Darwin Day Celebration... for developers? How about other religions? [modified]
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
Berlinski's point is that the mutation of a novel into other novels in the same and even other languages by means of unintentional copying errors is simply ludicrous.
do you know what else is ludicrous? - thinking that that analogy captures enough of the theory of evolution to allow anyone to draw any kind of conclusion about the theory of evolution. there's so much more to it than just random mutations in genes. really, it's like describing the game of basketball without mentioning the hoop, or the floor, or gravity: a bunch of tall guys (why are they tall!!??) run (run!!??) back and forth (absurd!!??) and then one group somehow "wins" (based on what??!) - how ludicrous! frankly, you'd do well to learn what the theory of evolution actually says. otherwise, you come across as simply ignorant.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
you're right... pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about is a sure sign of my closed mind.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
Fisticuffs, Please correct me if I am wrong, but if I didn't follow a different educational path, this sequence without its problems is presented to us in schools and universities today, in little packages at a time and over longer periods of time, but all unified in answering the question: How did we get here? And naturally so, is it not the ultimate goal of the scientific quest to arrive to the unified theory of human knowledge? If we are part of the same universe, is it not irrational to say that conflicting results among the different areas of knowledge are acceptable? Now, I have to admit my ignorance and commend you for your knowledge in the area of biology, which will not try to compete or contradict by any means. Now with that said, I think I, as any other rational being, am in a position to cross-examine the reasons behind the conclusions you draw and ask you, as a scientist, the same questions I asked Chris in another post: how do you determine that you know something for sure? Is it by empirically, rationally, or pragmatically? You mention your trust in the findings of experts in other fields, which is good. The problem with this is that, if we appeal to the authority of other human beings, as soon as we find one with similar knowledge arriving to different conclusions, we have to either let go of our argument, or prove that the latter is not reall an expert in the field. In other words, do experts in any field all agree today that evolution is true? If they don't, does a scientist get automatically dismissed and stop being consired an expert if he arrives to a different conclusion? Please check the following list for some of them: http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html I hope you agree that an appeal to authority or popularity does not prove anything and distracts us from the main argument about evolution, so let's stay focussed on your field of expertise. In analyzing what is useful and what not in your study of the DNA, what do you use as a standard of 'what works'? When you examine the facts, is the evolution of the species the objective necessary and only conclusion you can arrive to, or do you have to start believing evolution to believe the numbers support your observations? For example: What assumptions do we need to make in order to determine that the 44% of non-coding crap DNA is to be categorized as 'non-coding crap'? It looks like part of DNA in mice previously categorized as 'junk' turned out to have a function in mice during their embrionary stages.
Let me ask you a question. Why does creationism have to disclude evolutionism? Why wouldn't a creator in eternity... think boredom here... not engineer a system that would evolve into dynamic arrangements providing unexpected surprises throughout an otherwise predictable existence. Give me a break. This argument is lame. Science is the best friend of religion, but the organized folks are too hung up in the battle to see it. You're blinded by your own illusions. The bible is a parable. For social guidance. Not a scientific explanation of the universe, and its targeted to the people of its time. People were much simpler in their understanding of reality so that's what they got. Answer me this. Which would hold greater value; a puppet show where everything is controlled or manipulated, or a dynamic system to interact with that may discover you in return? What a delight, to allow entities to evolve from a birth in darkness to arrive at illumination and to walk therein. You are showing your own lack in evolving with your line of reasoning. You simplify the creator as a puppet master. I take offense to that.
This statement was never false.
-
Let me ask you a question. Why does creationism have to disclude evolutionism? Why wouldn't a creator in eternity... think boredom here... not engineer a system that would evolve into dynamic arrangements providing unexpected surprises throughout an otherwise predictable existence. Give me a break. This argument is lame. Science is the best friend of religion, but the organized folks are too hung up in the battle to see it. You're blinded by your own illusions. The bible is a parable. For social guidance. Not a scientific explanation of the universe, and its targeted to the people of its time. People were much simpler in their understanding of reality so that's what they got. Answer me this. Which would hold greater value; a puppet show where everything is controlled or manipulated, or a dynamic system to interact with that may discover you in return? What a delight, to allow entities to evolve from a birth in darkness to arrive at illumination and to walk therein. You are showing your own lack in evolving with your line of reasoning. You simplify the creator as a puppet master. I take offense to that.
This statement was never false.
