|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 18, 2018 13:15:40 GMT
As wonderful as life is in many parts of the world, not all people have the same share. In fact some parts of the world are overcrowded with few resources and little development. People who live in areas where extreme poverty prevails sometimes think that merely moving to an area where there appears plenty will solve the problem.
Not everyone agrees. Many believe that the areas where there is plenty have people there who are good stewards of the resources, and that their better management of resources is the reason things are going so well. They are concerned that people who cannot do well in their own country cannot do well anywhere else and will drag down the standard of living wherever they go unless they learn better stewardship first. The people in prosperous areas often believe in rules and that following them is the reason they are prosperous.
Recently on this board we discovered that most people here whether they are atheist or theist believe in rules. When I suggested that a group that is essentially opposed to the rules arises naturally and is essentially anarchistic, you recoiled.
I do understand that most of you believe that you have some formula or set of rules that is best. I still believe that opposition to rules is very much stronger and more widespread than you have guessed.
Either way, most here would agree when I say that there are times when rules must be enforced. The people whose job it is to enforce the rules will have to be mean because they don't wait for you to agree to the rules. They require that you follow them regardless of your own will in the matter. There are people whose job it is to be mean. Not everyone will consider it "mean," rather they will consider it "necessary." However many people will have what they believe are alternative solutions. They will consider the force unnecessary, and mean.
What is happening in the news right now is that the people whose job it is to be mean are doing what they believe they should, be mean to people at the border. You are totally wasting your time complaining how mean they are. To them that just shows what a wonderful job they're doing.
Most Democrats can't claim to have a better solution because they have become almost the same thing (not quite) as anarchists. They can't claim to be smarter because they are not. They can't claim to have a better plan because they do not. Some of them (far more than you might guess) are in fact happy to see the enforcers being mean. That's because they do not consider themselves anarchists. They believe in rules albeit their own strange ones. They believe in people having the job of being mean and enforcing rules, about wedding cakes for example. Not all Democrats of course, but many more than you might guess approve of Donald Trump and will show it in the midterm elections. The Democratic Party was not originally the party of big government, but when they found out they could get things from government, such as jobs in the military, they decided they like government after all, even when it has to be mean (usually mean to rich people though).
When Donald Trump says he will win in November, that actually could happen.
In fact unless things change by November I predict Trump supporters will likely hold and perhaps gain many seats in Congress. The reason is that quite many people whose job it is to be mean are stupid. Please pardon the term, but the situation is dire. Being mean doesn't take much intelligence. Quite many people in both political parties are stupid and mean. It's far worse than in the general population. They have no idea themselves about chemistry. They have never considered finer arts of persuasion. Their use of brute force at the borders only convinces them how much smarter they are than anyone else.
The saddest part of all is how determined they are to set things right without overturning Kitzmiller v. Dover. Their ignorance of chemistry prevents them from realizing it will have to be overturned eventually, whatever the "political" consequences might be. It is pure science. They don't want to do that because their understanding of "religion" is Christianity, which obviously for most people has no rules. The "Christians" they fear the most are just as stupid as they are and do not represent religion at all. People who are actually religious "fear" god. Perhaps a better term is that actually religious people are more circumspect, more careful, less forceful, more persuasive, more engaged with the details and "true" science than the "evangelicals" who support Trump and brute force.
