Darwin Day Celebration... for developers? How about other religions? [modified]
-
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
-
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
Kent Sharkey: "Thank you, missed the homonculus theory reference. Still, and from that reference (boldface mine):" [snip] Are you really so misinformed about Charles Darwin's position/thought (to say nothing of his 'theory' itself) that you think that this dictionary snippet is correct in imputing via implication that Darwin didn't share the Victorian-era belief in "Progress?" (that capital 'P' is intentional and necessary to convey the nature of the belief) I'll bet you don't even know that Darwin was more a "Lamarckian" (in the modern sense of that word) than Lamarck himself was (but then, modern-day 'modern evolutionary theorists' continue to be more "Lamarckian" than Lamarck himself was). The truth is, this snippet incorrectly imputes certain aspects of current-day 'modern evolutionary theory' to Darwin. Kent Sharkey: "So, while the original use of the term may have implied progress, it was not intended in Darwin's use of the term." Now, aside from the fact that Darwin *did* argue (if I can be forgiven for so misusing that word) for "progress" -- and have you ever actually read a single word of his famous tome? (see: online 6th edition of Origin) -- apparently you want to put forward the idea that Darwin had the right all-on-his-lonesome to redefine the meaning of the word "evolution" as understood and used by everyone else so as to exclude the idea of "progress" being connected with it (which, of course, he didn't attempt to do in the first place). To give you just a glimmer of Darwin's thought on "progress," and of his "Lamarkian" predelictions, and of his mode of argumentation, consider this excerpt, from pages 176-181 (Chapter VII "MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION") of the Origin, 6th edition:
Although we have no good evidence of the existence in organic beings of an innate tendency towards progressive development, yet this necessarily follows, as I have attempted to show in the fourth chapter, through the continued action of natural selection. For the best definition which has ever been given of a high standard of organisation is the degree to which the parts have been specialised or differentiated; and natural selection tends towards this end, inasmuch as the parts are thus enabled to perform their functions more efficie
-
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
One certainly sees why some intrepid partisan thinks Mr Fisticuffs' posts worth a '5' and mine merely a '1.' For, after all, in my posts I always strive to be logically consistent; whereas, in his posts ... well, clearly, he does not. Or, perhaps it is the case that the person doing this really bizarre voting is not actually an intrepid partisan, but rather has a highly-evolved ironic sensibility. Perhaps the reader will be interested in a comparison of statements from Mr Fisticuffs: "You could also try reading the other posts in this thread before accusing me of avoiding honest discourse. Jerk." followed in his next post and compared to: "... I'll never post another one-line, dismissive response ..." Perhaps the reader will note (if he cares to read the prior posts) that *I* did not anywhere accuse Mr Fisticuffs of "avoiding honest discourse," but rather I insinuated that he may not "have that firm a grasp on the concept of "skeptical and critical evaluation of evidence."" These are, of course, two quite different matters. Perhaps the reader will note that, in fact, it is now Mr Fisticuffs himself who is accusing his own self of "avoiding honest discourse!" Perhaps the reader may be forgiven for beginning to wonder just *who* is the "Jerk." "KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, CHAMP! :rolleyes: " At the risk of perhaps being thought too derivative, please allow me to remark that I WILL, CH*MP :omg:
-
One certainly sees why some intrepid partisan thinks Mr Fisticuffs' posts worth a '5' and mine merely a '1.' For, after all, in my posts I always strive to be logically consistent; whereas, in his posts ... well, clearly, he does not. Or, perhaps it is the case that the person doing this really bizarre voting is not actually an intrepid partisan, but rather has a highly-evolved ironic sensibility. Perhaps the reader will be interested in a comparison of statements from Mr Fisticuffs: "You could also try reading the other posts in this thread before accusing me of avoiding honest discourse. Jerk." followed in his next post and compared to: "... I'll never post another one-line, dismissive response ..." Perhaps the reader will note (if he cares to read the prior posts) that *I* did not anywhere accuse Mr Fisticuffs of "avoiding honest discourse," but rather I insinuated that he may not "have that firm a grasp on the concept of "skeptical and critical evaluation of evidence."" These are, of course, two quite different matters. Perhaps the reader will note that, in fact, it is now Mr Fisticuffs himself who is accusing his own self of "avoiding honest discourse!" Perhaps the reader may be forgiven for beginning to wonder just *who* is the "Jerk." "KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, CHAMP! :rolleyes: " At the risk of perhaps being thought too derivative, please allow me to remark that I WILL, CH*MP :omg:
-
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
Chris, Thanks so much for your example of the diamond. It seems simple enough for to see the point I have been trying to make but you willfully continue to ignore. I will set aside, for the sake of brevity, the problems of uniformity vs. diversity, directed vs. natural conditions, and their conflict with the pervasive evolutionary version of our origins, to focus on the more immediate inconsistency. If you decide to follow my posts honestly, and consider the questions you have not addressed yet, you will realize that the case is really more complicated than the one you have presented to us: X = Diamond A = Carbon B = High Pressure C = High Temperature D = Laws controlling the the properties of A and the conditions of B and C E = Assumption of the continuity of nature F = Assumption of the principle of causality t = Today p = Past X(t) = f(A, B, C, D, E, F) Logical conclusion: X(p) = f(A, B, C, D, E, F) Is the conclusion X(p) = f(A, B, C) valid if we know X(t) to be true? I will be gracious enough not to ask again how you can give an account for and prove the existence of D, E and F in a random universe not controlled by God, and concede, just temporarily, that you can assume these principles. Just perform this simple test: Take the presentation of the problem in the form above to any math teacher, taking also good care not to mention that this is related to the evolution/creation controversy to keep the evaluation as unbiased as possible, and see if he or she can't help but ask: why is it that you arbitrarily remove some elements from the equation? Well, maybe you think you can just safely ignore these factors because, after all, 'everybody' knows 'that'. But if this is the case, then there must be a good reason for it, right? What is it? Does the burden of proof fall on those who follow the rules of reason, or on those who decide to violate them based on the presuposition that natural processes are random? By the way, please note that this example is great to share additional information of interest for our readers. B and C are not very high today. An example includes C = 440C and B = 800 Atmospheres. What about another missing element in our equation: Time? Many people reading this post may still believe diamonds take millions of years to form, as many geologists still claim today (in random nature, of course), but it takes different companies from a few hours to a few months to complete the process today.
Juanfer
-
Chris, Thanks so much for your example of the diamond. It seems simple enough for to see the point I have been trying to make but you willfully continue to ignore. I will set aside, for the sake of brevity, the problems of uniformity vs. diversity, directed vs. natural conditions, and their conflict with the pervasive evolutionary version of our origins, to focus on the more immediate inconsistency. If you decide to follow my posts honestly, and consider the questions you have not addressed yet, you will realize that the case is really more complicated than the one you have presented to us: X = Diamond A = Carbon B = High Pressure C = High Temperature D = Laws controlling the the properties of A and the conditions of B and C E = Assumption of the continuity of nature F = Assumption of the principle of causality t = Today p = Past X(t) = f(A, B, C, D, E, F) Logical conclusion: X(p) = f(A, B, C, D, E, F) Is the conclusion X(p) = f(A, B, C) valid if we know X(t) to be true? I will be gracious enough not to ask again how you can give an account for and prove the existence of D, E and F in a random universe not controlled by God, and concede, just temporarily, that you can assume these principles. Just perform this simple test: Take the presentation of the problem in the form above to any math teacher, taking also good care not to mention that this is related to the evolution/creation controversy to keep the evaluation as unbiased as possible, and see if he or she can't help but ask: why is it that you arbitrarily remove some elements from the equation? Well, maybe you think you can just safely ignore these factors because, after all, 'everybody' knows 'that'. But if this is the case, then there must be a good reason for it, right? What is it? Does the burden of proof fall on those who follow the rules of reason, or on those who decide to violate them based on the presuposition that natural processes are random? By the way, please note that this example is great to share additional information of interest for our readers. B and C are not very high today. An example includes C = 440C and B = 800 Atmospheres. What about another missing element in our equation: Time? Many people reading this post may still believe diamonds take millions of years to form, as many geologists still claim today (in random nature, of course), but it takes different companies from a few hours to a few months to complete the process today.
