Darwin Day Celebration... for developers? How about other religions? [modified]
-
Or rather that knowledge can be possible, but is subject to change, as the living truth changes with time and space. At any point, God is free to mix it up. And what we counted as knowledge has expired. So, we just can't take it for granted that knowledge isn't also a dynamic changing element of reality. Truly, for all we know we could be a dreaming butterfly.
This statement was never false.
-
Ilíon: "... quoting the Bible to try to prove God to 'atheists' will never work; and, in fact, it is generally *unreasonable* as a tactic." Juanfer: "Being the Bible our trustworthy source of knowledge, my purpose in using it with the unbeliever is twofold ... " But, the point is precisely that the unbeliever does not recognize the Bible as a trustworthy source of knowledge. If he did, he wouldn't be an unbeliever, he'd be a Christian, or at least a Jew (by which I mean "adherent of Judaism," rather than "leftist secularist whose grandparents happened to have been an adherents of Judaism"). And, just as pointedly, if a believer's *reason* for recognizing the Bible as a trustworthy source of knowledge really does go no deeper than that the Bible claims to communicate messages from God, then he has no rational argument whatsoever against Islam or Mormonism or the Unification Church, or any number of other false doctrines. And, in fact, if that is as deep as his intellectual commitment to Christ goes, then when the personal crisis-point comes, he is more likely to switch his allegience to one of the multitude of false doctrines than to stick with Christ. Please don't misunderstand. I am not at all trying to claim that intellectual committment (reasonings) alone is sufficient to ground a saving faith in Christ. It isn't. If one's "faith" is *merely* a matter of the intellect, then (as you so rightly make reference) one will inevitably become arrogant and self-righteous in one's (self-)vaunted intellectual prowess. Which is to say, one will not really be a Christian. The whole man must come to Christ. If one's committment to Christ *begins* with one's cry of desperate loneliness and one does not also then *reason* through to a mature and reasonable faith, then one's committment will not last much longer than the memory of the emotion. If one's committment to Christ *begins* with a rational appraisal and affirmation of the claims of the Bible and one does not then tame one's emotions and imaginings in light of that reasoning, then one's committment will likely be overwhelmed in some future emotional storm. 'Atheists' don't recognize the Bible as a trustworthy source of knowledge. Therefore, quoting the Bible will make no headway with them and will merely give them adequate reasonable grounds for rejecting any argument you are trying to make -- because your argument will always be circular, which is to say, *illogical.* And illogical arguments are to be rejec
Ilíon, Please check the following from Bahnsen: http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa001.htm Do you have any IM account? Regards.
Juanfer
-
Ilíon, Please check the following from Bahnsen: http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa001.htm Do you have any IM account? Regards.
Juanfer
No, I no longer have any sort of IM account. I can be emailed at ilion7@hotmail.com
-
No, I no longer have any sort of IM account. I can be emailed at ilion7@hotmail.com
-
Thanks. I'll send you my e-mail address. You may delete your previous message if you want, to avoid spammers! :)
Juanfer
-
OK, pulling said second paragraph from Wikipedia:
In the larger sense, religion is a communal system for the coherence of belief—typically focused on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, traditions, and rituals are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion can also be described as a way of life.
