed way Harshman has conceded that, in fact,
> historical events (as opposed to regularities of nature) are ALWAYS
> "genuinely" unique.
All "regularities" are unique with respect to time Tony.
> This does place those events outside of science's
> direct domain of competence which deals with reproducible, observable,
> events.
Then nothing is observable or reproducible according to Tony. And of
course Tony doesn't mind this since he claims naturalism is false anyway.
Here's a nice review by Dave Horn:
Elmer
John Harshman
Yeah. OK, here, try the responses to this. Mind the wrap.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/51237b20d6b3d700/f1e6f69d116dba88?lnk=st&q=group%3Atalk.origins+author%3AT.+author%3APagano&rnum=7&hl=en#f1e6f69d116dba88
I see that I didn't respond to you directly there, but others did. I was
merely quibbling with their arguments, but in the course of that helping
to refute you just a bit more securely than they did. I see that I
haven't responded to you much in the last 6 months. But take StevenJ as
a substitute and go at it.
I also notice that you snipped most of what I just said, presumably
because it wasn't conducive to your little triumph.
John Harshman
Note the bait and switch: He starts off talking about events, and he
ends up talking about laws of nature and properties. Show me a precisely
reproducible event. We have many events that are reproducible enough for
our purposes, but that's quite another thing.
> Nonetheless in a back-handed way Harshman has conceded that, in fact,
> historical events (as opposed to regularities of nature) are ALWAYS
> "genuinely" unique. This does place those events outside of science's
> direct domain of competence which deals with reproducible, observable,
> events.
No, I have conceded no such thing, either backhanded or forehanded.
Historical events are no more or less unique than the events that
physicists play with.
> Harshman again buries himself. Fine by me...
>
>
>>But many events are similar enough for our purposes.
>
> Fair enough. An example of this might be the mutation rate. We know
> that today (not 300 million years ago) the mutation rate is fairly
> stable (and therefore predictable) in a particular population, that
> the mutations have a known probability distribution across the loci,
> and that most of the mutations are neutral, etc.. Even if we make a
> uniformitarian presumption this still doesn't give us direct access
> to how an avian wing emerged and matured. All that exists is an
> interesting neoDarwinian if-so story that is substantially untestable
> and not directly observable.
The genetics of it are certainly hard to test, but that's not relevant
to determining that the event (process, really) happened, and to a fair
extent how it happened.
> I ask Harshman again: produce examples of prehistoric events which
> are "similar enough for our purposes" to allow observational science
> direct access to them? And Harshman will have to demonstrate how on
> earth he knows some particular event that took place 300 million years
> ago is "similar enough for our purposes?"
Most prehistoric events are similar enough for our purposes. The
mutations that happened millions of years ago, or at least those of
which we have evidence because they have survived in some living
species, look just like the mutations we see happening right now. I call
that similar enough. DNA sequence analysis can tell us quite a bit about
those ancient events. All the same processes that are operating now were
clearly operating then. In terms of fossil morphology, the same thing
applies. We see the same sort of variation in fossils as exists today.
We can construct the same sorts of phylogenetic trees from fossils as
from extant species.
Now, determining the causes of ancient changes is hard, because we can't
get genetic information from fossils (mostly). But you can study
selection and adaptation in repeated events. To take just one, the tree
habit has been independently evolved hundreds of times in angiosperms.
Mapping different ecological characters onto trees helps us determine
what selective regimes make treeness advantageous. That is, while each
evolution of treeness is in some ways unique, they are also in some ways
the same, and we can use that. This field is called comparative biology;
try the literature some time.
> This is not to cast stones at science but to place in view science's
> limitations. Atheists think it has no limitations.
Once again, you conflate atheism with mainstream science. What
justification do you have for this? Science clearly has limitations, but
they aren't the ones you claim here.
wf3h
T Pagano wrote:
>
> Nonetheless in a back-handed way Harshman has conceded that, in fact,
> historical events (as opposed to regularities of nature) are ALWAYS
> "genuinely" unique. This does place those events outside of science's
> direct domain of competence which deals with reproducible, observable,
> events.
which is absolute nonsense. either the world operates according to
scientific laws or it doesn't. either it's orderly, or it's not. the
idea pagano is trying to push is that evolution is false because the
universe does not run according to scientific laws designed by god.
not exactly what creationists usually have in mind.
if the laws of nature are, indeed, laws of nature, then they apply both
in and out of the lab. this includes evolution. there is no magic
boundary at the lab door, regardless of what christianist medievalists
like pagano think.
> >
> This is not to cast stones at science but to place in view science's
> limitations. Atheists think it has no limitations.
now THERE'S a crock. it's the christianists who want to eviscerate
science and expand it with theology so that it explains god.
that WOULD elmininate the limits on science.
Steven J.
simple chemistry experiment can never be repeated exactly (at the same
time and place as the original -- and perhaps the exact time and place
matter; YECs who imagine that the laws of nature might have been
different 6000 years ago ought to appreciate this point -- and with the
exact same matter). On the other hand, these unique events fall into
broad categories from which qualities can be abstracted, and which can
be generalized about.
>
> Nonetheless in a back-handed way Harshman has conceded that, in fact,
> historical events (as opposed to regularities of nature) are ALWAYS
> "genuinely" unique. This does place those events outside of science's
> direct domain of competence which deals with reproducible, observable,
> events.
>
unique historical events as part of a broader pattern. Donald Kagan,
for example, has treated the Peloponesian Wars and the World Wars as
examples of how treaties built on obviously temporary imbalances of
power tend to lead to further wars, as the balance changes. Other
historians have drawn other parallels between disparate events, and
used the events of history as data for or against various theories of
how the world works.
But perhaps we should take, as our examples, events smaller than wars
and revolutions. Every human death, like every human life, is unique.
Yet we do not regard the efforts of medical examiners to uncover the
causes of death to be a waste of time and money, simply because the
coroner cannot bring the corpse back to life and kill him all over
again, repeatedly. It is observations of events of the same general
class that must be repeatable, not the specific event. For the same
reason, we do not despair of going to the doctor on the assumption that
generalizations about other unique individuals are hardly likely to
apply to us. Every crime is unique, yet forensic technicians often can
infer how they occurred and who committed them, even though these
crimes had no witnesses who can be trusted.
>
> Harshman again buries himself. Fine by me...
>
> >But many events are similar enough for our purposes.
>
> Fair enough. An example of this might be the mutation rate. We know
> that today (not 300 million years ago) the mutation rate is fairly
> stable (and therefore predictable) in a particular population, that
> the mutations have a known probability distribution across the loci,
> and that most of the mutations are neutral, etc.. Even if we make a
> uniformitarian presumption this still doesn't give us direct access
> to how an avian wing emerged and matured. All that exists is an
> interesting neoDarwinian if-so story that is substantially untestable
> and not directly observable.