Overturning Kitzmiller v. Dover and giving those people more influence will probably have the best political consequences.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 18, 2018 13:31:32 GMT
It's not gonna get overturned, deal with it. It was a joke magic was even being debated in federal court to begin with.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 18, 2018 13:34:54 GMT
.... The reason is that quite many people whose job it is to be mean are stupid. Please pardon the term, but the situation is dire. Being mean doesn't take much intelligence. Quite many people in both political parties are stupid and mean. It's far worse than in the general population. They have no idea themselves about chemistry. They have never considered finer arts of persuasion. Their use of brute force at the borders only convinces them how much smarter they are than anyone else. The saddest part of all is how determined they are to set things right without overturning Kitzmiller v. Dover. Their ignorance of chemistry prevents them from realizing it will have to be overturned eventually, whatever the "political" consequences might be. It is pure science. They don't want to do that because their understanding of "religion" is Christianity, which obviously for most people has no rules. The "Christians" they fear the most are just as stupid as they are and do not represent religion at all. People who are actually religious "fear" god. Perhaps a better term is that actually religious people are more circumspect, more careful, less forceful, more persuasive, more engaged with the details and "true" science than the "evangelicals" who support Trump and brute force. Overturning Kitzmiller v. Dover and giving those people more influence will probably have the best political consequences.
Rather a rambling, but characteristic opener this, needlessly running things together and ending in a grand non-sequitur.
Quite why any revisiting of the Dover Trial and its verdict should have any relevance to standards in politics - "setting things right"- is hard to see from what is written here. (But of course, Arlon apparently has his copyrighted appeal well in hand. Honest.) Presumably, giving "those people" more influence means the Creationist lobby holding sway. We've all seen the benefits that fundamentalism has brought to the world. The well-known honesty of TV preachers, or the kind-hearted separating of families justified by scripture say, or the enthusiastic, murderous philosophy of Muslim terrorists for instance. The latter, it may be observed, are very mean people indeed.
He might find the process postulating "pure science" difficult though - especially since he told us in a flash of insight lately that "If 'A' is describing something to 'B' in a literal way then those two must already have an experience of it or something very similar to it. The less similar their experiences, the more symbolic, allegorical or less direct the explanation must be." That is, it rather undermines any putative appeal if no one has unambiguously literally experienced God creating anything, er, that would be Intelligent Design actually happening, and so the whole notion is much more 'symbolic' than 'pure science'. Moreover, Arlon assured us that he "suspects some spiritual experiences are very common to millions of people, yet that is little help to those, however many or few, to whom the experience is not common." So not even a symbolic, or spiritual, magical Creation story is of any help anyway if not common to a independently-minded secular court, (ironically the Dover judge found Intelligent Design in common with some things last time around: astrology and demonstrable local practices of mendacity, for instance!) even if the court accepted such an interpretation of the Genesis account. Ah well. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 18, 2018 16:10:35 GMT
.... The reason is that quite many people whose job it is to be mean are stupid. Please pardon the term, but the situation is dire. Being mean doesn't take much intelligence. Quite many people in both political parties are stupid and mean. It's far worse than in the general population. They have no idea themselves about chemistry. They have never considered finer arts of persuasion. Their use of brute force at the borders only convinces them how much smarter they are than anyone else. The saddest part of all is how determined they are to set things right without overturning Kitzmiller v. Dover. Their ignorance of chemistry prevents them from realizing it will have to be overturned eventually, whatever the "political" consequences might be. It is pure science. They don't want to do that because their understanding of "religion" is Christianity, which obviously for most people has no rules. The "Christians" they fear the most are just as stupid as they are and do not represent religion at all. People who are actually religious "fear" god. Perhaps a better term is that actually religious people are more circumspect, more careful, less forceful, more persuasive, more engaged with the details and "true" science than the "evangelicals" who support Trump and brute force. Overturning Kitzmiller v. Dover and giving those people more influence will probably have the best political consequences.
Rather a rambling, but characteristic opener this, needlessly running things together and ending in a grand non-sequitur.
Quite why any revisiting of the Dover Trial and its verdict should have any relevance to standards in politics - "setting things right"- is hard to see from what is written here. (But of course, Arlon apparently has his copyrighted appeal well in hand. Honest.) Presumably, giving "those people" more influence means the Creationist lobby holding sway. We've all seen the benefits that fundamentalism has brought to the world. The well-known honesty of TV preachers, or the kind-hearted separating of families justified by scripture say, or the enthusiastic, murderous philosophy of Muslim terrorists for instance. The latter, it may be observed, are very mean people indeed.