Taking the last line of that paragraph, anything could be described as a way of life, and therefore following a political party of even the Atkin's Diet could be a religion using that weak sentence. Taking the paragraph as a whole it begins to become a better description of most religions as it brings in "an unseen being, person or object." With this, the scientific method (and therefore our current understanding of evolution) cease to qualify. The scientific method does not require any practices, values, etc. other than the endless cycle of observation, hypothesis, proposal, test, theory. Few theories have reached the realm of Law: momentum, gravity, etc. The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. However, it is not a theory in the sense that lawyers or others commonly use it, but as working scientists define it. In this sense it is a much stronger, heavily tested concept. On the whole religion vs. science non-battle, I give you my old Molecular Evolution professor. The professor I had for that final year course at University was a devout Mennonite. He believed in evolution, as science as observed and tested and refined the theory for > 100 years. He believed, however, that it was a mechanism of God. For him, and many others, this is a perfectly rational explanation. Science would not dispute this, as there is no way to prove (or disprove) God on the basis of the scientific method. I definitely agree with Chris on another thread though. Rather than continuing to attack some facet of evolutionary theory, what the opponents really need to do is provide an alternate hypothesis. One that may be tested in its own right. Lamarck tried it, Lysenko tried it, now it's your turn.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
"I definitely agree with Chris on another thread though. Rather than continuing to attack some facet of evolutionary theory, what the opponents really need to do is provide an alternate hypothesis. One that may be tested in its own right. Lamarck tried it, Lysenko tried it, now it's your turn." Nonsense ... and also proof of the falsity of the incessant assertions of 'modern evolutionary theorists' that 'modern evolutionary theory' stands up to factual/scientific criticism, that it is scientifically falsifiable. All 'a-Darwinists' need do is *show* that 'modern evolutionary theory' is false (HINT: I can do that). There is no requirement, either in reason, nor in science (which isn't at all the same thing as reason), that we give 'Darwinists' an "alternate hypothesis" they will accept before we are allowed to take 'modern evolutionary theory' away from them. Your "theory" is false. Deal with it.
-
You have a good point (I can certainly see that it rated a '5' vote). "Darwinism" doesn't rate even as much intellectual respect as "religion."
Mo-o-o-m! That ol' meanie is pickin' on my religion (aka "Darwinism")! You people are such children. You like to dish out snide one-liners -- which just happen to generally not be true -- against Christianity, and it's congratulations all around. But let someone return the favor towards your religion -- with snide one-liners which just happen to generally be true -- and you throw a snit-fit.
-
I don't really see this discussion going anywhere productive (take that as victory as you are wont), but I know you like affirmation, so...
Ilíon wrote:
As best I can see, you have decided to feel insulted because I asked you: "Are you really so misinformed about Charles Darwin's position/thought ... ?" and then you mistakenly called that question an ad hominen. (And because in my first response to you I non-subtly let you know that you hadn't thought clearly about the facts you were attempting to use to dispute what I had initially said.)
That is correct. I understand now that I was being overly sensitive and incorrectly applying that label.
Ilíon wrote:
How do you like this example? "Unless you can prove 'modern evolutionary theory' false, it is irrational for you to not accede to it being true." (Oddly enough, and far too often, an assertion along that line is coupled, in Catch-22 manner, with an assertion such as the following: "Unless you can prove 'modern evolutionary theory' false, you do not have the intellectual standing to criticise it.")
Never my belief at all. Rather, I believe that modern evolutionary theory is our best available explanation of our observations. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for any theory to be defined as truth. They are merely testable models based on possible explanation of observations. Good theories are testable, map well to existing observations, and make predictions for future observations. Modern evolutionary theory provides all three. As for criticism, go ahead. It is only through criticism and investigation that theories improve.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Kent Sharkey: "I don't really see this discussion going anywhere productive (take that as victory as you are wont), ..." Kent (may I call you that?), *you* keep raising these side-issues -- please recall the original topic of this sub-thread and just who initiated it -- and I keep slapping them down using logical reasoning. And you have not responded with an emotional tantrum, as "Darwinists" typically do, but instead have agreed (whether reluctantly or not) that I have made the case against the objections you are raising. I consider that "going somewhere." You certainly may not like where we are going, but it is indeed "going somewhere." This is where we're going: "'Modern evolutionary theory' is false; it is, in fact, self-contradictory." That is, so long as you keep admiting the evidence of *reason* and if you do not bug-out of the discussion, as it seems here you are saying you are going to do, than that is where we will end up. And we will get there using logic and freely-available and widely-known biological facts and 'modern evolutionary theory' itself. So, for your peace of mind, it may be well that you do not want to continue the discussion that you yourself started. Kent Sharkey: "(take that as victory as you are wont), ..." "Victory" will be when you realize and admit (I say it that way because I do suspect that even now you *realize* the truth of the matter) that 'modern evolutionary theory' is false: 1) that it is scientifically falsified, and 2) that it is logically seen to be false. "Resounding victory" will be when you realize that this has been known for generations. Kent Sharkey: "... but I know you like affirmation, so..." Do I now? And *you* have the power to affirm or dis-affirm me? And here, all this time, I thought my "problem" is that I desire to have things settled, that I desire to have the truth (whatever truth is being argued about at any time) admitted. You see, I really don't like disputation in the first place, and I absolutely loathe going over the same ground ... especially with the same person or group of persons.
