Darwin Day Celebration... for developers? How about other religions? [modified]
-
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
-
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
Me: "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)." Kent Sharkey: "I don't think that Lyell would agree with your conclusions about the word ... He used it to describe what he saw of the geological strata in terms of unrolling the layers of rock." I don't doubt that thinking may be hard indeed for persons who have preconceptions which must be defended against all reasoning to the contrary and especially if these preconceptions must be defended in the face of the very illogic of them. If you would be so kind, please allow me to point out that I said: "To use the word 'evolution' as it was first used of biology ..." and that you "disputed" that with a non-sequitur about rocks. Let's consider this quote of Douglas Futuyama reproduced on the home page of The Society for the Study of Evolution:
“Biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of groups of organisms over the course of generations. ….The word evolution comes from the Latin evolvere, ‘to unfold or unroll’ — to reveal or manifest hidden potentialities.”
Now, of course, Futuyama is a current "Darwinist," rather than being the first person to refer to the history of living things as "evolution." But, the point is, that even current "Darwinists," heavily invested though they are in denying that "evolution" is goal-directed, recognize the etymological meaning of the word. Please, direct your attention to Futuyama's statement of the etymology of the word: "to reveal or manifest hidden potentialities." Or, consider this:
evolve 1641, "to unfold, open out, expand," from L. evolvere "unroll," from ex- "out" + volvere "to roll" (see vulva). Evolution (1622), originally meant "unrolling of a book;" it first was used in the modern scientific sense 1832 by Scot. geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of "progre
-
Me: "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)." Kent Sharkey: "I don't think that Lyell would agree with your conclusions about the word ... He used it to describe what he saw of the geological strata in terms of unrolling the layers of rock." I don't doubt that thinking may be hard indeed for persons who have preconceptions which must be defended against all reasoning to the contrary and especially if these preconceptions must be defended in the face of the very illogic of them. If you would be so kind, please allow me to point out that I said: "To use the word 'evolution' as it was first used of biology ..." and that you "disputed" that with a non-sequitur about rocks. Let's consider this quote of Douglas Futuyama reproduced on the home page of The Society for the Study of Evolution:
“Biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of groups of organisms over the course of generations. ….The word evolution comes from the Latin evolvere, ‘to unfold or unroll’ — to reveal or manifest hidden potentialities.”
Now, of course, Futuyama is a current "Darwinist," rather than being the first person to refer to the history of living things as "evolution." But, the point is, that even current "Darwinists," heavily invested though they are in denying that "evolution" is goal-directed, recognize the etymological meaning of the word. Please, direct your attention to Futuyama's statement of the etymology of the word: "to reveal or manifest hidden potentialities." Or, consider this:
evolve 1641, "to unfold, open out, expand," from L. evolvere "unroll," from ex- "out" + volvere "to roll" (see vulva). Evolution (1622), originally meant "unrolling of a book;" it first was used in the modern scientific sense 1832 by Scot. geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of "progre
Thank you, missed the homonculus theory reference. Still, and from that reference (boldface mine):
Ilíon wrote:
preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not found in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (along with brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists popularized evolution.
So, while the original use of the term may have implied progress, it was not intended in Darwin's use of the term. Nor does the current use of the term imply any sort of progress. Populations change over time. It's a pretty easily observed phenomenon. Populations have changed in the past. We have evidence of that. We have a theory and model that can be used to test current observations and past results. It's been beaten on fairly hard (by many "critical thinkers") for about 150 years. It stands, changed no doubt, but stands.
Ilíon wrote:
Would you like to think again? Or, perhaps you'd like to follow Chris Losinger's lead and accuse me of "playing word games?"
I'm perfectly happy to stay away from ad hominem attacks. However, I would think that arguing over the definition and use of a word would count as "word games" wouldn't it?
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
Maybe I'll point out that if you were to do that you'd but demonstrate that you appear to be 'irony challanged' and appear to not have that firm a grasp on the concept of "skeptical and critical evaluation of evidence."
Maybe I'll point out that if you're going to create a fluff attack post that limply re-uses my own pithy motif, you might want to spell "challenge" correctly to really give it that "OH... SNAP!" flavor you're looking for. You could also try reading the other posts in this thread before accusing me of avoiding honest discourse. Jerk.
- F "You are really weird." - Kyle, age 16
-
Maybe I'll point out that if you're going to create a fluff attack post that limply re-uses my own pithy motif, you might want to spell "challenge" correctly to really give it that "OH... SNAP!" flavor you're looking for. You could also try reading the other posts in this thread before accusing me of avoiding honest discourse. Jerk.
- F "You are really weird." - Kyle, age 16
-
Oooo! Burn! Is that the best you can do? I use your own "logic" to show the unreasonableness of what you'd said and you "refute" it by noting that I hadn't paid enough attention to my spelling?
Ilíon wrote:
Is that the best you can do? I use your own "logic" to show the unreasonableness of what you'd said and you "refute" it by noting that I hadn't paid enough attention to my spelling?
Thanks, Internet policeman, for showing me the error of my ways! I'll never post another one-line, dismissive response to a poorly-written post on a topic that's proven itself over and over again to really not be worth debating! KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, CHAMP! :rolleyes:
- F "You are really weird." - Kyle, age 16