Chris, I know I said my last post was the last to you and Fistcuffs, but I take your desire to move on with the discussion as a very good sign pointing to the desire of searching for the truth, wherever it might be. This is in spite of the observation that you have decided to take offense from the conclusions you have drawn from my arguments. I get your point and think your question is fair: why couldn't God have done this or that? I totally agree with you on this; based on the premise that God is the Sovereign Creator, He could indeed have done whatever He pleased and never be obligued to give us a clue of why or how He did it... On the same basis, we should realize that He is not subordinate to science, but science is a manifestation of part of His character, as explained before. I also hope you would agree with me that our question should not be what He could have done but what He actually did, and how we can know anything about it. The tentative proposition I gave you about creationism earlier was not to justify it as a valid replacement for evolution as a scientific theory, because I don't believe either of them qualifies as such. Nevertheless, it served a purpose in your reaction when you said that it did not answer anything, even though you did not say why. Could you say why, evolution answers those questions while special creation doesn't? The problem is that you cannot explain origins using plain science as your only tool, and the reason why you can't is not due to any lack of skill or knowledge on your part, but because the inherent nature of science and the answer to our origins fall each one in different areas of knowledge. Let me explain, because recognizing the focus of science should make it easier to identify its boundaries. Science does not stand in the field of knowledge indepent from everything else in its development, but is a particular aspect of the broader field of philosophy. It holds to a particular view about the nature of our world and how we can know about it. Science relies on the empirical approach to knowledge; its matter of study is whatever is observable and/or measurable. This is its metaphysical foundation, or its view of what is real. So far so good, we keep studying the phenomena and we get very practical and useful results. The problem arises when, based on these results, many scientists and their followers place so much confidence in science that they end up challenging whatever is outside of its field as not real. Science becomes their god and, as the Bible
-
Chris, I know I said my last post was the last to you and Fistcuffs, but I take your desire to move on with the discussion as a very good sign pointing to the desire of searching for the truth, wherever it might be. This is in spite of the observation that you have decided to take offense from the conclusions you have drawn from my arguments. I get your point and think your question is fair: why couldn't God have done this or that? I totally agree with you on this; based on the premise that God is the Sovereign Creator, He could indeed have done whatever He pleased and never be obligued to give us a clue of why or how He did it... On the same basis, we should realize that He is not subordinate to science, but science is a manifestation of part of His character, as explained before. I also hope you would agree with me that our question should not be what He could have done but what He actually did, and how we can know anything about it. The tentative proposition I gave you about creationism earlier was not to justify it as a valid replacement for evolution as a scientific theory, because I don't believe either of them qualifies as such. Nevertheless, it served a purpose in your reaction when you said that it did not answer anything, even though you did not say why. Could you say why, evolution answers those questions while special creation doesn't? The problem is that you cannot explain origins using plain science as your only tool, and the reason why you can't is not due to any lack of skill or knowledge on your part, but because the inherent nature of science and the answer to our origins fall each one in different areas of knowledge. Let me explain, because recognizing the focus of science should make it easier to identify its boundaries. Science does not stand in the field of knowledge indepent from everything else in its development, but is a particular aspect of the broader field of philosophy. It holds to a particular view about the nature of our world and how we can know about it. Science relies on the empirical approach to knowledge; its matter of study is whatever is observable and/or measurable. This is its metaphysical foundation, or its view of what is real. So far so good, we keep studying the phenomena and we get very practical and useful results. The problem arises when, based on these results, many scientists and their followers place so much confidence in science that they end up challenging whatever is outside of its field as not real. Science becomes their god and, as the Bible
Not all Chris' are the same. My last name doesn't start with an 'L' for instance. This is my second post on this subject.
juanfer68 wrote:
I also hope you would agree with me that our question should not be what He could have done but what He actually did, and how we can know anything about it.
Thank you. We can't know anything about it, and that includes you. Evolution could then be a tool in his toolbox right?
juanfer68 wrote:
I have grounded my interactions on premises that I have tried to keep as cogent as possible as I can.
No you haven't actually...
juanfer68 wrote:
Granted, the Bible is not a book on science
Exactly. Its a book of parables written by man with the declaration of being inspired by god. It is not valid. You can't use scripture to argue against science. Sorry.
juanfer68 wrote:
Regarding what the purpose of the Bible is, just as I have taken the time documentating myself about evolution, not only on the nature of its claims but on its philosophical foundations as well, I hope you will also take the time to read it and discover what it really is all about, without relying on popular wisdom or even religious leaders from any denomination.