Juanfer
same old game. except now you're taking on Physics instead of biology. F = Assumption of the principle of causality but OK let's get this shit over with, once and for all... go ahead, eliminate causality, or pretend it's an illusion, and is really the whimsical actions of some extra-rational, extra-logical, unpredictable entity that we can not prove the existence of without first accepting that it exists - same thing. without causation, you are left with only correlation. nothing can be said to cause anything else. nothing can be more than coincidental to any other thing. therefore, there can be no certain knowledge - no, not even of your god. if we can no longer assume anything causes anything else, there can be no science (all of it, at the very core, and not just inconvenient offshoots like biology) - no Newton's Laws, no gravity, no electromagnetism, not even the simplest theory about the universe is possible; there can be no free will (if you can't determine cause from effect, you can't prove you did anything); there can be no language (the verb "to do" dissolves, taking every other action verb with it, if you can't say X did Y); there can be no communication (besides not having any language to do it with and no way to know who's doing the communicating, because "communication" itself is based in action/reaction cause/effect it can't exist in a world where things can't cause other things); Pascal's Wager would become meaningless because "Therefore" is the first casualty of your decision - and where would that leave us? irrelevant even to our own existence, at best. things will simply appear to happen - you can't say why, communicate anything about the event, or be sure you actually witnessed it. so, sure open that trap door - enjoy your infinite fall through eternal nothingness. and no, you can't have some kind of partial causality, where it only applies in certain situations. if you know there can be exceptions, then you can never truly know when it's in effect and when it's not: all knowledge is still suspect. even knowledge about your god must be suspect - as if such knowledge is already suspect, you've made it doubly so. not only couldn't you prove god did anything here in the real world, in your imaginary world where causality is conditional, you can't know if actions you want to attribute to god aren't attributable to something else; for all you know (literally), what you attribute to your god could be attributable to nothing at all
-
same old game. except now you're taking on Physics instead of biology. F = Assumption of the principle of causality but OK let's get this shit over with, once and for all... go ahead, eliminate causality, or pretend it's an illusion, and is really the whimsical actions of some extra-rational, extra-logical, unpredictable entity that we can not prove the existence of without first accepting that it exists - same thing. without causation, you are left with only correlation. nothing can be said to cause anything else. nothing can be more than coincidental to any other thing. therefore, there can be no certain knowledge - no, not even of your god. if we can no longer assume anything causes anything else, there can be no science (all of it, at the very core, and not just inconvenient offshoots like biology) - no Newton's Laws, no gravity, no electromagnetism, not even the simplest theory about the universe is possible; there can be no free will (if you can't determine cause from effect, you can't prove you did anything); there can be no language (the verb "to do" dissolves, taking every other action verb with it, if you can't say X did Y); there can be no communication (besides not having any language to do it with and no way to know who's doing the communicating, because "communication" itself is based in action/reaction cause/effect it can't exist in a world where things can't cause other things); Pascal's Wager would become meaningless because "Therefore" is the first casualty of your decision - and where would that leave us? irrelevant even to our own existence, at best. things will simply appear to happen - you can't say why, communicate anything about the event, or be sure you actually witnessed it. so, sure open that trap door - enjoy your infinite fall through eternal nothingness. and no, you can't have some kind of partial causality, where it only applies in certain situations. if you know there can be exceptions, then you can never truly know when it's in effect and when it's not: all knowledge is still suspect. even knowledge about your god must be suspect - as if such knowledge is already suspect, you've made it doubly so. not only couldn't you prove god did anything here in the real world, in your imaginary world where causality is conditional, you can't know if actions you want to attribute to god aren't attributable to something else; for all you know (literally), what you attribute to your god could be attributable to nothing at all
Chris Losinger wrote:
if we can no longer assume anything causes anything else, there can be no science (all of it, at the very core, and not just inconvenient offshoots like biology) - no Newton's Laws, no gravity, no electromagnetism, not even the simplest theory about the universe is possible; there can be no free will (if you can't determine cause from effect, you can't prove you did anything); there can be no language (the verb "to do" dissolves, taking every other action verb with it, if you can't say X did Y); there can be no communication (besides not having any language to do it with and no way to know who's doing the communicating, because "communication" itself is based in action/reaction cause/effect it can't exist in a world where things can't cause other things); Pascal's Wager would become meaningless because "Therefore" is the first casualty of your decision - and where would that leave us? irrelevant even to our own existence, at best. things will simply appear to happen - you can't say why, communicate anything about the event, or be sure you actually witnessed it.