He might find the process postulating "pure science" difficult though - especially since he told us in a flash of insight lately that "If 'A' is describing something to 'B' in a literal way then those two must already have an experience of it or something very similar to it. The less similar their experiences, the more symbolic, allegorical or less direct the explanation must be." That is, it rather undermines any putative appeal if no one has unambiguously literally experienced God creating anything, er, that would be Intelligent Design actually happening, and so the whole notion is much more 'symbolic' than 'pure science'. Moreover, Arlon assured us that he "suspects some spiritual experiences are very common to millions of people, yet that is little help to those, however many or few, to whom the experience is not common." So not even a symbolic, or spiritual, magical Creation story is of any help anyway if not common to a independently-minded secular court, (ironically the Dover judge found Intelligent Design in common with some things last time around: astrology and demonstrable local practices of mendacity, for instance!) even if the court accepted such an interpretation of the Genesis account. Ah well. You continue to believe without justification that no "negative" proof is possible or somehow a negative proof is less of one. You continue to expect me to show a god creating anything. It has been explained many times and the explanation is on a permanent website, that it is the scope of a proof that makes it more difficult or perhaps even impossible, not whether the proof is "negative." To prove the basketball is not in its box you simply open the box. To prove the basketball isn't in 118 boxes, that is more tedious. You have to open all 118 boxes. The larger the scope, the more difficult the proof. A proof with infinite scope is impossible, whether it's positive or negative makes no difference. That's why police put crime scene tape around a crime scene. The more traffic that goes through the scene the larger the scope of their positive proof. To prove that the agency that assembled the first life on Earth is not found in nature is not only possible, it is easy. There are not many agencies in nature. It is a simple matter to check them all, to open all 118 boxes so to speak. Sun, wind, rain, lightning, intermolecular forces, and any combination thereof is about all nature has. It doesn't take long to check out them all. It also doesn't take very long to check out each because agencies exhaust their possibilities in fairly short time. I don't need to show a god creating anything to win this argument. It doesn't work that way. If a god did assemble anything you would only claim it happened spontaneously. What I have shown is that the "god" or intelligent designer does not show up on demand. It is a meaner god (topic relevance) than many people want. |
|
|
|
Post by dividavi on Jun 19, 2018 8:55:05 GMT
Federal Judge Jones did say that the major defendants in Kitzmiller v. Dover deliberately lied under oath regarding the origin of funds for Creationist claptrap. Here's what the judge said: en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/5:Promoting_Religion#Page_115_of_139Creationism and ID are the same thing. The born-again Liars For Jesus have nothing but fairy tales to support their position. Their religion, Christianity, is a lie and always has been. There's nothing moral that comes from the mouths of those people. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 19, 2018 9:14:57 GMT
Federal Judge Jones did say that the major defendants in Kitzmiller v. Dover deliberately lied under oath regarding the origin of funds for Creationist claptrap. Here's what the judge said: en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/5:Promoting_Religion#Page_115_of_139Creationism and ID are the same thing. The born-again Liars For Jesus have nothing but fairy tales to support their position. Their religion, Christianity, is a lie and always has been. There's nothing moral that comes from the mouths of those people. I am aware that the people in that case who were representing the ID side of the argument were unusually unqualified to do that. I rather suspect they were not really supporters of ID, and the case was a total farce. The details of the case are therefore not relevant. Creationism and ID are not the same thing. Almost everyone who graduated high school in the United States knows that Darwin did not offer any explanation for the origin of life itself. His theory merely dealt with the origin of species. So called "abiogenesis" is in fact the same thing as spontaneous generation which those same high school graduates know is not accepted by science. People who take the Bible literally where it was obviously never intended for that are dangerously isolated from reality. That has always been a problem. A worse problem however is the atheism that results in people whose mental capacity is as bad or worse. They promulgate things that are even more oblivious of science. |
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jun 19, 2018 9:59:37 GMT
I like being meaner to mean people.  |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 19, 2018 10:25:08 GMT