>
The mutation rate, however, varies from one species to another, and
from one class to another. Note that biologists can, and have, studied
some of the genes involved in feather formation, and their homologues
in nonavian reptiles. It is possible (using knowlege of what sorts of
mutations are possible and probable, and the same techniques used to
reconstruct, from imperfect copies, an approximation of the original
text of the New Testament) ancestral versions of many genes. Note that
the observed regularities of chemistry come in handy here; if we assume
that chemistry might have worked differently three million centuries
ago, what forbids us to assume that it might have worked differently in
a warehouse fire last Thursday, or a heart attack victim in the alley
last night?
>
> I ask Harshman again: produce examples of prehistoric events which
> are "similar enough for our purposes" to allow observational science
> direct access to them? And Harshman will have to demonstrate how on
> earth he knows some particular event that took place 300 million years
> ago is "similar enough for our purposes?"
>
I forget who it was (probably Elmer Bataitis) who pointed out that here
you are yourself wielding a sword that cuts both ways. Show that human
thought processes are similar enough to those 2000 years ago, that we
have any reason to suppose that the apostles wouldn't risk persecution
and death just to engage in a practical joke (the New Testament
writings and church doctrine being the joke).
Every speciation is a unique event, but speciation itself is hardly
unique. The same applies to mutations, to the operation of natural
selection, and to fossilization. Every individual is unique, yet this
does not prevent us from recognizing individuals as members of the same
species. Every species is unique, yet shares enough commonalities with
other species to permit us to perform comparative anatomy and recognize
shared ancestry across species (again, even creationists recognize some
examples, such as polar bears and brown bears).
>
> This is not to cast stones at science but to place in view science's
> limitations. Atheists think it has no limitations.
>
Rational people, whether atheist or theist, recognize that science's
limitations are not where you would like them to be, and that your
epistomological nihilism is inconsistent and purely opportunistic.
>
> snip
T Pagano
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>T Pagano wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 00:49:05 GMT, John Harshman
>> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>T Pagano wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 20:37:36 +0100, Joe Cummings
>>>><joecu...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:43:03 GMT, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 23:45:23 -0600, Cyde Weys <cyde...@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>> snip
>>
snip
>> Atheists never read very carefully.
>
>!
>
>> Where exactly did I even imply
>> that unique events were "out of bounds." I wrote that unique events
>> were not "directly accessible." Surely this is obvious. One cannot,
>> for example, directly examine or reproduce in the laboratory the
>> events wherein a dinosaur forearm transformed into an avian wing.
>
>You don't understand how science works at all.
I see alot of back peddling from Harshman, but I don't see any quotes
from my work and explanations of where I have misunderstood "Science."
>What's "directly accessible"?
This is unbelievable. Does Harshman really not understand what
"observational" science entails?
>Are protons "directly accessible"?
Apparently Harshman isn't aware of the science of particle physics or
he denies that it is an observational science. Particle physicists
are quite capable of controling photons. neutrons and protons (they
can be fired one at a time, for example) and quite capable of
detecting them with observational tools. So yes protons are, in fact,
directly accessible.
> You can infer their
>presence in a number of ways, just as you can infer the transformation
>of dinosaur forearms. There's really no difference.
There is a great deal of difference. And the fact that Harshman
doesn't see it is an indication of why evolutionary biology has
stagnated since the 1940s
Particle physics is an observational science and those particles of
matter are directly accessible to our observational tools. Particles
can be controlled, experimented with, and observed with our
observational tools. At least some of the interactions of those
particles are reproducible. No such thing is possible regarding the
if-story that a dinosaur forearm transmogrified into an avian wing.
No similar transformations have ever been observed in the last 4000
years. The study of how bioligical diversity arose since the
PreCambria is not an observational science but an historical science.
Observational science can only be brought to bear when the historical
model building provides empirical consequences that might be
observable now. Even so, such empirical consequences don't uniquely
determine the truthlikeness of only one historical model.
The fact that Harshman is under the delusion that collecting
corroborations for some unique, unobservable, and non recurring
fanciful if-so story is equivalent to observing real, recurring
reproducible events is a truly sad state of affairs.
>
>>>And laboratory
>>>science is not at all the only valid sort.
>>
>> Never attacked the efficacy or validity of laboratory experimentation,
>> I simply highlighted the scope of its domain----that is, reproducible
>> events.
>
>Talk about not reading carefully! Try that sentence again. I'm disputing
>your claim that laboratory science is the only valid model for science.
snip
But I never claimed that laboratory science was the only valid method
of bringing scientific methodology to bear. My point was (and is)
that science's principle scope of competence is with events that are
observable OR are experimentally reproducible.
Harshman is so pitiful here that I'm invoking the mercy rule lest I be
accused of piling on...
Regards,
T Pagano
TCE
>
> First of all the periodic table only has so many decimal points for things
> like atomic weight. Past the limited precision they give you it's all
> guessing/interpretation.
So, you don't believe in whole Neutrons then? I suppose fractional
protons exist also?
> > 2. "I am".
>
> I am what? Does that mean I exist? I am something I haven't yet had time
> to say (or write down)? Who said I am?
>
> C'mon, those two examples you just gave were entirely not possible to
> interpret one and only one literal way.
You've admirably proven my point simply by replying :-)
John Harshman
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 15:53:23 GMT, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>>T Pagano wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 00:49:05 GMT, John Harshman
>>><jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>T Pagano wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 20:37:36 +0100, Joe Cummings
>>>>><joecu...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:43:03 GMT, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 23:45:23 -0600, Cyde Weys <cyde...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>snip
>>>
>
>
> snip
>
>
>>>Atheists never read very carefully.
>>
>>!
>>
>>
>>>Where exactly did I even imply
>>>that unique events were "out of bounds." I wrote that unique events
>>>were not "directly accessible." Surely this is obvious. One cannot,
>>>for example, directly examine or reproduce in the laboratory the
>>>events wherein a dinosaur forearm transformed into an avian wing.
>>
>>You don't understand how science works at all.
>
> I see alot of back peddling from Harshman, but I don't see any quotes
> from my work and explanations of where I have misunderstood "Science."
Quotes from your work? I quoted the whole post. And I explained quite
simply what you don't understand.
>>What's "directly accessible"?
>
> This is unbelievable. Does Harshman really not understand what
> "observational" science entails?
I do. I understand that all science is observational, the historical
sciences just as much as the laboratory sciences. And that absolutely
nothing is directly accessible in the sense you think you mean.
Why do you always talk to people in the third person, by the way?
>>Are protons "directly accessible"?
>
> Apparently Harshman isn't aware of the science of particle physics or
> he denies that it is an observational science. Particle physicists
> are quite capable of controling photons. neutrons and protons (they
> can be fired one at a time, for example) and quite capable of
> detecting them with observational tools. So yes protons are, in fact,
> directly accessible.
I would suggest that the existence of protons, or of any given proton,
is an inference from data. You can't see them. All you can do is see
their effects and infer the cause. Just as with fossils, for example.