Kent Sharkey: [quoting an example of an "argument from ignorance"]
"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."
Ilíon: How do you like this example? "Unless you can prove 'modern evolutionary theory' false, it is irrational for you to not accede to it being true." (Oddly enough, and far too often, an as
-
"I definitely agree with Chris on another thread though. Rather than continuing to attack some facet of evolutionary theory, what the opponents really need to do is provide an alternate hypothesis. One that may be tested in its own right. Lamarck tried it, Lysenko tried it, now it's your turn." Nonsense ... and also proof of the falsity of the incessant assertions of 'modern evolutionary theorists' that 'modern evolutionary theory' stands up to factual/scientific criticism, that it is scientifically falsifiable. All 'a-Darwinists' need do is *show* that 'modern evolutionary theory' is false (HINT: I can do that). There is no requirement, either in reason, nor in science (which isn't at all the same thing as reason), that we give 'Darwinists' an "alternate hypothesis" they will accept before we are allowed to take 'modern evolutionary theory' away from them. Your "theory" is false. Deal with it.
Ilíon wrote:
All 'a-Darwinists' need do is *show* that 'modern evolutionary theory' is false (HINT: I can do that).
That's true, that would work as well, so have at...
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
Ilíon wrote:
All 'a-Darwinists' need do is *show* that 'modern evolutionary theory' is false (HINT: I can do that).
That's true, that would work as well, so have at...
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Kent Sharkey: "That's true, that would work as well, so have at ..." This could be interesting. I've been trying since late 2001 or early 2002 to get a proponent of 'modern evolutionary theory' to rationally discuss the matter I have in mind. And, by "proponent," I don't merely mean "Joe Schmoe with no background in biology." Some of the 'modern evolutionary theorists' I have tried to discuss this with are scientists with degrees in biology (or, rather, they have presented themselves as such and I have no reason to disbelieve the claim) -- and they have all acted as Chris Losinger acts. You are only the second 'modern evolutionary theorist' I have personally encountered who can even rationally deal with skepticism of the so-called theory (much less deal with the out-right mockery *I* heap upon it), and the other studiously avoided getting into a discussion of this matter. So there are 2 points to this particular post: 1) I think a discussion of this matter merits its own thread. So, I'll start a new topic/thread in the next day or so. It is my hope that this new thread will be a discussion/argument between the two of us to try to get at a certain truth. I will request that, in general, others resist the temptation to post in that thread. Now, if someone has an honest question or request for clarification, I will not at all object to that, that is not at all the point here. I want to keep the topic focused on the argument I will be presenting. But, there is another, and more important, issue than focus; and that is *reason.* I predict that certain partisans will make irrational and illogical posts which will serve only to disrupt the discussion. When that happens, I *expect* you to come down as hard on them as I might (do it in your own way, of course). This is not a matter of "defending" me or of you signaling assent to my argument; this is a matter of defending reason and reasoned argument. If *you* cannot bring yourself to stand against unreason and against irrational/illogical attempts to silence dissent to 'modern evolutionary theory,' then it is morally the same as though you had yourself engaged in the behavior. The same goes for me, of course. 2) When you say "That's true, that would work as well ..." are you not implicitly agreeing that my statements are true that:
All 'a-Darwinists' need do is *show* that 'modern evolutionary theory' is false ... There is no requirement, either in reason, nor in science (which isn't at all
-
Kent Sharkey: "That's true, that would work as well, so have at ..." This could be interesting. I've been trying since late 2001 or early 2002 to get a proponent of 'modern evolutionary theory' to rationally discuss the matter I have in mind. And, by "proponent," I don't merely mean "Joe Schmoe with no background in biology." Some of the 'modern evolutionary theorists' I have tried to discuss this with are scientists with degrees in biology (or, rather, they have presented themselves as such and I have no reason to disbelieve the claim) -- and they have all acted as Chris Losinger acts. You are only the second 'modern evolutionary theorist' I have personally encountered who can even rationally deal with skepticism of the so-called theory (much less deal with the out-right mockery *I* heap upon it), and the other studiously avoided getting into a discussion of this matter. So there are 2 points to this particular post: 1) I think a discussion of this matter merits its own thread. So, I'll start a new topic/thread in the next day or so. It is my hope that this new thread will be a discussion/argument between the two of us to try to get at a certain truth. I will request that, in general, others resist the temptation to post in that thread. Now, if someone has an honest question or request for clarification, I will not at all object to that, that is not at all the point here. I want to keep the topic focused on the argument I will be presenting. But, there is another, and more important, issue than focus; and that is *reason.* I predict that certain partisans will make irrational and illogical posts which will serve only to disrupt the discussion. When that happens, I *expect* you to come down as hard on them as I might (do it in your own way, of course). This is not a matter of "defending" me or of you signaling assent to my argument; this is a matter of defending reason and reasoned argument. If *you* cannot bring yourself to stand against unreason and against irrational/illogical attempts to silence dissent to 'modern evolutionary theory,' then it is morally the same as though you had yourself engaged in the behavior. The same goes for me, of course. 2) When you say "That's true, that would work as well ..." are you not implicitly agreeing that my statements are true that:
All 'a-Darwinists' need do is *show* that 'modern evolutionary theory' is false ... There is no requirement, either in reason, nor in science (which isn't at all
Ilíon wrote:
I will request that, in general, others resist the temptation to post in that thread. Now, if someone has an honest question or request for clarification, I will not at all object to that, that is not at all the point here. I want to keep the topic focused on the argument I will be presenting.
Uhm, you know it's a public forum right? Between that, and the natural tendency of Lounge posters to post ... let's call it "lounge style". I'm not convinced it's possible to prevent "irrational/illogical" replies on the thread. I'm also not convinced there's benefit on stomping on all the gophers that will pop up, especially with gophers who pop up harder if you try to pop one down. It's not like it's the debate club Web site or anything.