You continue to believe without justification that no "negative" proof is possible or somehow a negative proof is less of one. You continue to expect me to show a god creating anything. But a positive proof, something away from personal credulity and the claims of scripture is all I ever ask of you Arlon. So where is it? But, no I don't expect you to provide any here either. An 'explanation' is not proof. Thanks anyway. That you now suggest here that any proof is 'impossible' (the proposed deliberate supernatural being typically infinite in scope) is a big QED then. Given that one is not surprised then how one, perforce, must fall back on credulity and faith. One is more interested in how such matters represent themselves along cultural, political and social lines. One person's elephant god is another's Jew pottering around a small part of the middle east. But, er, you only just said claims with infinite scope are "impossible". Do you know everything there is to know about our natural reality then, Arlon? I am afraid you do - at least if we (as we surely do) have to admit that we know for sure that we don't know all there is about nature, and all you can come up with by way of persuasion otherwise is a negative argument (that 'nature can't do it'), without substantiation. After all, if your purported deity can be thought of as 'working in mysterious ways' then why cannot nature? See how such an idea works? I don't claim anything. I haven't seen anything. You certainly don't evidence anything. But the Bible says of godly creation 'a week'. Now, whether not 'a week' is really seven days or seven ages, I leave up to the literalists to squabble over. I do know that recently, as already mentioned in my last reply, you have said quite clearly that "If 'A' is describing something to 'B' in a literal way then those two must already have an experience of it or something very similar to it. The less similar their experiences, the more symbolic, allegorical or less direct the explanation must be." So, once again: by your previously insisted-on logic it is hard to see how, without direct experience of any supposed supernatural creation, it is most likely that God creating everything as traditionally understood would most likely not be just symbolic or allegorical. Remember how I told then how your claim would come in useful? It has. The Great Guy in The Sky does not show up at all Arlon. That's why one has to have faith, is it not? |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 19, 2018 11:40:00 GMT
But, er, you only just said claims with infinite scope are "impossible". Nature (and space) might be infinite in width. It might be infinite in height. It might be infinite in length. Nature is obviously not however infinite in elements. It is not infinite in the number of forces. It is not infinite in the number of agencies. The proof that the intelligent designer is not found in nature does not have infinite scope. In fact the scope is very limited and very easy. The Pacific Ocean is vast, but a complete list of its properties and agencies would fit on your smart phone. I'm sorry you still can't see it, if you really can't, but you are the one who is credulous and faithful here, faithful to your outdated science. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 19, 2018 11:55:01 GMT
But, er, you only just said claims with infinite scope are "impossible". Nature (and space) might be infinite in width. It might be infinite in height. It might be infinite in length. Nature is obviously not however infinite in elements. It is not infinite in the number of forces. It is not infinite in the number of agencies. Although admittedly the jury is out, I am surprised (no, not really) that you do not know that it is the case that some indeed think that the universe is infinite, something expanding forever. www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/People/Is_the_Universe_finite_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk I am not sure of your point here. However it is interesting if you now think a proposed god is not infinite. But as we don't know either way, the opinion is moot is it not? The Pacific is not infinite. So, still no positive evidence for your supernatural creator then? |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 19, 2018 12:05:23 GMT
I myself believe the universe is probably infinite in size. It makes no difference to my arguments, though you seem to have difficulty comprehending that. I am fully aware, surprising as that might be to you, that people believe all sorts of things. They might believe there is a 119th element that can sing the Choral to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony while it assembles the first life. That however is not nature as it is understood by science. It is therefore "supernatural." |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 19, 2018 13:19:49 GMT