>>You can infer their
>>presence in a number of ways, just as you can infer the transformation
>>of dinosaur forearms. There's really no difference.
>
> There is a great deal of difference. And the fact that Harshman
> doesn't see it is an indication of why evolutionary biology has
> stagnated since the 1940s
Is it also an indication of why the moon is made of ravioli?
Evolutionary biology has made incredible progress since the 1940s, in
just about every field. My own particular specialty has advanced its
understanding by orders of magnitude.
> Particle physics is an observational science and those particles of
> matter are directly accessible to our observational tools. Particles
> can be controlled, experimented with, and observed with our
> observational tools. At least some of the interactions of those
> particles are reproducible. No such thing is possible regarding the
> if-story that a dinosaur forearm transmogrified into an avian wing.
You don't understand the nature of repeatability either. Every new
fossil is a reproduced experiment. And so is every new study of an old
fossil.
> No similar transformations have ever been observed in the last 4000
> years.
Nor would we expect it.
> The study of how bioligical diversity arose since the
> PreCambria is not an observational science but an historical science.
> Observational science can only be brought to bear when the historical
> model building provides empirical consequences that might be
> observable now. Even so, such empirical consequences don't uniquely
> determine the truthlikeness of only one historical model.
I see no difference here. Historical sciences are concerned with events
that happened long ago. Evolutionary biology is in part (but only in
part) a historical science. But historical sciences are just as
observational as any others. There are plenty of empirical consequences
of evolutionary theories. There are of course multiple possible theories
to explain any phenomenon, whether in biology or physics. In that, there
is no difference either.
Let's get concrete. What is your alternative that explains the data as
well as, or better than, common descent?
> The fact that Harshman is under the delusion that collecting
> corroborations for some unique, unobservable, and non recurring
> fanciful if-so story is equivalent to observing real, recurring
> reproducible events is a truly sad state of affairs.
I weep for me. But I will keep on doing science. You are only imagining
the differences among sciences. You imagine that protons are in some way
directly available to our senses. You imagine that past events are
unique in some way that present events are not. Etc.
>>>>And laboratory
>>>>science is not at all the only valid sort.
>>>
>>>Never attacked the efficacy or validity of laboratory experimentation,
>>>I simply highlighted the scope of its domain----that is, reproducible
>>>events.
>>
>>Talk about not reading carefully! Try that sentence again. I'm disputing
>>your claim that laboratory science is the only valid model for science.
>
> snip
>
> But I never claimed that laboratory science was the only valid method
> of bringing scientific methodology to bear. My point was (and is)
> that science's principle scope of competence is with events that are
> observable OR are experimentally reproducible.
Which you equated with laboratory science. But if you want to forget
about that, fine. You are mostly confused about what "observable" means.
Atomic theory requires a big chain of inferences from anything that
might be called "direct observation". There's really nothing to see when
you deal with tiny stuff, just as with past stuff. You can't see the
events, but fortunately inference is a powerful tool.
> Harshman is so pitiful here that I'm invoking the mercy rule lest I be
> accused of piling on...
Feel free to do what you like.
Ray Martinez
Cyde Weys wrote:
> I just want to say there's no such thing as "literal". All reading is
> interpretive. Unless you're reading mathematical equations, anyway. But
> outside of the realm of mathematics and cold hard numbers, all reading is
> done subjectively. There is no "true" interpretation of any given text and
> there certainly is no such thing as a definitively literal interpretation.
> been translated out of the language they were originally written in.
>
> if you wrote it yourself and remember all the circumstances surrounding the
> writing of it. Otherwise, it's still interpretive. I say you have to
> remember writing it because I occasionally go back and read my old
> talk.origins posts and I can't agree on any single interpretation to assign
> to them; it's been too long.
>
> --
> ~ Cyde Weys ~
>
What's written above is deification of subjectivity. Nothing means what
it says or says what it means, unless, of course, the subject is the
author's sweetheart: Darwinian theory.
The reason why Darwinists dismiss texts is because all texts of
antiquity contradict the basic assumptions of Darwinism; Supernatural
does not exist; evidence of miracles = myths.
What is written above (by a Darwinist) is classic special pleading:
Textual evidence is not as such. Textual evidence is, by nature,
infinetly more unambiguous than physical evidence. The latter is needed
by Darwinists so they can manipulate its meaning according to the needs
of their biases. Darwinists in sheeps clothing (TEists) handle
text/Bible corruption so the biases inflicted upon physical evidence
has some sort of "textual support".
Who would toss out the entire corpus of textual evidence of antiquity
while asserting only literal applies to his scientific theories ?
Could one expect an atheist to try anything else ?
Ray
Steven J.
T Pagano wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 15:53:23 GMT, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >T Pagano wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 00:49:05 GMT, John Harshman
> >> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>T Pagano wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 20:37:36 +0100, Joe Cummings
> >>>><joecu...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:43:03 GMT, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
> >>>>>wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 23:45:23 -0600, Cyde Weys <cyde...@gmail.com>
> >>
> >>
> >> snip
> >>
>
> snip
>
> >> Atheists never read very carefully.
> >
> >!
> >
> >> Where exactly did I even imply
> >> that unique events were "out of bounds." I wrote that unique events
> >> were not "directly accessible." Surely this is obvious. One cannot,
> >> for example, directly examine or reproduce in the laboratory the
> >> events wherein a dinosaur forearm transformed into an avian wing.
> >
> >You don't understand how science works at all.
>
> I see alot of back peddling from Harshman, but I don't see any quotes
> from my work and explanations of where I have misunderstood "Science."
>
>
> >What's "directly accessible"?
>
> This is unbelievable. Does Harshman really not understand what
> "observational" science entails?
>
>
> >Are protons "directly accessible"?
>
> Apparently Harshman isn't aware of the science of particle physics or
> he denies that it is an observational science. Particle physicists
> are quite capable of controling photons. neutrons and protons (they
> can be fired one at a time, for example) and quite capable of
> detecting them with observational tools. So yes protons are, in fact,
> directly accessible.
>
Note that protons aren't *directly* "accessible in this sense; you
can't just pick one up and move it to and fro. Rather, experimental
apparata produce results, under various conditions, that are inferred
to result from manipulation of protons and other subatomic particles.
The particles cannot be directly observed or handled, and their very
existence is posited only to explain the way the equipment works.
Of course, the protons, unlike the evolution of the avian wing, are
assumed to exist in the present. On the other hand, the only protons
which are "directly accessible" are those in laboratories, and
physicists would really like their theories to cover the approximately
10^80 subatomic particles in the universe that happen not to be in
their laboratories. In much the same way, biologists would really like
to take the "directly observable" phenomena of reproduction, mutation,
inheritance and selection that are "directly accessible" and apply them
to the rather large fraction of biology that is not confined to their
laboratories or field sites. But in either case, one is making
inferences from observations to a larger, "not directly accessible"
reality.