Ilíon wrote:
I would like you to explicitly state that you agree that this is true
If a theory can be disproven (not just missing data, but actual facts that cannot be explained by the theory), it ceases to be the best explanation for the data. Lamarck's theory would be one good example, whatever predated Plate Tectonics another.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
Kent Sharkey: "That's true, that would work as well, so have at ..." This could be interesting. I've been trying since late 2001 or early 2002 to get a proponent of 'modern evolutionary theory' to rationally discuss the matter I have in mind. And, by "proponent," I don't merely mean "Joe Schmoe with no background in biology." Some of the 'modern evolutionary theorists' I have tried to discuss this with are scientists with degrees in biology (or, rather, they have presented themselves as such and I have no reason to disbelieve the claim) -- and they have all acted as Chris Losinger acts. You are only the second 'modern evolutionary theorist' I have personally encountered who can even rationally deal with skepticism of the so-called theory (much less deal with the out-right mockery *I* heap upon it), and the other studiously avoided getting into a discussion of this matter. So there are 2 points to this particular post: 1) I think a discussion of this matter merits its own thread. So, I'll start a new topic/thread in the next day or so. It is my hope that this new thread will be a discussion/argument between the two of us to try to get at a certain truth. I will request that, in general, others resist the temptation to post in that thread. Now, if someone has an honest question or request for clarification, I will not at all object to that, that is not at all the point here. I want to keep the topic focused on the argument I will be presenting. But, there is another, and more important, issue than focus; and that is *reason.* I predict that certain partisans will make irrational and illogical posts which will serve only to disrupt the discussion. When that happens, I *expect* you to come down as hard on them as I might (do it in your own way, of course). This is not a matter of "defending" me or of you signaling assent to my argument; this is a matter of defending reason and reasoned argument. If *you* cannot bring yourself to stand against unreason and against irrational/illogical attempts to silence dissent to 'modern evolutionary theory,' then it is morally the same as though you had yourself engaged in the behavior. The same goes for me, of course. 2) When you say "That's true, that would work as well ..." are you not implicitly agreeing that my statements are true that:
All 'a-Darwinists' need do is *show* that 'modern evolutionary theory' is false ... There is no requirement, either in reason, nor in science (which isn't at all
I forgot to mention. I've been reminded that "this type of discussion" belongs in the Soapbox forum rather than the Lounge, so ping me when you've started the thread. (I rarely have need to go in there).
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
I forgot to mention. I've been reminded that "this type of discussion" belongs in the Soapbox forum rather than the Lounge, so ping me when you've started the thread. (I rarely have need to go in there).
-------------- TTFN - Kent
"I forgot to mention. I've been reminded that "this type of discussion" belongs in the Soapbox forum rather than the Lounge ..." I'm already way ahead of you on that. "I forgot to mention." Well, no, you did mention. I said I was going to open a new topic, but I didn't say in which forum. You *assumed* I had indicated the Lounge and your prior statement reflects that assumption. "I've been reminded that "this type of discussion" belongs in the Soapbox forum rather than the Lounge ..." And this highlights a certain double-standard ... a hypocrisy ... in the thinking of so many denizens of the Lounge (one is tempted to say "Lounge Lizards" to refer to all who frequent in the Lounge). What is this double-standard, this hypocritcal thinking? Just this: "I (the self-proclaimed "rational" thinker, i.e. the 'atheist') may spout off any ignorant thing I wish in the Lounge, no matter illogical or irrational it is on top of its reflection of ignorance; but you, you ignorant, stupid, anti-rational Christian, you are not allowed to point out the ignorance of what I said, much less point out its illogic or irrationality. If you wish to do that, you must do it in The Soapbox, where I may ignore it and thus continue to pretent to be a rational thinker."
-
Ilíon wrote:
I will request that, in general, others resist the temptation to post in that thread. Now, if someone has an honest question or request for clarification, I will not at all object to that, that is not at all the point here. I want to keep the topic focused on the argument I will be presenting.
Uhm, you know it's a public forum right? Between that, and the natural tendency of Lounge posters to post ... let's call it "lounge style". I'm not convinced it's possible to prevent "irrational/illogical" replies on the thread. I'm also not convinced there's benefit on stomping on all the gophers that will pop up, especially with gophers who pop up harder if you try to pop one down. It's not like it's the debate club Web site or anything.