I deeply appreciate your candor and have to confess I could not have expressed this in better terms. You are arriving at very sharp and accurate implications in this paragraph. These are the reasons that made Hume give up on causality and go back to play backgammon with his friends. That said, let me tell you that causality is not extra-rational nor is it extra-logical, for it is one of the preconditions of rational thought. Give up your faith in causality and you also have to give up your reasons for arguing at all, which I am glad you are not willing to do from your posting of a response. The fact that rational thought is a sinking ship (to use a figure of speech, because it was never afloat) from the materialistic/humanistic/naturalistic worldview does not mean that you have to perish with it because you are not its captain; it means that the ship itself is not adequate. Just get off of it while you still can so that you can live, and not only for a while, but eternally. Rejoice my friend, because there is an alternative for those who still want to continue applying reason and do science consistently! What is this alternative? Start with God and His revelation, and then everything else will start making sense, including all the difficulties from my first post. Remember my earlier statement about God providing the preconditions for intelligibility?
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
if we can no longer assume anything causes anything else, there can be no science (all of it, at the very core, and not just inconvenient offshoots like biology) - no Newton's Laws, no gravity, no electromagnetism, not even the simplest theory about the universe is possible; there can be no free will (if you can't determine cause from effect, you can't prove you did anything); there can be no language (the verb "to do" dissolves, taking every other action verb with it, if you can't say X did Y); there can be no communication (besides not having any language to do it with and no way to know who's doing the communicating, because "communication" itself is based in action/reaction cause/effect it can't exist in a world where things can't cause other things); Pascal's Wager would become meaningless because "Therefore" is the first casualty of your decision - and where would that leave us? irrelevant even to our own existence, at best. things will simply appear to happen - you can't say why, communicate anything about the event, or be sure you actually witnessed it.
I deeply appreciate your candor and have to confess I could not have expressed this in better terms. You are arriving at very sharp and accurate implications in this paragraph. These are the reasons that made Hume give up on causality and go back to play backgammon with his friends. That said, let me tell you that causality is not extra-rational nor is it extra-logical, for it is one of the preconditions of rational thought. Give up your faith in causality and you also have to give up your reasons for arguing at all, which I am glad you are not willing to do from your posting of a response. The fact that rational thought is a sinking ship (to use a figure of speech, because it was never afloat) from the materialistic/humanistic/naturalistic worldview does not mean that you have to perish with it because you are not its captain; it means that the ship itself is not adequate. Just get off of it while you still can so that you can live, and not only for a while, but eternally. Rejoice my friend, because there is an alternative for those who still want to continue applying reason and do science consistently! What is this alternative? Start with God and His revelation, and then everything else will start making sense, including all the difficulties from my first post. Remember my earlier statement about God providing the preconditions for intelligibility?
juanfer68 wrote:
Rejoice my friend, because there is an alternative for those who still want to continue applying reason and do science consistently
i'm 100% sure you have misunderstood me. i'm not looking for an alternative to causality - i'm mocking the idea that anything like the universe we know can exist without it; and i'm certainly not looking for an extra-logical, irrational crutch to lean on. i'm perfectly satisfied with my worldview, and see absolutely no value in believing in something that can't be shown to exist outside of belief. i have no idea how you could think otherwise.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
Kent Sharkey: "Thank you, missed the homonculus theory reference. Still, and from that reference (boldface mine):" [snip] Are you really so misinformed about Charles Darwin's position/thought (to say nothing of his 'theory' itself) that you think that this dictionary snippet is correct in imputing via implication that Darwin didn't share the Victorian-era belief in "Progress?" (that capital 'P' is intentional and necessary to convey the nature of the belief) I'll bet you don't even know that Darwin was more a "Lamarckian" (in the modern sense of that word) than Lamarck himself was (but then, modern-day 'modern evolutionary theorists' continue to be more "Lamarckian" than Lamarck himself was). The truth is, this snippet incorrectly imputes certain aspects of current-day 'modern evolutionary theory' to Darwin. Kent Sharkey: "So, while the original use of the term may have implied progress, it was not intended in Darwin's use of the term." Now, aside from the fact that Darwin *did* argue (if I can be forgiven for so misusing that word) for "progress" -- and have you ever actually read a single word of his famous tome? (see: online 6th edition of Origin) -- apparently you want to put forward the idea that Darwin had the right all-on-his-lonesome to redefine the meaning of the word "evolution" as understood and used by everyone else so as to exclude the idea of "progress" being connected with it (which, of course, he didn't attempt to do in the first place). To give you just a glimmer of Darwin's thought on "progress," and of his "Lamarkian" predelictions, and of his mode of argumentation, consider this excerpt, from pages 176-181 (Chapter VII "MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION") of the Origin, 6th edition:
Although we have no good evidence of the existence in organic beings of an innate tendency towards progressive development, yet this necessarily follows, as I have attempted to show in the fourth chapter, through the continued action of natural selection. For the best definition which has ever been given of a high standard of organisation is the degree to which the parts have been specialised or differentiated; and natural selection tends towards this end, inasmuch as the parts are thus enabled to perform their functions more efficie
Ilíon wrote:
Also, it doesn't alter the fact that most persons who who are among the quickest to attribute stupidity being the cause of another person's holding to "creationism" ... tend to themselves believe that "evolution" ... is goal-oriented.