The difference between "observational" and "historical" sciences that
you wish to make so much of is not particularly real.
>
> > You can infer their
> >presence in a number of ways, just as you can infer the transformation
> >of dinosaur forearms. There's really no difference.
>
> There is a great deal of difference. And the fact that Harshman
> doesn't see it is an indication of why evolutionary biology has
> stagnated since the 1940s
>
Now, I had thought that the revolution in genetics, in molecular
phylogeny, in the application of developmental biology to evolutionary
biology (evo-devo: it's been all over the news), represented rather
spectacular advances in evolutionary biology since the 1940s.
>
> Particle physics is an observational science and those particles of
> matter are directly accessible to our observational tools. Particles
> can be controlled, experimented with, and observed with our
> observational tools. At least some of the interactions of those
> particles are reproducible. No such thing is possible regarding the
> if-story that a dinosaur forearm transmogrified into an avian wing.
>
Note that if we want to apply particle physics to some problem outside
the laboratory, we have an equivalent problem. What is going on in the
center of the sun (or, for that matter, in a nuclear reactor that's
actually working to provide power)? We can't very well put the sun in
the laboratory and manipulate it to figure out the answer. We can't
even do that, as a practical matter, with the nuclear reactor (or the
chip in your computer -- as opposed to some similar chip that you
aren't currently using). We have to infer, or assume, that the same
regularities of nature uncovered in the laboratory apply to times,
places, and events outside the laboratory, or, again, there's no point
to doing science.
>
> No similar transformations have ever been observed in the last 4000
> years. The study of how bioligical diversity arose since the
> PreCambria is not an observational science but an historical science.
> Observational science can only be brought to bear when the historical
> model building provides empirical consequences that might be
> observable now. Even so, such empirical consequences don't uniquely
> determine the truthlikeness of only one historical model.
>
It seems to me that the distinction you ought to draw is less between
"historical" and "observational" sciences, that between very basic
sciences (like basic physics, dealing with the isolated fundamental
particles and forces of the world), and more complex, chaotic systems
with myriad different interacting components, that are much harder to
model in detail. But of course, this applies to such systems whether
they exist now or existed only in the distant past.
And your point about empirical consequences not uniquely determining
any particular theory applies to protons as much as to common descent
of crows and crocodiles. As noted above, we can't actually handle a
proton without elaborate technological assistance as though it were a
walnut. We can know that protons exist only because theories that
include "protons" fit the evidence better than any theory that does not
include them. But that applies to common descent with modification and
to natural selection just as well.
>
> The fact that Harshman is under the delusion that collecting
> corroborations for some unique, unobservable, and non recurring
> fanciful if-so story is equivalent to observing real, recurring
> reproducible events is a truly sad state of affairs.
>
Since you are in the habit of obtusely literally interpreting sentences
when it suits you, I'll respond in kind. Evolutionary theory is hardly
"unobservable;" you've observed it enough to have made several posts
critical of it, some of them even showing signs of an actual
aquaintance with the theory. It is not "unique" and "nonrecurring,"
since Darwin and Wallace arrived at the basic ideas of the theory
independently, and many variants which are similar in broad outlines
(i.e. accepting common descent and a major role for natural selection)
exist.
Of course, if you mean that the subject of the theory is "unique,
unobservable, and non-recurring," of course reproduction, mutation,
inheritance, and natural selection are hardly unique events, or
unobservable (in the sense of "observable" that applies to protons), or
non-recurring. The assumption that if events are not identical, or
near-identical, then there is no scientific basis for making inferences
about one from others of the same type, implies (as I've stated before)
that pretty much all of medicine and forensic science are bunk, not
merely that evolutionary theory is.
>
>
> >
> >>>And laboratory
> >>>science is not at all the only valid sort.
> >>
> >> Never attacked the efficacy or validity of laboratory experimentation,
> >> I simply highlighted the scope of its domain----that is, reproducible
> >> events.
> >
> >Talk about not reading carefully! Try that sentence again. I'm disputing
> >your claim that laboratory science is the only valid model for science.
>
> snip
>
>
> But I never claimed that laboratory science was the only valid method
> of bringing scientific methodology to bear. My point was (and is)
> that science's principle scope of competence is with events that are
> observable OR are experimentally reproducible.
>
>
And your point is wrong (if you disagree, please stop seeing or
listening to your doctor; what does he know about unique and
non-reproducible you, as opposed to a statistical average of other
people?). Incidentally, what exactly is the distinction you draw
between "laboratory science" and "science dealing only with repeatable
events?"
>
> Harshman is so pitiful here that I'm invoking the mercy rule lest I be
> accused of piling on...
>
The "mercy rule" is invoked when Pagano, having been thrashed in
argument, rolls into a fetal position and cries "mercy! please don't
hurt me any more!" But one must admire the braggadocio he can put into
surrender.
Cyde Weys
Actually, no, I proved MY point :-P
Cyde Weys
> What's written above is deification of subjectivity. Nothing means
> what it says or says what it means, unless, of course, the subject is
> the author's sweetheart: Darwinian theory.
Oh, okay, so it's wrong to deify subjectivity but when you go ahead and
deify God it's A-OK?!
--
~ Cyde Weys ~
Sub veste quisque nudus est.
TCE
Yes, I'm sure you have; no doubt you've proven your points hundreds of
times :-)
---
Strange
Cyde Weys
>> Actually, no, I proved MY point :-P
>
> Yes, I'm sure you have; no doubt you've proven your points hundreds of
> times :-)
There's no way I can lose in this, is there?
Steven J.
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Cyde Weys wrote:
> > I just want to say there's no such thing as "literal". All reading is
> > interpretive. Unless you're reading mathematical equations, anyway. But
> > outside of the realm of mathematics and cold hard numbers, all reading is
> > done subjectively. There is no "true" interpretation of any given text and
> > there certainly is no such thing as a definitively literal interpretation.
> > Of course, this is all relevant when we're talking about works that have
> > been translated out of the language they were originally written in.
> >
> > The only way to obtain a literal and correct meaning from any given text is
> > if you wrote it yourself and remember all the circumstances surrounding the
> > writing of it. Otherwise, it's still interpretive. I say you have to
> > remember writing it because I occasionally go back and read my old
> > talk.origins posts and I can't agree on any single interpretation to assign
> > to them; it's been too long.
> >
> > --
> > ~ Cyde Weys ~
> >
>
> What's written above is deification of subjectivity. Nothing means what
> it says or says what it means, unless, of course, the subject is the
> author's sweetheart: Darwinian theory.
>
Darwin's writings whose exact meaning is disputed. In one sense, this
doesn't matter, since no aspect of the theory depends on Darwin's
personal authority, but evolutionists do argue over whether Darwin
agreed with this or that aspect of modern evolutionary theory.