Ilíon wrote:
I would like you to explicitly state that you agree that this is true
If a theory can be disproven (not just missing data, but actual facts that cannot be explained by the theory), it ceases to be the best explanation for the data. Lamarck's theory would be one good example, whatever predated Plate Tectonics another.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Ilíon: "I will request that, in general, others resist the temptation to post in that thread ..." Kent Sharkey: "Uhm, you know it's a public forum right? Between that, and the natural tendency of Lounge posters to post ... let's call it "lounge style". I'm not convinced it's possible to prevent "irrational/illogical" replies on the thread." Did you even *read* what I wrote? Firstly, let me point out (this shouldn't *have* to be said) that I do not claim that everything I write is crystal-clear, incapable of being misunderstood. However, I do strive for, and I generally attain, precision in what I write. Now, sometimes what I write is verbose (and often that is for effect), but generally, I aim for succinctness. And, as an interesting and odd side-effect, I am often criticised, and often by the same persons, for being too verbose and for being too succinct. What I wrote is precise and succinct. Contained in those 15 words is already the acknowledgement of that "natural tendency." Contained in those 15 words is already the acknowledgement that these are public forums -- and let me point out in passing that quite a number of the local "rational free-thinkers" acknowledge that only when it suits them. Contained in those 15 words is already the acknowledgement that it *isn't* possible to prevent irrational and/or illogical "replies" to the argument I will present. Ilíon:
But, there is another, and more important, issue than focus; and that is *reason.* I predict that certain partisans will make irrational and illogical posts which will serve only to disrupt the discussion. When that happens, I *expect* you to come down as hard on them as I might (do it in your own way, of course). This is not a matter of "defending" me or of you signaling assent to my argument; this is a matter of defending reason and reasoned argument.
Kent Sharkey: "I'm not convinced it's possible to prevent "irrational/illogical" replies on the thread. I'm also not convinced there's benefit on stomping on all the gophers that will pop up, especially with gophers who pop up harder if you try to pop one down." How will you ever know the worth of trying to help others lift themselves out of irrationality if you never try?
-
Ilíon wrote:
I will request that, in general, others resist the temptation to post in that thread. Now, if someone has an honest question or request for clarification, I will not at all object to that, that is not at all the point here. I want to keep the topic focused on the argument I will be presenting.
Uhm, you know it's a public forum right? Between that, and the natural tendency of Lounge posters to post ... let's call it "lounge style". I'm not convinced it's possible to prevent "irrational/illogical" replies on the thread. I'm also not convinced there's benefit on stomping on all the gophers that will pop up, especially with gophers who pop up harder if you try to pop one down. It's not like it's the debate club Web site or anything.
Ilíon wrote:
I would like you to explicitly state that you agree that this is true
If a theory can be disproven (not just missing data, but actual facts that cannot be explained by the theory), it ceases to be the best explanation for the data. Lamarck's theory would be one good example, whatever predated Plate Tectonics another.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
Ilíon:
- When you say "That's true, that would work as well ..." are you not implicitly agreeing that my statements are true that:
All 'a-Darwinists' need do is *show* that 'modern evolutionary theory' is false ... There is no requirement, either in reason, nor in science (which isn't at all the same thing as reason), that we give 'Darwinists' an "alternate hypothesis" they will accept before we are allowed to take 'modern evolutionary theory' away from them.
I would like you to explicitly state that you agree that this is true ... or, give reasons why these statements (in part, or in whole) are not actually true.
Kent Sharkey: "If a theory can be disproven (not just missing data, but actual facts that cannot be explained by the theory), it ceases to be the best explanation for the data. Lamarck's theory would be one good example, whatever predated Plate Tectonics another." I don't think you're getting the point. And, I don't think you're yet thinking clearly and non-contradictorily.
Ilíon: There is no requirement, either in reason, nor in science (which isn't at all the same thing as reason), that we give 'Darwinists' an "alternate hypothesis" they will accept before we are allowed to take 'modern evolutionary theory' away from them.
