Darwin Day Celebration... for developers? How about other religions? [modified]
-
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
-
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
Yes, it does. They require the sovereign direction of the Creator who achieves diversity from the same material components under the same conditions (check of the list items in my original post). Now, you have to account for your assumption that intelligence was NOT required to achieve this diversity. Please note that Fitscuffs honestly recognized this, among the cited problems in my post, as a problem that science has not been able to answer.
Juanfer
-
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-Kaiser: "Why does creationism have to disclude evolutionism?" 'Creationism' doesn't have disclude 'evolution' -- and, after all, etymologically speaking, the word 'evolution' presupposes a Creator. *However* 'evolutionism' and 'creationism' refer to mutually exclusive "explanations" of mutually exclusive world-views. Therefore, being mutually exclusive, they must each disclude the other.
-
Yes, it does. They require the sovereign direction of the Creator who achieves diversity from the same material components under the same conditions (check of the list items in my original post). Now, you have to account for your assumption that intelligence was NOT required to achieve this diversity. Please note that Fitscuffs honestly recognized this, among the cited problems in my post, as a problem that science has not been able to answer.
Juanfer
juanfer68 wrote:
They require the sovereign direction of the Creator who achieves diversity from the same material components under the same conditions
wow! look at them goalposts run! (under divine influence, i'm sure)
juanfer68 wrote:
you have to account for your assumption that intelligence was NOT required to achieve this diversity
carbon + high pressure + high temperature = diamond no intelligence required.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
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.
Ilíon wrote:
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
like i said: semantic games. they're like crack to you guys.
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
The definition of a new species is a very human task as it is simply a label we hang on groups of animals to identify them. Defining what makes a new species is a common activity of high school teachers. It usually boils down to, "two populations of related animals that do not interbreed." However, if we stuck with this definition, many animals we consider to be of the same species would be separate: the transient and resident schools of Killer Whales, for instance, or salmon that breed on different years. The species we put something into is a little like the way people classify music. I may call one band "Industrial", while someone else may call them "Metal" and a third may just call it "That Damn Racket". The way we identify animals depends on our best available knowledge at the time, and may change as we learn more. For example, the Polar bear was Thalarctos maritimus when I first learned their scientific name, but are now identified as Ursus maritumus as we learned they are genetically closer to bears than initially thought (Polar-grizzly hybrids have been found). Having said that, we have observed a few incidents of speciation events. One classic example[^] are the Gulls of the Northern hemisphere. These form a chain of populations that can interbreed with one another, but at the "ends" of the chain, the two populations cannot interbreed.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
Chris-Kaiser: "Why does creationism have to disclude evolutionism?" 'Creationism' doesn't have disclude 'evolution' -- and, after all, etymologically speaking, the word 'evolution' presupposes a Creator. *However* 'evolutionism' and 'creationism' refer to mutually exclusive "explanations" of mutually exclusive world-views. Therefore, being mutually exclusive, they must each disclude the other.
Ilíon wrote:
etymologically speaking, the word 'evolution' presupposes a Creator
Uhm. From Etymology online[^] L. evolvere "unroll," from ex- "out" + volvere "to roll" In case you think I'm only picking one source that follows my thought, here's Merriam Webster[^]: Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
Ilíon wrote:
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
like i said: semantic games. they're like crack to you guys.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
Wow! You found us out! Now, how 'bout if I point out that irrationality and illogic iare like candy to you guys. Are we all happy now? Nonetheless, let it be pointed out and understood that calling what I'd written a "semantic game" does not make it untrue and certainly doesn't even attempt to show it to be false. But then, to attempt show it false would necessitate engaging in logical reasoning (along with necessitating the use of "semantics").
-
Wow! You found us out! Now, how 'bout if I point out that irrationality and illogic iare like candy to you guys. Are we all happy now? Nonetheless, let it be pointed out and understood that calling what I'd written a "semantic game" does not make it untrue and certainly doesn't even attempt to show it to be false. But then, to attempt show it false would necessitate engaging in logical reasoning (along with necessitating the use of "semantics").
Ilíon wrote:
Now, how 'bout if I point out that irrationality and illogic iare like candy to you guys.
:(( now you've gone and made me sad
Ilíon wrote:
Nonetheless, let it be pointed out and understood that calling what I'd written a "semantic game" does not make it untrue and certainly doesn't even attempt to show it to be false.
according to what you wrote, i cannot show what you wrote to be either true or false - somehow, as an atheist, i've denied myself the ability to use logic. and i know this must be true, because your dogma claims for itself sole ownership of logic. and that's all perfectly logical. perfectly.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
Ilíon wrote:
etymologically speaking, the word 'evolution' presupposes a Creator
Uhm. From Etymology online[^] L. evolvere "unroll," from ex- "out" + volvere "to roll" In case you think I'm only picking one source that follows my thought, here's Merriam Webster[^]: Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Uhm, yourself. *THINK* here, please. To "unroll" or "unfold" is goal-directed activity; to describe the history of life as an "unrolling" or "unfolding" is to presuppose some state towards which living things are moving in this "unrolling" or "unfolding." And there cannot be a goal towards which to be directed if there is no Goal-Giver. To use the word 'evolution' as it was first used of biology (and as the word's etymology might suggest) is to imply that there is a goal or direction in the history of life. It is to presuppose a Creator (just as I said). But, of course, 'modern evolutionary theory' (aka "neo-Darwinism") adamantly denies that "evolution" (whatever that word happens to mean) has a goal.
-
Uhm, yourself. *THINK* here, please. To "unroll" or "unfold" is goal-directed activity; to describe the history of life as an "unrolling" or "unfolding" is to presuppose some state towards which living things are moving in this "unrolling" or "unfolding." And there cannot be a goal towards which to be directed if there is no Goal-Giver. To use the word 'evolution' as it was first used of biology (and as the word's etymology might suggest) is to imply that there is a goal or direction in the history of life. It is to presuppose a Creator (just as I said). But, of course, 'modern evolutionary theory' (aka "neo-Darwinism") adamantly denies that "evolution" (whatever that word happens to mean) has a goal.
Ooooo, thinking, thinking, *thinking*, *THINKING* Gosh that's hard. I don't think that Lyell would agree with your conclusions about the word. Yes, Charles Lyell was the coiner of that word. He used it to describe what he saw of the geological strata in terms of unrolling the layers of rock. The "goal" if there is one would be in exploring older rocks, not what you seem to be aiming for. Darwin only later reused the word.
Ilíon wrote:
But, of course, 'modern evolutionary theory' (aka "neo-Darwinism") adamantly denies that "evolution" (whatever that word happens to mean) has a goal.
Yup, 100% in agreement there.
-------------- TTFN - Kent