>
> The reason why Darwinists dismiss texts is because all texts of
> antiquity contradict the basic assumptions of Darwinism; Supernatural
> does not exist; evidence of miracles = myths.
>
disputing their meaning. The notorious atheist Richard Dawkins, for
example, does not bother arguing over the correct interpretation of the
Bible (indeed, to the extent that he cares, he seems to favor a
"literal" interpretation); he simply rejects its authority and claims
of divine authorship. Conversely, those who most wish to reinterpret
Genesis wish to retain the supernatural and miracles, but they do not
wish to accept deceptive miracles to forge evidence for a history that
never happened, or to reject evidence.
And, of course, if you're going to appeal not merely to the Biblical
texts but to "all texts of antiquity," then they contradict the basic
assumptions not merely of "Darwinism," but of each other and (in most
cases) of Christianity in particular. Everyone might have believed in
miracles (assuming you aren't counting Epicurus or Lucretius among the
"texts of antiquity," although both are older than the New Testament),
but they tend to believe in different miracles (do you believe that
Zeus turned an inhospitable village into a lake, and its cold-hearted
inhabitants into cold-blooded fish?).
>
-- [snip]
>
> Ray
Elmer
> (snip)
> I see alot of back peddling from Harshman, ....
You do? How? Tony, you claim naturalism is false so exactly how do you
"see" anything?
Glenn
I really think John believes that the last person to post is the one
who does the "refuting" (of course, only if that person is an
evolutionist). Quite "cute", actually.
B Richardson
So why *do* vampire bats have molars?
Wakboth
T Pagano kirjoitti:
You did, considering that you snipped the rest of Harshman's detailed
post, where he addressed your claims at length.
-- Wakboth
er...@swva.net
Can you please quit going on and on about atheists? It makes you sound
like a religious bigot and doesn't have anything to do with 90% of the
threads you are responding to.
(snip)
Eric Root
chris.li...@gmail.com
According to Tony, they don't. They have "cheek teeth". Of course Tony
just ignored the dental formulae that indicated 'p' and 'm' for
premolars and molars respectively.
But hey, beggars can't be choosers- when you're grasping at straws,
sometimes a wisp of smoke is the best you can do.
Chris
er...@swva.net
> Cyde Weys wrote:
> > I just want to say there's no such thing as "literal". All reading is
> > interpretive. Unless you're reading mathematical equations, anyway. But
> > outside of the realm of mathematics and cold hard numbers, all reading is
> > done subjectively. There is no "true" interpretation of any given text and
> > there certainly is no such thing as a definitively literal interpretation.
> > Of course, this is all relevant when we're talking about works that have
> > been translated out of the language they were originally written in.
> >
> > The only way to obtain a literal and correct meaning from any given text is
> > if you wrote it yourself and remember all the circumstances surrounding the
> > writing of it. Otherwise, it's still interpretive. I say you have to
> > remember writing it because I occasionally go back and read my old
> > talk.origins posts and I can't agree on any single interpretation to assign
> > to them; it's been too long.
> >
> > --
> > ~ Cyde Weys ~
> >
>
> What's written above is deification of subjectivity. Nothing means what
> it says or says what it means, unless, of course, the subject is the
> author's sweetheart: Darwinian theory.
Do you have any evidence of this last statement of yours?
>
> The reason why Darwinists dismiss texts is because all texts of
> antiquity contradict the basic assumptions of Darwinism; Supernatural
> does not exist; evidence of miracles = myths.
No, we reject only those parts of ancient documents that there is no
conceivable real-world way that they could be true.
>
> What is written above (by a Darwinist)
Leave "by a Darwinist" out, otherwise you are making an ad hominem
argument.
> is classic special pleading:
> Textual evidence is not as such. Textual evidence is, by nature,
> infinetly more unambiguous than physical evidence.
Leaving it easy to see when it is unambiguously wrong.
> The latter is needed
> by Darwinists so they can manipulate its meaning according to the needs
> of their biases. Darwinists in sheeps clothing (TEists) handle
> text/Bible corruption
No we try to find ways in which the Bible _could_ be right, even though
on the surface it is wrong, e.g., about origins.
> so the biases inflicted upon physical evidence
> has some sort of "textual support".
No, just to show that it doesn't matter if the Bible doesn't agree with
the real world.
>
> Who would toss out the entire corpus of textual evidence of antiquity
> while asserting only literal applies to his scientific theories ?
Nobody. Even hard-core atheists assume that _some_ of the Bible is
right.
>
> Could one expect an atheist to try anything else ?
Please drop references to "atheists." it makes you sound like a bigot
and moreover, is a form of ad hominem argument.
>
> Ray
Eric Root
TCE
>
> --
> ~ Cyde Weys ~
LOL
Let's call it a draw ;-)
---
Strange
Ernest Major
<strang...@hotmail.com> writes
>> > 1. Read the periodic table.
>>
>> First of all the periodic table only has so many decimal points for things
>> like atomic weight. Past the limited precision they give you it's all
>> guessing/interpretation.
>
>So, you don't believe in whole Neutrons then? I suppose fractional
>protons exist also?
Perhaps I've lost the context, but you are aware that the only atom with
an integral mass in atomic mass units is C12 (by the definition of an
a.m.u as 1/12th of the mass of C12), are you not?
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.1/292 - Release Date: 24/03/2006
Cyde Weys
> In message <1143418458.6...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> TCE <strang...@hotmail.com> writes
>>> > 1. Read the periodic table.
>>>
>>> First of all the periodic table only has so many decimal points for
>>> things like atomic weight. Past the limited precision they give you
>>> it's all guessing/interpretation.
>>
>>So, you don't believe in whole Neutrons then? I suppose fractional
>>protons exist also?
>
> Perhaps I've lost the context, but you are aware that the only atom
> with an integral mass in atomic mass units is C12 (by the definition
> of an a.m.u as 1/12th of the mass of C12), are you not?
And also I was dealing with atomic masses that are averaged across all the
isotopes by the proportion they are found in nature. All periodic tables
I've run across deal with it in this fashion.
--
~ Cyde Weys ~
Sub veste quisque nudus est.
Ray Martinez
Of course. We know Darwin was horribly "confused about speciation"
(Mayr, 1991), that is, the central plank of his theory, yet this
confusion/lack of evidence never prevented his theory from taking off.
My paper will tell the world how this could happen.
> >
> > The reason why Darwinists dismiss texts is because all texts of
> > antiquity contradict the basic assumptions of Darwinism; Supernatural
> > does not exist; evidence of miracles = myths.
> >
> You seem to be ignoring the distinction between rejecting texts, and
> disputing their meaning.
Both are synonyms. The latter is the deliberate confusion of an
opponent operating upon the foundation of rejection.
> The notorious atheist Richard Dawkins, for
> example, does not bother arguing over the correct interpretation of the
> Bible (indeed, to the extent that he cares, he seems to favor a
> "literal" interpretation); he simply rejects its authority and claims
> of divine authorship.