I myself believe the universe is probably infinite in size. It makes no difference to my arguments It certainly does when you argue, as you did just previously, that claims with infinite scope are "impossible". It is not surprising to me especially when disputing with the devoutly-challenged on this board. In fact, I have rather come to expect quite a range of assumption and beliefs, ranging from the complex obscurities posed by the Trinity to the notion of God's Holy Penis. The range of human religious credulity has its own charm and it is the naturalness of such stuff which keeps me coming back. er..OK then. But as you very helpfully told us before, let's hear once again: " "If 'A' is describing something to 'B' in a literal way then those two must already have an experience of it or something very similar to it. The less similar their experiences, the more symbolic, allegorical or less direct the explanation must be." Thank you for playing. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 19, 2018 16:21:44 GMT
I myself believe the universe is probably infinite in size. It makes no difference to my arguments It certainly does when you argue, as you did just previously, that claims with infinite scope are "impossible". It is not surprising to me especially when disputing with the devoutly-challenged on this board. In fact, I have rather come to expect quite a range of assumption and beliefs, ranging from the complex obscurities posed by the Trinity to the notion of God's Holy Penis. The range of human religious credulity has its own charm and it is the naturalness of such stuff which keeps me coming back. er..OK then. But as you very helpfully told us before, let's hear once again: " "If 'A' is describing something to 'B' in a literal way then those two must already have an experience of it or something very similar to it. The less similar their experiences, the more symbolic, allegorical or less direct the explanation must be." Thank you for playing. You are easily confused by which things are or are not infinite. If the universe is infinite in size (No one knows.) that does not mean there are an infinite number of elements. The number of elements is not likely infinite. There is the obvious problem of instability as the number of subatomic particles and energy levels increase. The number of agencies or forces is also not likely infinite by a similar if slightly different reasoning, from what elements would they arise? If none of the 118 elements or few forces can assemble life, it is irrelevant whether you have an infinite number of copies of them. The copies all have the same properties. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 20, 2018 9:41:40 GMT
You are easily confused by which things are or are not infinite. If the universe is infinite in size (No one knows.) that does not mean there are an infinite number of elements. The number of elements is not likely infinite. The number of agencies or forces is also not likely infinite by a similar if slightly different reasoning, from what elements would they arise? When I ever make that claim, be sure and raise it again. (I assume that by 'elements' you mean those of the periodic table.) Indeed; and this is one factor, together with quantum asymmetry and the suspected effect of gravity, taken into account when theoretical physicists suggest how things came into being in the first place, i.e. 'something from 'nothing''. There is a too convenient casual leap here from 'none' and 'few', one notes. For after all, it only takes a few to have effect. But then we both know that we don't know all there is about nature. (You don't know much about science either, since science tells us that the elements came into existence after the Big Bang through its predictable consequences. Indeed, one of the more satisfying confirmations of modern science is that its theories of the start of things correctly predict the level and distribution of the elements throughout the universe.)
In the light of the above wobble by you this would seem rather irrelevant, especially if the properties were sufficient. Like the ubiquity of Carbon (a group 14 element) throughout nature.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 20, 2018 22:05:58 GMT
You are easily confused by which things are or are not infinite. If the universe is infinite in size (No one knows.) that does not mean there are an infinite number of elements. The number of elements is not likely infinite. The number of agencies or forces is also not likely infinite by a similar if slightly different reasoning, from what elements would they arise? When I ever make that claim, be sure and raise it again. (I assume that by 'elements' you mean those of the periodic table.) Indeed; and this is one factor, together with quantum asymmetry and the suspected effect of gravity, taken into account when theoretical physicists suggest how things came into being in the first place, i.e. 'something from 'nothing''. There is a too convenient casual leap here from 'none' and 'few', one notes. For after all, it only takes a few to have effect. But then we both know that we don't know all there is about nature. (You don't know much about science either, since science tells us that the elements came into existence after the Big Bang through its predictable consequences. Indeed, one of the more satisfying confirmations of modern science is that its theories of the start of things correctly predict the level and distribution of the elements throughout the universe.)
In the light of the above wobble by you this would seem rather irrelevant, especially if the properties were sufficient. Like the ubiquity of Carbon (a group 14 element) throughout nature.