Funny. I've studied it. Read it since a wee lad. I'm even a Christian, although now more inline with the agnostics and Nassenes. But that has nothing to do with understanding our world around us in terms of science and the theory of evolution. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive or orthogonal principles. This is where I think you're confused and making Creationism a different religion. One of idolatry even.
This statement was never false.
-
Not all Chris' are the same. My last name doesn't start with an 'L' for instance. This is my second post on this subject.
juanfer68 wrote:
I also hope you would agree with me that our question should not be what He could have done but what He actually did, and how we can know anything about it.
Thank you. We can't know anything about it, and that includes you. Evolution could then be a tool in his toolbox right?
juanfer68 wrote:
I have grounded my interactions on premises that I have tried to keep as cogent as possible as I can.
No you haven't actually...
juanfer68 wrote:
Granted, the Bible is not a book on science
Exactly. Its a book of parables written by man with the declaration of being inspired by god. It is not valid. You can't use scripture to argue against science. Sorry.
juanfer68 wrote:
Regarding what the purpose of the Bible is, just as I have taken the time documentating myself about evolution, not only on the nature of its claims but on its philosophical foundations as well, I hope you will also take the time to read it and discover what it really is all about, without relying on popular wisdom or even religious leaders from any denomination.
Funny. I've studied it. Read it since a wee lad. I'm even a Christian, although now more inline with the agnostics and Nassenes. But that has nothing to do with understanding our world around us in terms of science and the theory of evolution. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive or orthogonal principles. This is where I think you're confused and making Creationism a different religion. One of idolatry even.
This statement was never false.
Chris, I apologize for the misunderstanding about your identity.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Thank you. We can't know anything about it, and that includes you. Evolution could then be a tool in his toolbox right?
To start, please tell me how do you know we cannot know anything about it? Did you experience this absolute negative? Can you observe it? Can you rationally infer it? I do know that God created every species after their own kind because He has revealed this in the Scriptures. Don't you trust revelation? I would be utterly confused if you don't based on my last paragraphs in this post. For the time being, at least please tell me something about what you trust as a source of knowledge.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Exactly. Its a book of parables written by man with the declaration of being inspired by god. It is not valid. You can't use scripture to argue against science. Sorry.
Granted: the Bible is a book written by man with the declaration of being inspired by God. Now, was it inspired or not? Why is it not valid? Is it not true that you can at least start with it as a reliable historical source? I hope you haven't studied the Bible in the same way you misread my post. If you read it again you should realize that I was not arguing against science, but clearly against its irrationally misuse and deification as the only way of knowing something. Please address a simple issue: explain how do you demand scientific proof of anything without proving first the elements you will use to evaluate that proof, i.e. the laws of logic and the reliability of your senses, your past experience, your memory, along with the principles of causality and induction? Do you trust them implicitly? Is it just because everybody else does? Or you just know they are there and would not even bother to answer nonsensical questions like this?
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Funny. I've studied it.
You may find it funny, but if you have studied the Bible, how can you come to the conclusion that it is a "book of parables" when parables comprise just a small percentage of its contents? Well, probably the people, places and events mentioned there, along with their historical value, have been taken seriously by archeologists and historians just because they enjoy reading moral stories.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I'm even a Chri
-
I consider it not only useful, but also our duty, to apply critical thinking; particularly to any system of thought that affects or challenges our view of reality, how we know what we know and how we should live our lives.
Juanfer
Of course, I agree; it is our duty to think critically, and especially regarding world-views and other such metaphysics. This is why I was so awe-struck by the thoughtful critique of your original post so eruditely expressed by Chris Losinger that I simply could not (ok, I could have, but chose to not) resist congratulating him on a job well done. :laugh: Though, I can't help but wonder about this "duty" business. Where does that all come from? Surely, the only "duties" one can ground in the UIND ("Un-Intelligent Non-Design," aka "Darwinism") are those often referred to as the 4 Fs: Feeding, Fighting, Fleeing, and Reproducing.
-
juanfer68 wrote:
Without Him we cannot prove anything
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: behold! i give unto you the fallacy of Begging The Question[^]!
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
Chris, I know I told you I was done with replies here, but I think I did not answer this post; sorry about that. Here it is: Remove God and you remove the only valid explanation for logic and any other concept of law whatsoever. Now, if you ever come up with a better account for their existence without begging the question, I would be eager to know what it is.
Juanfer
-
juanfer68 wrote:
Sorry, I did not get the point. I will need some help here.