:wtf: i've never or talked with met anyone, who wasn't a creationist trying to misrepresent it, who thought or even said that evolution was "goal-oriented". do you have survey results for this "fact", or are you some kind of magical mass-mind-reader ? or are you just making stuff up ? and your terrible concern over the common meaning vs. biology-specific meaning of the word "evolution" is absurd. all kinds words take on special meanings in all kinds of different contexts; and no honest person expects that using a "overloaded" word in one context implies all alternative meanings, too. or maybe you think web cookies really imply butter, flour and sugar... maybe i underestimated the word games you're willing to play in service of your dogma.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
yeah, take that! :laugh:
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
Kent Sharkey: "Thank you, missed the homonculus theory reference. Still, and from that reference (boldface mine):" [snip] Are you really so misinformed about Charles Darwin's position/thought (to say nothing of his 'theory' itself) that you think that this dictionary snippet is correct in imputing via implication that Darwin didn't share the Victorian-era belief in "Progress?" (that capital 'P' is intentional and necessary to convey the nature of the belief) I'll bet you don't even know that Darwin was more a "Lamarckian" (in the modern sense of that word) than Lamarck himself was (but then, modern-day 'modern evolutionary theorists' continue to be more "Lamarckian" than Lamarck himself was). The truth is, this snippet incorrectly imputes certain aspects of current-day 'modern evolutionary theory' to Darwin. Kent Sharkey: "So, while the original use of the term may have implied progress, it was not intended in Darwin's use of the term." Now, aside from the fact that Darwin *did* argue (if I can be forgiven for so misusing that word) for "progress" -- and have you ever actually read a single word of his famous tome? (see: online 6th edition of Origin) -- apparently you want to put forward the idea that Darwin had the right all-on-his-lonesome to redefine the meaning of the word "evolution" as understood and used by everyone else so as to exclude the idea of "progress" being connected with it (which, of course, he didn't attempt to do in the first place). To give you just a glimmer of Darwin's thought on "progress," and of his "Lamarkian" predelictions, and of his mode of argumentation, consider this excerpt, from pages 176-181 (Chapter VII "MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION") of the Origin, 6th edition:
Although we have no good evidence of the existence in organic beings of an innate tendency towards progressive development, yet this necessarily follows, as I have attempted to show in the fourth chapter, through the continued action of natural selection. For the best definition which has ever been given of a high standard of organisation is the degree to which the parts have been specialised or differentiated; and natural selection tends towards this end, inasmuch as the parts are thus enabled to perform their functions more efficie
Ilíon wrote:
Are you really so misinformed about Charles Darwin's position/thought (to say nothing of his 'theory' itself) that you think that this dictionary snippet is correct in imputing via implication that Darwin didn't share the Victorian-era belief in "Progress?"
Glad to see you're willing to leave ad hominem attacks out of this as well...
Ilíon wrote:
Me: "Or, perhaps you'd like to follow Chris Losinger's lead and accuse me of "playing word games?"" Kent Sharkey: "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?" I am unaware of any effective way to communicate concepts sans words.
There is certainly a difference between communicating sans words and arguing over the definition and use of a word. One is, as you say impossible. Except perhaps in some bizarre game of charades between mimes.