What I said here is true and indisputably true. I want you to *admit* that this is true. Or, I want you to show, using logical reasoning, that it is false. Because, after all, you have tried to assert exactly the opposite:
Kent Sharkey: I definitely agree with Chris on another thread though. Rather than continuing to attack some facet of evolutionary theory, what the opponents really need to do is provide an alternate hypothesis. One that may be tested in its own right. Lamarck tried it, Lysenko tried it, now it's your turn
We have here two opposing claims. Only one of them can be true. I want you to *defend* your claim, or abandon it. I want you to think clearly and non-contradictorily. Kent Sharkey: "If a theory can be disproven (not just missing data, but actual facts that cannot be explained by the theory), it ceases to be the best explanation for the data. Lamarck's theory would be one good example, whatever predated Plate Tectonics another." No one ever disproved Lamarck's theory. I realize you were taught otherwise, but you were taught a falsehood. And, to this day, 'modern evolutionary th
-
Ilíon:
- When you say "That's true, that would work as well ..." are you not implicitly agreeing that my statements are true that:
All 'a-Darwinists' need do is *show* that 'modern evolutionary theory' is false ... There is no requirement, either in reason, nor in science (which isn't at all the same thing as reason), that we give 'Darwinists' an "alternate hypothesis" they will accept before we are allowed to take 'modern evolutionary theory' away from them.
I would like you to explicitly state that you agree that this is true ... or, give reasons why these statements (in part, or in whole) are not actually true.
Kent Sharkey: "If a theory can be disproven (not just missing data, but actual facts that cannot be explained by the theory), it ceases to be the best explanation for the data. Lamarck's theory would be one good example, whatever predated Plate Tectonics another." I don't think you're getting the point. And, I don't think you're yet thinking clearly and non-contradictorily.
Ilíon: There is no requirement, either in reason, nor in science (which isn't at all the same thing as reason), that we give 'Darwinists' an "alternate hypothesis" they will accept before we are allowed to take 'modern evolutionary theory' away from them.
What I said here is true and indisputably true. I want you to *admit* that this is true. Or, I want you to show, using logical reasoning, that it is false. Because, after all, you have tried to assert exactly the opposite:
Kent Sharkey: I definitely agree with Chris on another thread though. Rather than continuing to attack some facet of evolutionary theory, what the opponents really need to do is provide an alternate hypothesis. One that may be tested in its own right. Lamarck tried it, Lysenko tried it, now it's your turn
We have here two opposing claims. Only one of them can be true. I want you to *defend* your claim, or abandon it. I want you to think clearly and non-contradictorily. Kent Sharkey: "If a theory can be disproven (not just missing data, but actual facts that cannot be explained by the theory), it ceases to be the best explanation for the data. Lamarck's theory would be one good example, whatever predated Plate Tectonics another." No one ever disproved Lamarck's theory. I realize you were taught otherwise, but you were taught a falsehood. And, to this day, 'modern evolutionary th
Ilíon wrote:
This whole "best explanation" thing is charade, it's a shell-game, it's a distraction ... and it's meaningless. The phrase "best explanation" literally means nothing, it has no meaning, it is meaningless.
It is far from meaningless or a distraction, or any other perjorative you care to add. Outside of mathematics or physics, there are rare items that provide Truth. If you walk into a room and switching on the light has no effect, you must come up with a number of theories why the light didn't come on. If after applying the observations to the data you decide that it's because the light bulb is burnt out and change it. Light comes on, you decide your theory was Truth. However, that bulb burns out after 20 minutes. You now have more observations that seem contradictory and should either refine your theory or supply a new one. I later found that the socket had a poor connection to the wires and the act of tightening and loosening the bulb would enable the light to come on. The original bulb was fine. Is that now Truth? Short of inspecting all the wiring in my house, I will never be absolutely certain. The theory of the loose wire is the best explanation of the data.
Ilíon wrote:
No one ever disproved Lamarck's theory. I realize you were taught otherwise, but you were taught a falsehood. And, to this day, 'modern evolutionary theorists' are more Lamarckians that Lamarck himself was, just as Darwin was.
I haven't a clue where you're getting this.
Ilíon wrote:
What I said here is true and indisputably true. I want you to *admit* that this is true. Or, I want you to show, using logical reasoning, that it is false. Because, after all, you have tried to assert exactly the opposite: Kent Sharkey: I definitely agree with Chris on another thread though. Rather than continuing to attack some facet of evolutionary theory, what the opponents really need to do is provide an alternate hypothesis. One that may be tested in its own right. Lamarck tried it, Lysenko tried it, now it's your turn
That second one was due to the inevitable exasperation I (and Chris, and probably a number of others) feel when we're forced to defend this theory innumerable times.