You make the claim that the proof on an intelligent designer has an infinite scope. It obviously does not. If it is perhaps a "negative" proof, it certainly does not have infinite scope and is therefore readily proved. A complete list of the possible assemblers in nature of the first life is not infinite or even large. It is possible to check them all and conclude that the assembler is not found in nature. No one on Earth knows or even has a good guess how to make something out of nothing within the laws of nature. It is amusing watching you stray outside the laws of nature. The origin of the various celestial bodies and what elements prevail on them is much more mystery than revealed truth. Do not forget, you have lost the original intent of the argument. The original intent of the argument was that life could arise with only those materials and agencies known in the natural world, thus making unnecessary any other agency, such as a god. The original intent of the argument was to say that not just anything is possible. The original intent was to say that some things are not possible because the nature we know is limited and does not allow them. It is indeed a "concession" to admit that you require a nature that is full of surprises, more so than any god would be. If in failing, as you obviously have, to extend the origin of species to the origin of life itself you dare resort to the claim that life has "always existed eternally" and requires no original assembly, you make the study of Darwin totally unnecessary. It would have less value than the study of macrame. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 21, 2018 10:08:44 GMT
You make the claim that the proof on an intelligent designer has an infinite scope. It obviously does not. If it is perhaps a "negative" proof, it certainly does not have infinite scope and is therefore readily proved.
But not so readily that you able to prove it, let alone offer any positive evidence for it on demand, it appears! lol
One wonders what the proof of god would be potentially limited by (leaving aside for now the idea that one cannot really know anything at all in the first place so that anything said is meaningless). For instance if one were to prove the existence of the deliberate supernatural, then it can be assumed that this same proof would hold for everywhere, as there is nowhere the purported First Cause is claimed not present. It would be odd, not least as it goes against the nature of such a god, to assert that "I have shown that God exists on earth but I still don't know if He exists anywhere else". Now, it is certainly true that Aquinas said that God is best identified by that which He is not, rather than that He is. But that didn't stop him making positive arguments elsewhere, and one is not aware of the great thinker limiting the scope of his definitions and famous 'ways'. On the contrary, they are characterised by sweeping positive claims. QED.
So are you now saying that you know all there is to about nature and its potential? You are really quite a find. Of course, as noted before, a lot of things are 'possible'. Just not likely. Such as your claim. Actually people (EG the physicist Krauss) have indeed made very good and well-received guess based on the observations and theories of the new physics. In connection with your words it also might be said that modern science does not consider that 'nothing' 'exists', or has existed, in the first place - even if that is at all a meaningful expression, philosophically speaking. i.e. there is always 'something', even if it is just the quantum vacuum - or, more properly considered in this context, the absence of anything else. But you have been told this before by myself and others. As already mentioned, the prevailing theory as the start of everything has the satisfaction of successfully predicting precisely the existing levels and dispersal of elements throughout the observable universe, usually down a decimal point. There is some issue, for now over missing (so-called dark) matter and energy, but that is a separate issue. However I would agree that, in scriptural terms, at least 'revealed truth' can be seriously lacking. And, just as before, my answer is the same: that (despite your claim of omniscience above that "it is possible to check them all ('possible assemblers')" we both really know that we do not know all there is about nature, and so, by definition it works in mysterious ways. An attribute happily ascribed to your preferred entity, it seems reasonable to grant the deeper questions of nature the same privilege. But even so, researchers have checked the counter-intuitive workings of reality at the quantum world and find that, yes, it is quite possible that something permanent resides there which, can instigate more, starting with time and space. It is, as usual, difficult to take seriously the judgements of anyone who does not even know - or refuses to say - just how old he thinks the cosmos is, or does not accept the workings of relativity! But you have your views and are welcome to them. I don't know about you, Arlon - one apparently knowing all there is to know about it and all - but a nature explored and revealed by science always surprises (and delights) me. Since I have never said anything else, it is hard to see your point. What is surprising about your purported god is that the First Cause of everything, which takes a particular interest in the human, never makes itself known, or demonstrable, unambiguously. You'd have thought the proof and definitive identification of such a prevailing power would be quite simple. Yet believers cannot even agree among themselves, leaving God to be assumed through your god-of-the-gaps arguments and continuing credulity.