Your post is so far down the hierarchy that I'm not sure what it's attached to; I'm going to assume it's my lengthy quote from David Berlinski. Berlinski's point is that the mutation of a novel into other novels in the same and even other languages by means of unintentional copying errors is simply ludicrous. Anyone can (or should be able to) see that such things just don't happen, no matter how much time and how many copies are involved. And yet the evolutionist wants us to accept just such a tale - that higher forms of life (novels) are created through random mutations of the letters (DNA bases), words (amino acids), and phrases (proteins) of living cells. Note, incidently, that Berlinski's fable begins with a novel and doesn't address the even more difficult matter of where the original novel (the Quixote) came from. Now if Berlinski's tale evokes immediate and reasonable responses like "preposterous" and "absurd", shouldn't the evolutionists' amplified tale do the same? and more?
-
Of course, I agree; it is our duty to think critically, and especially regarding world-views and other such metaphysics. This is why I was so awe-struck by the thoughtful critique of your original post so eruditely expressed by Chris Losinger that I simply could not (ok, I could have, but chose to not) resist congratulating him on a job well done. :laugh: Though, I can't help but wonder about this "duty" business. Where does that all come from? Surely, the only "duties" one can ground in the UIND ("Un-Intelligent Non-Design," aka "Darwinism") are those often referred to as the 4 Fs: Feeding, Fighting, Fleeing, and Reproducing.
-
Chris, I know I told you I was done with replies here, but I think I did not answer this post; sorry about that. Here it is: Remove God and you remove the only valid explanation for logic and any other concept of law whatsoever. Now, if you ever come up with a better account for their existence without begging the question, I would be eager to know what it is.
Juanfer
juanfer68 wrote:
Remove God and you remove the only valid explanation for logic and any other concept of law whatsoever.
prove it
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
Therefore, since the hypothesis can't be tested, it doesn't qualify under the usual rules as "science".
but it can be tested, and it is tested, all the time. you can predict, given current knowledge, that we will find evidence of a species that fits into an antecedent/descendant space between two species (a.k.a. "transitional species" in the fossil record). and, lo and behold, they are found, all the time. no, we haven't yet created a new species ourselves (at least not enough to satisfy those who say it's impossible. but someday we will - and the creationists will move the goalposts somewhere else). but we have more than ample evidence that it has happened in the past.
-- modified at 23:45 Friday 16th February, 2007
Sorry again, I just don't want to leave any arbitrary door of escape open.
Chris Losinger wrote:
no, we haven't yet created a new species ourselves (at least not enough to satisfy those who say it's impossible. but someday we will - and the creationists will move the goalposts somewhere else). but we have more than ample evidence that it has happened in the past.
At that time, any critically minded individual would have to come back to this same goalposts to ask a simple question: If intelligence and special purpose were necessary to create those new species, where were those elements before we got here to take over? Answer: Only God. There will be another proof, again, from the imposibility of the contrary.
Juanfer
-
Sorry again, I just don't want to leave any arbitrary door of escape open.
Chris Losinger wrote:
no, we haven't yet created a new species ourselves (at least not enough to satisfy those who say it's impossible. but someday we will - and the creationists will move the goalposts somewhere else). but we have more than ample evidence that it has happened in the past.
At that time, any critically minded individual would have to come back to this same goalposts to ask a simple question: If intelligence and special purpose were necessary to create those new species, where were those elements before we got here to take over? Answer: Only God. There will be another proof, again, from the imposibility of the contrary.
Juanfer
juanfer68 wrote:
If intelligence and special purpose were necessary to create those new species, where were those elements before we got here to take over?
the only person assuming "intelligence and special purpose were necessary to create" any species is you. so, nice own-goal.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
Maybe I'll just point out the irony of calling for skeptical and critical evaluation of evidence and using a huge "appeal to ridicule" fallacy against evolution science in the same post.
- F "You are really weird." - Kyle, age 16
-
Chris, This was not a semantic game by any means. The implications are really important if you decide to honestly challenge how you know what you know. My point is not that no knowledge at all is possible, but I like you bringing that up because I hope you have started to realize that this is precisely the only possible logical consequence of the 'materialistic/scientific only' worldview, and it requires a lot of blind faith. Knowledge is not only possible but attainable, but its certainty can only be accounted for by acknowledging the principle of God being the precondition of it, in spite of your attempt to ridicule the idea in a previous post. I have to admit this is not easy to swallow because it took me a lot of time to realize why this is the only viable alternative. Let me submit this assertion: God created the heavens and the earth, and every creature after its kind, and He is the only reason why we, being created in his image, are different from other creatures in the sense of our self-awareness and intelligence. We can confidently trust in the existence of absolute laws and predictability that make all the branches of science possible, because without God we cannot explain the nature of these principles. If this is not true, we cannot explain rationally why we trust in causality, ethics, language, love, duty, etc. or why we demand them from others. It predicts that no transitional form can ever be found between any species and that one species have been given dominion with responsibility over the others. This answers rationally and consistently in every area, the issues I presented as problems in my first post from the evolutionary perspective. If it doesn't, please show me how it violates the one of them, the laws of logic or empirical evidence. Of course, you don't have to believe this, but then you have to give a better and consistent account for why you don't, not just an arbitrary appeal to humanism and naturalism.