Dawkins is honest. What is written at face value contradicts his
beliefs about science. Your only interest in Bible is corruption/well
being of your theory. Dawkins is under no obligation to TEists as is
Talk Origins. While the Bible certainly reflects the complexity of its
Source; its origin declarations are plain and unambiguous.
Dawkins special pleads reality of design = blind watchmaker, but not
with the Bible. Talk Origins agrees with Dawkins' blind watchmaker
special pleading and does the same with Genesis = unobjective efforts
of attempted corruption.
We know Genesis was written to say common ancestry is not the way God
created, at least Dawkins is not completely wrong or unobjective unlike
Talk Origins/you.
> Conversely, those who most wish to reinterpret
> Genesis wish to retain the supernatural and miracles, but they do not
> wish to accept deceptive miracles to forge evidence for a history that
> never happened, or to reject evidence.
>
> And, of course, if you're going to appeal not merely to the Biblical
> texts but to "all texts of antiquity," then they contradict the basic
> assumptions not merely of "Darwinism," but of each other and (in most
> cases) of Christianity in particular. Everyone might have believed in
> miracles (assuming you aren't counting Epicurus or Lucretius among the
> "texts of antiquity," although both are older than the New Testament),
> but they tend to believe in different miracles (do you believe that
> Zeus turned an inhospitable village into a lake, and its cold-hearted
> inhabitants into cold-blooded fish?).
> >
> -- [snip]
> >
> > Ray
Good example of the deliberate confusion observation I initially made.
We both know Greek mythology does not claim to represent factual
historical events. You have the ability to deduce obscure fossil scraps
and follow complicated scientific arguments in technical journals, yet
the conflation of Greek mythology with Biblical texts; while feigning
an inability to determine claims of myth and claims of history is
simply unbelievable.
Ray
Tristan Miller
In article <1143517879.6...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez wrote:
> Good example of the deliberate confusion observation I initially made.
> We both know Greek mythology does not claim to represent factual
> historical events. You have the ability to deduce obscure fossil scraps
> and follow complicated scientific arguments in technical journals, yet
> the conflation of Greek mythology with Biblical texts; while feigning
> an inability to determine claims of myth and claims of history is
> simply unbelievable.
Have you heard of Homer? The Iliad? There is over two thousand years of
literary/historical criticism (and more recently, archaeology) addressing
the question of whether that work is a myth or a historical record.
And by the way, how does one "deduce" a fossil scrap?
Regards,
Tristan
--
_
_V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
/ |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you
TCE
>> with an integral mass in atomic mass units is C12 (by the definition
>> of an a.m.u as 1/12th of the mass of C12), are you not?
> And also I was dealing with atomic masses that are averaged across all the
> isotopes by the proportion they are found in nature. All periodic tables
> I've run across deal with it in this fashion.
What are you talking about!?
Do you perhaps mean allotropes of carbon such as graphite, diamond,
buckthingyunpronouncabledullerene?
As I said, read the periodic table.
Carbon is atomic number 6 because it has six protons. Not 7, not 5, but
6.
C12 has 6 protons. Not 7, not 5, but 6.
C13 has 6 protons. Not 7, not 5, but 6.
C14 has 6 protons. Not 7, not 5, but 6.
C12 has 6 neutrons. This can never change. Ever.
C13 has 7 neutrons. This can never change. Ever.
C14 has 8 neutrons. As stated in the periodic table, this can never
change, ever. If it did it wouldn't be C14 anymore.
If the number of protons and/or neutrons of any element, (isotope or
not), changes, the periodic table tells you what it becomes. This is
categorically true, and can not be changed by anyone or anything in
this universe. If it weren't so the atom bomb wouldn't work, rocket
engines wouldn't fire, and it would be possible to turn that
chocolate milk you're probably guzzling right now into a Penguin at
the drop of a hat. There is nothing ambiguous about the periodic table.
I can believe however that you've lost the context of your own post;
here are your first two sentences again, "I just want to say there's
no such thing as "literal". All reading is interpretive".
So I say again, read the periodic table.
Matt Silberstein
<cyde...@gmail.com> in
<Xns979180905CB12g...@216.196.97.136> wrote:
>I just want to say there's no such thing as "literal". All reading is
>interpretive. Unless you're reading mathematical equations, anyway. But
>outside of the realm of mathematics and cold hard numbers, all reading is
>done subjectively.
You confuse two distinct concepts. Readings are acts of
interpretations, but that does not mean they are subjective. Think of
compiling some code. That is a reading/interpretation but it is not
subjective.
>There is no "true" interpretation of any given text and
>there certainly is no such thing as a definitively literal interpretation.
Think of a stop sign. Do you tell me there is no true interpretation
of that signal?
>Of course, this is all relevant when we're talking about works that have
>been translated out of the language they were originally written in.
Alto.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Cyde Weys
>>> Perhaps I've lost the context, but you are aware that the only atom
>>> with an integral mass in atomic mass units is C12 (by the definition
>>> of an a.m.u as 1/12th of the mass of C12), are you not?
>> And also I was dealing with atomic masses that are averaged across
>> all the isotopes by the proportion they are found in nature. All
>> periodic tables I've run across deal with it in this fashion.
>
> What are you talking about!?
Your ignorance is astounding :-(
> As I said, read the periodic table.
No, you need to read the periodic table. Here's one:
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~lvw/physics/bigpertable.jpg
Here's another one:
http://www.dayah.com/periodic/Images/periodic%20table.png
Notice how the atomic masses are expressed with many numbers out past
the decimal point. Why is this? Because atoms occur in various
isotopes. And the natural frequency of those isotopes in nature is
known.
Anyway, let me point out some of those numbers on the periodic table to
you. See how hydrogen is 1.00794? It's not 1 because, although most
hydrogen naturally occurring in nature just has one proton and one
electron, there's some that has an additional neutron (called
deuterium). When you average that in you get a weight of 1.00794 grams
for one mole of hydrogen.
Now let's take a look. Even though C-12 is DEFINED to have an atomic
weight of 12, on the chart it shows 12.0107. Why is that? Because not
all carbon is C-12. There's also carbon-13 and carbon-14, and when you
average those in, the weight of one mole of carbon is 12.0107 grams.
> Carbon is atomic number 6 because it has six protons. Not 7, not 5,
> but 6.
> C12 has 6 protons. Not 7, not 5, but 6.
> C13 has 6 protons. Not 7, not 5, but 6.
> C14 has 6 protons. Not 7, not 5, but 6.
> C12 has 6 neutrons. This can never change. Ever.
> C13 has 7 neutrons. This can never change. Ever.
> C14 has 8 neutrons. As stated in the periodic table, this can never
> change, ever. If it did it wouldn't be C14 anymore.