Ilíon wrote:
I don't think you're getting the point. And, I don't think you're yet thinking clearly and non-contradicto
-
"I forgot to mention. I've been reminded that "this type of discussion" belongs in the Soapbox forum rather than the Lounge ..." I'm already way ahead of you on that. "I forgot to mention." Well, no, you did mention. I said I was going to open a new topic, but I didn't say in which forum. You *assumed* I had indicated the Lounge and your prior statement reflects that assumption. "I've been reminded that "this type of discussion" belongs in the Soapbox forum rather than the Lounge ..." And this highlights a certain double-standard ... a hypocrisy ... in the thinking of so many denizens of the Lounge (one is tempted to say "Lounge Lizards" to refer to all who frequent in the Lounge). What is this double-standard, this hypocritcal thinking? Just this: "I (the self-proclaimed "rational" thinker, i.e. the 'atheist') may spout off any ignorant thing I wish in the Lounge, no matter illogical or irrational it is on top of its reflection of ignorance; but you, you ignorant, stupid, anti-rational Christian, you are not allowed to point out the ignorance of what I said, much less point out its illogic or irrationality. If you wish to do that, you must do it in The Soapbox, where I may ignore it and thus continue to pretent to be a rational thinker."
Ilíon wrote:
What is this double-standard, this hypocritcal thinking? Just this: "I (the self-proclaimed "rational" thinker, i.e. the 'atheist') may spout off any ignorant thing I wish in the Lounge, no matter illogical or irrational it is on top of its reflection of ignorance; but you, you ignorant, stupid, anti-rational Christian, you are not allowed to point out the ignorance of what I said, much less point out its illogic or irrationality. If you wish to do that, you must do it in The Soapbox, where I may ignore it and thus continue to pretent to be a rational thinker."
Read into it whatever you want (as you already have). However, Chris has asked that *any* discussions of politics, religion or similar "touchy" subjects be discussed in the Soapbox. This discussion only ended up in the lounge as it was a discussion of an Insider post, but most people felt it should have been continued in the Soapbox.
-------------- TTFN - Kent
-
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:
You are amazingly self righteous. Boost yourself some more. So far, most of the posts by you that I've read resort to attacking people, by accusing them of being stupid. Goading them to emotional reactions. What is your point in taking this stance. Are you really that self-important?
Ilíon wrote:
For, after all, in my posts I always strive to be logically consistent; whereas, in his posts ... well, clearly, he does not.
Quite the opinion. Too bad not everyone shares your view of yourself and the others debating with you.
Ilíon wrote:
but rather I insinuated that he may not "have that firm a grasp on the concept of "skeptical and critical evaluation of evidence.""
Ok, what's the point here? Do you expect honest discourse when the only point of this tactic is to offend the other? Is that really honest discourse?
Ilíon wrote:
Perhaps the reader may be forgiven for beginning to wonder just *who* is the "Jerk."
You both are being jerks in this debate. Although, in this case, I would state that Fisticuffs is more founded.
This statement was never false.
-
At last, a demonstration of the "better part of valor." Would that Mr Fisticuffs had been a bit more volorous a bit sooner. For, after all, if one has nothing to say, one does well to say nothing at all.
Would be nice to see you take your own advice.
This statement was never false.
-
Mo-o-o-m! That ol' meanie is pickin' on my religion (aka "Darwinism")! You people are such children. You like to dish out snide one-liners -- which just happen to generally not be true -- against Christianity, and it's congratulations all around. But let someone return the favor towards your religion -- with snide one-liners which just happen to generally be true -- and you throw a snit-fit.
You just can't get over yourself can you? Now you're responding to your own posts? Get over it man.
This statement was never false.