As you have been told before, evolution is not the same as the start of all things. And because it is considered increasingly likely that the life, or the building blocks thereto can be found on other places than earth, this does not mean that the study of changes here is 'unnecessary'. If anything is 'necessary' it would be the positive evidence for supernatural, or magic creation, tales of which enthralled the primitives. Or even that successful appeal against the landmark Dover verdict on creationism, er ID, your alternative. We are still waiting. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 21, 2018 22:29:37 GMT
If the task is to prove the hammer is not in the toolbox, one merely opens the toolbox and removes the contents until there is no space where the hammer might be hidden. At that point we (except perhaps you) are as "positive" the hammer is not in the toolbox as anyone is positive about anything. There is your "positive" proof. Unlike you and your science comic book friends, I understand there are limits to nature. There are things that cannot happen because nature does not allow them. You cannot fly without a large machine, for example. Wooden buildings cannot withstand fire. Human limbs, once removed, do not grow back (within the laws of nature anyway). Because you have no sense of what is really going on in the world, you lost track of the point of Darwin. The point of Darwin was to put the assembly of life within the reach of very mundane and limited processes. Over time science has found that such mundane and limited agencies are not capable of assembling life. You have relaxed the definition of nature to include fantastic possibilities that would make a god blush, and that you cannot see anymore than the intelligent designer. You lost the original argument. You have conflated two different arguments, the argument for an intelligent designer and the argument for a god such as the object of particlar religions. One is an argument involving pure science, the other goes beyond the limits of science, for example the foundations of morality. I have made both types of arguments, just without conflating them. You're confusing science with flighty speculation without repeatable experiments. That's because you know nothing about science and are easily fooled. Thank you for confirming my just claim that you have abandoned the original intent of the theory of evolution, and have yielded to redefining "nature" as a thing more unpredictable than any god. It is difficult to take seriously the judgements of anyone like you. Studying "changes" that are observable can be profitable I suppose, but unless you can show how life began in the first place on a previously molten Earth without turning to some alien arrival of already existing life, the changes that occurred that are not observable will be fraught with a lack of conclusiveness. And that good science would be "genetics" not "evolution." |
|
|
|
Post by sublime92 on Jun 22, 2018 6:59:51 GMT
Offices of child support and probation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 22, 2018 7:27:49 GMT
Offices of child support and probation. That's why marriage means nothing at all anymore. No fault divorce destroyed it long before same sex marriage put the final nail in the coffin. Too many people assume the government with its brute force can fix everything. Take a look around you, everything is not fixed and the national debt still spirals out of control. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 22, 2018 12:36:03 GMT
If the task is to prove the hammer is not in the toolbox, one merely opens the toolbox and removes the contents until there is no space where the hammer might be hidden. At that point we (except perhaps you) are as "positive" the hammer is not in the toolbox as anyone is positive about anything. There is your "positive" proof. I think here that you misunderstand the nature of what constitutes positive evidence as opposed to being certain of a negative. Why am I not surprised? And, sorry to keep hammering on about such things, but ... you still haven't offered any positive evidence for the Almighty's supposedly making reality. I understand well enough there are limits to nature. But then I am not being obliged to prove that nature exists. All I am saying is that I know that I, at least do not know enough to say what the limits are - whether it stops short of a permanently provoking quantum presence, say. And claims about God certainly are unlimited in scope, for reasons outlined earlier. But thank you for the condescension, anyway. It appears that they do not ever grow back within the laws of the supposed deliberate supernatural either, which are supposedly invested with such impossibilities, at such places as Lourdes. lol. But, keep going... As always, I bow before your superior wisdom. Evolutionary theory, which is all about the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations, is at all not the same as the study of the likely initial causes