AND THE PERIODIC TABLE DOESN'T HAVE AN ENTRY FOR EACH ISOTOPE. It just
has an entry for each ATOM which is a weighted average of the atomic
weight of the various isotopes by their relative frequency in nature.
> If the number of protons and/or neutrons of any element, (isotope or
> not), changes, the periodic table tells you what it becomes. This is
> categorically true, and can not be changed by anyone or anything in
> this universe. If it weren't so the atom bomb wouldn't work, rocket
> engines wouldn't fire, and it would be possible to turn that
> chocolate milk you're probably guzzling right now into a Penguin at
> the drop of a hat. There is nothing ambiguous about the periodic
> table.
Now you're just being condescending. Which is all the more amusing
because it's you who's wrong.
> So I say again, read the periodic table.
No, you need to read the periodic table, because apparently you didn't
consult it at all when compiling this post. If you had, you wouldn't
have written the falsehoods that you just wrote.
Cyde Weys
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 23:45:23 -0600, in talk.origins , Cyde Weys
> <cyde...@gmail.com> in
> <Xns979180905CB12g...@216.196.97.136> wrote:
>
>>I just want to say there's no such thing as "literal". All reading is
>>interpretive. Unless you're reading mathematical equations, anyway.
>>But outside of the realm of mathematics and cold hard numbers, all
>>reading is done subjectively.
>
> You confuse two distinct concepts. Readings are acts of
> interpretations, but that does not mean they are subjective. Think of
> compiling some code. That is a reading/interpretation but it is not
> subjective.
Compiling code is NOT a 1-to-1 thing. Trust me, I am a programmer. Code
always has to be interpreted. Depending on which optimization and compiler
flags you use any given bit of high-level code could translate into any
number of radically different sets of machine code.
>>There is no "true" interpretation of any given text and
>>there certainly is no such thing as a definitively literal
>>interpretation.
>
> Think of a stop sign. Do you tell me there is no true interpretation
> of that signal?
Of course there is no true interpretation of that signal. There's nothing
inherent about "red" or "octogon" that means stop. In some cultures the
colors have entirely different meanings than they do in the western world.
And some cultures don't even have octogons (or they don't assign a meaning
to them, anyway). I don't see where you're going with this.
Matt Silberstein
<cyde...@gmail.com> in
<Xns97947A1519A0E2g...@216.196.97.136> wrote:
>Sayeth Matt Silberstein:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 23:45:23 -0600, in talk.origins , Cyde Weys
>> <cyde...@gmail.com> in
>> <Xns979180905CB12g...@216.196.97.136> wrote:
>>
>>>I just want to say there's no such thing as "literal". All reading is
>>>interpretive. Unless you're reading mathematical equations, anyway.
>>>But outside of the realm of mathematics and cold hard numbers, all
>>>reading is done subjectively.
>>
>> You confuse two distinct concepts. Readings are acts of
>> interpretations, but that does not mean they are subjective. Think of
>> compiling some code. That is a reading/interpretation but it is not
>> subjective.
>
>Compiling code is NOT a 1-to-1 thing.
So?
>Trust me, I am a programmer.
So?
>Code
>always has to be interpreted.
That's what I said.
>Depending on which optimization and compiler
>flags you use any given bit of high-level code could translate into any
>number of radically different sets of machine code.
Which is not subjective.
>>>There is no "true" interpretation of any given text and
>>>there certainly is no such thing as a definitively literal
>>>interpretation.
>>
>> Think of a stop sign. Do you tell me there is no true interpretation
>> of that signal?
>
>Of course there is no true interpretation of that signal. There's nothing
>inherent about "red" or "octogon" that means stop. In some cultures the
>colors have entirely different meanings than they do in the western world.
Ah, you think that the "true" interpretation is supposed to be
independent of culture and context and so on. Nope. All signals are
meaningful only in a context. That does not mean that there are no
true interpretations. A stop sign means to stop the car as that point.
There is a true meaning. There is no "true" meaning, however, to
Hamlet's soliloquy.
>And some cultures don't even have octogons (or they don't assign a meaning
>to them, anyway). I don't see where you're going with this.
That you confused several distinct issues. Subjective means that
different viewers will have a different understanding even given the
same knowledge. A stop sign is not ambiguous though many may well lack
the knowledge to understand it. There is a true interpretation.
Cyde Weys
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 11:02:08 -0600, in talk.origins , Cyde Weys
> <cyde...@gmail.com> in
>>Depending on which optimization and compiler
>>flags you use any given bit of high-level code could translate into
>>any number of radically different sets of machine code.
>
> Which is not subjective.
But it is interpretive. Depending on which compiler, which architecture,
and even which compiler flags you use, not only will you get a very
different set of machine instructions, but it will have a different output
when executed.
There's no single literal meaning to any bit of code.
> That you confused several distinct issues. Subjective means that
> different viewers will have a different understanding even given the
> same knowledge. A stop sign is not ambiguous though many may well lack
> the knowledge to understand it. There is a true interpretation.
I think we're arguing different things. I'm arguing literal, not just
subjective. Even assuming there was some magical true interpretation of
the Bible, it's forever lost to us now, because we are no longer in the
same societal context as those who wrote it and there are some ambiguities
we will never be able to resolve (i.e. what "Jesus is a sheep" means or
what "gopher wood" is).
Double Felix
Cyde Weys <cyde...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sayeth Matt Silberstein:
>
> > On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 11:02:08 -0600, in talk.origins , Cyde Weys
> > <cyde...@gmail.com> in
>
> >>Depending on which optimization and compiler
> >>flags you use any given bit of high-level code could translate into
> >>any number of radically different sets of machine code.
> >
> > Which is not subjective.
>
> But it is interpretive. Depending on which compiler, which architecture,
> and even which compiler flags you use, not only will you get a very
> different set of machine instructions, but it will have a different output
> when executed.
>
> There's no single literal meaning to any bit of code.
I thought the whole point of defining formal languages was to fully
describe the literal meaning of symbols and syntax?
Of course, the issue of conflating natural languages with formal ones is
relevant here. I am guessing that your argument was only intended to
address natural languages - is it?
- Felix
AC
It seems a better standard than the person who most quickly turns to insults
is the winner.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Ken Shackleton
Just an side...."gopher wood" is Cypress....I have a friend who is from
Israel and his hebrew bible contains a word which is phonetically
pronounced "gopher".....it's meaning, as best as he can determine is
Cypress...
Dan Luke
"Zachriel" wrote:
> "T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
>> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>T Pagano wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 20:37:36 +0100, Joe Cummings
>>>> <joecu...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:43:03 GMT, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 23:45:23 -0600, Cyde Weys <cyde...@gmail.com>
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>Last time you submerged, you left a number of threads in which your
>>>claims had been soundly refuted. In fact, being trounced seems to be the
>>>main reason you lose interest. But after a while, you apparently think
>>>everyone will forget and let you start over with a new slate.