Juanfer
Juan: "This was not a semantic game by any means." Generally ... not *always* of course, but generally ... an accusation of playing semntic gmes is leveled when one person is attempting to clarify the issue and the other person's "argument" depends upon just that lack of clarity.
-
Nice start - by throwing Darwin in the same pot as religion. :mad:
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us! -
juanfer68 wrote:
If intelligence and special purpose were necessary to create those new species, where were those elements before we got here to take over?
the only person assuming "intelligence and special purpose were necessary to create" any species is you. so, nice own-goal.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
Chris, Let's go step by step to see if I can make myself clear: You said: "no, we haven't yet created a new species ourselves ... but someday we will". Now, I assume that you assume that, by "someday we will" you mean that we won't just be sitting waiting for those species to pop-up into existence, but apply our "will" (our own intelligence and purpose) to achieve that goal. Now, if that is not what you meant, then I misunderstood and you don't need to continue reading. In my response, I am talking about "then", meaning, in that future, when those new species get created through the application of our will. That day, we will have to look back to the past (meaning today), and answer where was and who applied that "will", when we had not yet been able to create those species. Easier: A = components and conditions B = Intelligence and purpose Cf = Species in the future Ct = Species today If it is found that Cf = f(A,B), a rational conclusion should be that Ct = f(A,B). How do we arrive to the conclusion that Ct = f(A)? Please let me know if this is not clear yet.
Juanfer
-
Chris, I know I told you I was done with replies here, but I think I did not answer this post; sorry about that. Here it is: Remove God and you remove the only valid explanation for logic and any other concept of law whatsoever. Now, if you ever come up with a better account for their existence without begging the question, I would be eager to know what it is.
Juanfer
Juan: "Here it is: Remove God and you remove the only valid explanation for logic and any other concept of law whatsoever. Now, if you ever come up with a better account for their existence without begging the question, I would be eager to know what it is." In fact, it's much worse than that. The problem for 'atheism' isn't merely that in denying God one no longer has a "valid explanation for logic and any other concept of law whatsoever." If that were the whole of the problem it would be merely problematic but not fatal. The problem for 'atheism' is that in denying God exists one must logically end up *denying* the very possibility of using logic to determine true from false ... along with denying all sort of things that we all know are true. Including, ultimately, than one's own self exists.
-
Chris, Let's go step by step to see if I can make myself clear: You said: "no, we haven't yet created a new species ourselves ... but someday we will". Now, I assume that you assume that, by "someday we will" you mean that we won't just be sitting waiting for those species to pop-up into existence, but apply our "will" (our own intelligence and purpose) to achieve that goal. Now, if that is not what you meant, then I misunderstood and you don't need to continue reading. In my response, I am talking about "then", meaning, in that future, when those new species get created through the application of our will. That day, we will have to look back to the past (meaning today), and answer where was and who applied that "will", when we had not yet been able to create those species. Easier: A = components and conditions B = Intelligence and purpose Cf = Species in the future Ct = Species today If it is found that Cf = f(A,B), a rational conclusion should be that Ct = f(A,B). How do we arrive to the conclusion that Ct = f(A)? Please let me know if this is not clear yet.
Juanfer
juanfer68 wrote:
If it is found that Cf = f(A,B), a rational conclusion should be that Ct = f(A,B).
entirely false. we can make diamonds. does that mean all diamonds require intelligence and purpose? of course not.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
Juan: "This was not a semantic game by any means." Generally ... not *always* of course, but generally ... an accusation of playing semntic gmes is leveled when one person is attempting to clarify the issue and the other person's "argument" depends upon just that lack of clarity.
Ilíon, Thanks for the reply, I think you are right in this case. Nevertheless, I have to confess, after getting my wife's input on this, that many times I have problems trying to communicate what I mean.:) -- modified at 13:43 Tuesday 20th February, 2007
Juanfer