Ilíon wrote:
Now that you appear to concede (without actually expressly admitting it, naturally) that my statement about the etymology of the word is not incorrect, it appears that you want to change the "argument" to something else. Man, oh man, where, oh where, has one previously encountered this mode of argumentation such that even when what one says is admittedly correct, he is nonetheless wrong? That 'modern evolutionary theorists' insist that "evolution" has nothing to do with "progress" does not alter the fact that the English word 'evolution' is and has always been associated with the idea of "progress." Also, it doesn't alter the fact that most persons who who are among the quickest to attribute stupidity being the cause of another person's holding to "creationism" (as opposed to their own "evolutionism") tend to themselves believe that "evolution" (whatever that word may happen to mean) is goal-oriented.
Oh, please forgive me. Yes, yes, yes, you were right on the original use of the word. I'm sorry I hadn't made that clear in my first statement. Having said that, I'll admit to more thickness in not being able to parse or understand your last sentence. Returning to the initial discussion, I see three world views in this discussion:
- The only truth is one fairly narrow literal interpretation of one religion (usually Christianity, but there is a strong creationism movemen
-
juanfer68 wrote:
Rejoice my friend, because there is an alternative for those who still want to continue applying reason and do science consistently
i'm 100% sure you have misunderstood me. i'm not looking for an alternative to causality - i'm mocking the idea that anything like the universe we know can exist without it; and i'm certainly not looking for an extra-logical, irrational crutch to lean on. i'm perfectly satisfied with my worldview, and see absolutely no value in believing in something that can't be shown to exist outside of belief. i have no idea how you could think otherwise.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
Chris, I dit not misunderstand you, I perfectly identified your tone of mockery (was it even possible to miss?). I was hoping you would realize the necessity and precision of your conclusions, though, and I still hope you will print your words and hang them on your refrigereator to get back to them some day with a fresher mind, without the pressure of having to deal with any religious bigot like you probably think I am.
Chris Losinger wrote:
i'm perfectly satisfied with my worldview, and see absolutely no value in believing in something that can't be shown to exist outside of belief
I take from this that you think causality (which I hope you acknowledge is foundational for knowledge and science) meets your 'high' standard. Fine then, please be my guest and do show it. I can almost guarantee you will become the hero naturalists and many philosophers have long been waiting for.
Juanfer
-
Ilíon wrote:
Are you really so misinformed about Charles Darwin's position/thought (to say nothing of his 'theory' itself) that you think that this dictionary snippet is correct in imputing via implication that Darwin didn't share the Victorian-era belief in "Progress?"
Glad to see you're willing to leave ad hominem attacks out of this as well...
Ilíon wrote:
Me: "Or, perhaps you'd like to follow Chris Losinger's lead and accuse me of "playing word games?"" Kent Sharkey: "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?" I am unaware of any effective way to communicate concepts sans words.
There is certainly a difference between communicating sans words and arguing over the definition and use of a word. One is, as you say impossible. Except perhaps in some bizarre game of charades between mimes.
Ilíon wrote:
Now that you appear to concede (without actually expressly admitting it, naturally) that my statement about the etymology of the word is not incorrect, it appears that you want to change the "argument" to something else. Man, oh man, where, oh where, has one previously encountered this mode of argumentation such that even when what one says is admittedly correct, he is nonetheless wrong? That 'modern evolutionary theorists' insist that "evolution" has nothing to do with "progress" does not alter the fact that the English word 'evolution' is and has always been associated with the idea of "progress." Also, it doesn't alter the fact that most persons who who are among the quickest to attribute stupidity being the cause of another person's holding to "creationism" (as opposed to their own "evolutionism") tend to themselves believe that "evolution" (whatever that word may happen to mean) is goal-oriented.
Oh, please forgive me. Yes, yes, yes, you were right on the original use of the word. I'm sorry I hadn't made that clear in my first statement. Having said that, I'll admit to more thickness in not being able to parse or understand your last sentence. Returning to the initial discussion, I see three world views in this discussion:
- The only truth is one fairly narrow literal interpretation of one religion (usually Christianity, but there is a strong creationism movemen
"Glad to see you're willing to leave ad hominem attacks out of this as well..." Do you even know what ad hominem means? edit: But regardless of your apparent misunderstanding of the meaning of the term and your incorrect insinuation of it to me, at least you are trying to be rational about this ... unlike the person who posted immediately before you. -- modified at 13:56 Tuesday 20th February, 2007