>>
>> Here I'll call Harshman's bluff. Produce a link to what you consider
>> the single best refutation of one of my posts written in the last 6
>> months (any refutation dated prior to 9/25/05 will be ignored).
>
>
> What happened on 9/25/05?
Pagano woke up in a new usenet world in which all his previous posts and the
challenges to them have ceased to exist.
This happens to him periodically, it seems.
--
Dan
"Did you just have a stroke and not tell me?"
- Jiminy Glick
Glenn
Since I have never made that claim, you and John share a mutual
"victory" here.
David Ewan Kahana
> Sayeth TCE:
>
> >>> Perhaps I've lost the context, but you are aware that the only atom
> >>> with an integral mass in atomic mass units is C12 (by the definition
> >>> of an a.m.u as 1/12th of the mass of C12), are you not?
> >> And also I was dealing with atomic masses that are averaged across
> >> all the isotopes by the proportion they are found in nature. All
> >> periodic tables I've run across deal with it in this fashion.
> >
> > What are you talking about!?
>
> Your ignorance is astounding :-(
>
> > As I said, read the periodic table.
>
> No, you need to read the periodic table. Here's one:
> http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~lvw/physics/bigpertable.jpg
> Here's another one:
> http://www.dayah.com/periodic/Images/periodic%20table.png
>
> Notice how the atomic masses are expressed with many numbers out past
> the decimal point. Why is this? Because atoms occur in various
> isotopes. And the natural frequency of those isotopes in nature is
> known.
>
The frequency of the different isotopes varies
a bit from sample to sample ... the numbers given for the
average atomic weights in amu are (obviously) given
for typical samples that are found here on earth, and
the uncertainties in atomic weights take into account the
typical variations found in laboratory samples, as well
as the limitations in accuracy of experimental mass
measurements.
There are very many isotopes for some of the elements
and, naturally, there is much more difficulty in measuring
those abundances in the universe in general.
You might want to take a look at a nuclear physicist's
version of the periodic table sometime ... it's called the
table of isotopes, and contains a great deal more
information on the known properties of the individual
isotopes. In 2000, there were about 3000 different
isotopes listed in the table of isotopes.
Here are links which will get you to various versions thereof:
http://ie.lbl.gov/ip.html
http://ie.lbl.gov/education/isotopes.htm
http://ie.lbl.gov/systematics.html
> Anyway, let me point out some of those numbers on the periodic table to
> you. See how hydrogen is 1.00794? It's not 1 because, although most
> hydrogen naturally occurring in nature just has one proton and one
> electron, there's some that has an additional neutron (called
> deuterium). When you average that in you get a weight of 1.00794 grams
> for one mole of hydrogen.
>
> Now let's take a look. Even though C-12 is DEFINED to have an atomic
> weight of 12, on the chart it shows 12.0107. Why is that? Because not
> all carbon is C-12. There's also carbon-13 and carbon-14, and when you
> average those in, the weight of one mole of carbon is 12.0107 grams.
>
This is all true. but some of the most important information
present in the periodic table is that which determines the
basic chemical properties of the atoms of a given isotope
... namely the integer number of protons, neutrons and electrons
that an atom of the isotope contains.
By far the most important factor, in general, is the number
of protons (which is equal to the number of electrons in
the neutral atom). Slight differences in atomic mass are
generally far less important as regards chemical properties
of the isotopes, although they are not completely
irrelevant, and will produce differential diffusion and
reaction rates for the different isotopes.
The proton and neutron numbers are not open to
interpretation. They are pure integers.
It's the fact that these numbers are integers, together
with the basic interactions among the constituents
of atoms and nuclei that gives rise to the whole structure
of the periodic table in the first place, namely that the chemical
properties of the elements are _basically_ periodic functions
of the atomic number (the integer number of protons in the
nucleus) of an element.
> > Carbon is atomic number 6 because it has six protons. Not 7, not 5,
> > but 6.
> > C12 has 6 protons. Not 7, not 5, but 6.
> > C13 has 6 protons. Not 7, not 5, but 6.
> > C14 has 6 protons. Not 7, not 5, but 6.
> > C12 has 6 neutrons. This can never change. Ever.
> > C13 has 7 neutrons. This can never change. Ever.
> > C14 has 8 neutrons. As stated in the periodic table, this can never
> > change, ever. If it did it wouldn't be C14 anymore.
>
> AND THE PERIODIC TABLE DOESN'T HAVE AN ENTRY FOR EACH ISOTOPE. It just
> has an entry for each ATOM which is a weighted average of the atomic
> weight of the various isotopes by their relative frequency in nature.
That's true.
But the table of isotopes has entries for the known isotopes ;->
David
Jim Lovejoy
news:122j5t6...@news.supernews.com:
So he's a *really* young earther?
mc...@sunset.net
Cyde Weys wrote:
> I just want to say there's no such thing as "literal". All reading is
> interpretive.
I interpret you just now saying, "I don't think I'm qualified to edit
for any encyclopedia because nobody will interpret me write. There's
nothing literal."
Unless you're reading mathematical equations, anyway. But
> outside of the realm of mathematics and cold hard numbers, all reading is
> done subjectively.
Possibly someone will interpretly subjectively that you are saying that
you had a good time down at the booneys.
There is no "true" interpretation of any given text and
> there certainly is no such thing as a definitively literal interpretation.
If there is no "true" interpretation of any text then maybe you
shouldn't write because you wouldn't be able to produce anything that
could be interpreted correctly. You might as well write,
"Bruuuuuuuuuuuuuup" and hope that someone would think that you are
saying, "Twenty millions years ago, upon the outskirts of what is known
as Ethiopia, upon a plain that is littered with ashen bones..."
> Of course, this is all relevant when we're talking about works that have
> been translated out of the language they were originally written in.
Seems like you're not convinced by your own writing. You keep on
writing.
> The only way to obtain a literal and correct meaning from any given text is
> if you wrote it yourself and remember all the circumstances surrounding the
> writing of it. Otherwise, it's still interpretive. I say you have to
> remember writing it because I occasionally go back and read my old
> talk.origins posts and I can't agree on any single interpretation to assign
> to them; it's been too long.
I just interpreted your saying that "Creationists are right.
Evolutionist are wrong for no further evidence is needed."
JM
Dana Tweedy
<mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:1143584668....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
snipping
>> The only way to obtain a literal and correct meaning from any given text
>> is
>> if you wrote it yourself and remember all the circumstances surrounding
>> the
>> writing of it. Otherwise, it's still interpretive. I say you have to
>> remember writing it because I occasionally go back and read my old
>> talk.origins posts and I can't agree on any single interpretation to
>> assign
>> to them; it's been too long.
>
> I just interpreted your saying that "Creationists are right.
> Evolutionist are wrong for no further evidence is needed."
That's your "interpetation" for anything, no matter how wrong you are.
DJT
AC
It may not be your claim, but it's pretty much how things will end up when
you get involved in a thread.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com