of life (it's "assemblage"). But you have been told this over, and over, before. As least get the definition right of that which you are criticising as a creationist. And even then, science has really 'found' no such thing as you suggest; in fact it is drawing closer and closer to a demonstration of how such agencies might have worked. If this impression is wrong, then please do an uncharacteristic thing. Link to any substantiating scientific authority - i.e. something peer reviewed, not off a creationist website - which says that natural agencies (which is what you mean) are 'not capable' of assembling life, and which instead endorse the un-evidenced, magical alternative. Will that be a problem? If the argument is that a purported deity works in mysterious ways is acceptable by way of an explanation, then so is any equivalent claim about nature, where (I, at least, it seems) accept that we know we do not know all there is about it. Please print this line off and laminate it, as I am tired of making such a quite reasonable, logical point. The only difference is that we can actually see nature and, pace Occam, it is simpler to assume one less level of reality to explain things on the same basis. If you look at Aquinas' Ways you will see that, by and large, they make a series of arguments for a necessary supernatural first Cause. It just happens to be the Catholic one, since Aquinas was of that ilk. His "that which we call God" could however be used for any supernatural fitting the bill (although he does attempt to tie things in more specifically and with reasons, elsewhere) while even then, in several of the ways, it is not even clear why the same presumed existence must be supernatural by default, unless one assumes that a new, further reality is the only place where the necessaries must be found. But as you will recall, some of us at least know that we don't know all there is about the present one. The "foundations of morality" is a whole new area of consideration which now seems dragged in by you. Are you really here now suggesting that because (presumably by this you mean the objective sort) morality exists, it proves that the supernatural does? It is hard to know where to begin with so many implicit and explicit assumptions. So I would see this as just a huge diversion. As for the supposed revelations (or not) of "pure science" then the same, regular and standing request for substantiation or evidence remains. And has done for some time. Given the entire lack of empirical evidence for the deliberate supernatural shown by you, this comment is highly ironic, lol. However, if you one day take the trouble to look at modern scientific theory in this area you may take up a less dismissive attitude. Is there any reason, for instance, why the laws of relativistic quantum field theories shouldn't entail that vacuum states are unstable? Or that the relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical version can't mathematically surmise of there not being any physical stuff at all? That the particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, would not consist of relativistic quantum fields? Now, we know that the quantum exists (it after all represents half of standard physics), and everyone can see logical variations, observe the characteristic un-predictabilities within the model, and make experiments on the same. It is all, dare I say it, much more prone to observation and evidence than the-god-which-won't-ever-show-its-head ever is. Now, the caveat remains of course that what is possible is not always likely. But a type of reality that can at least be successfully theorised about and observed in action or manifestation, is a good start. What is not evidenced at all leads to reasonable scepticism. Your performance here upon interrogation rather proves that. And once again, I repeat that, by definition, evolutionary theory does not consist of speculations about the actual origins of life. Your constant misunderstanding and representing notwithstanding, it doesn't change this fact. In addition it may be noted that the modern evolutionary synthesis certainly has no need of divine intervention to explain the descent of species, their survival, change and adaption. Perhaps you have proof of your God's guiding hand in all this? Does he put the cancer in children? Such ideas of design didn't work out so well for the professional proponents of creationism, er, ID as 'science' during the Dover trial did it? Anyone who, quote reasonably, agrees with the overwhelming scientific consensus in the light of no real, strong alternatives to the age of the Cosmos? Are you still struggling with the Theory of Relativity too? No one is saying that science has all the answers, or indeed ever will have. But at least it offers more than ancient myth, a god-of-the-gaps and the blandishments of personal credulity. Genetics has nothing to say about the initial start of everything either. Sorry about that. Now go away or I shall taunt you some more. |
|
