2nd Law of Thermodynamics [Archive] - Page 2

Bruarong

31-05-2006, 15:42

I don't see why not. You don't need to increase the size of the genome to increase complexity of an organism.
As I said before, we have less genes than certain simple organisms (e.g. the Amoeba Dubia has a genome about 200 times ours).
Gene regulation is at least as important. A more efficient cellular machinery can cut down on the amount of genes needed. It might be interesting to note we have far more different proteins than genes coding for them. Just looking at the genome is therefore a bit shortsighted.

Theoretically, yes, an organism might be able to reduce it's genome size while increasing in complexity (although I think anyone with a knowledge of genetics and biochemistry would find this quite unlikely). However, the problem of a large genome to begin with remains a problem, since it would go against current observation, and there does not seem to be any sufficient explanations to account for this.

DNA bases does not equal information. It is the arrangement,
But all DNA bases are in an arrangement. So that's a moot distinction.

But some arrangements do not code for information (other than a lack of information), so the distinction becomes very important for life.

Evidence needn't be distinctual. Something can be evidence for two competing theories.
Although I still have no idea what you mean by 'creation theory' and speciation in that context. (I haven't read most of the post leading up to the ones I responded to.)
Of course, everything imaginable is consistent with "God did it", so it lacks a certain appeal of explanation.

I was explaining by what I meant as 'evidence' in the context of that post, which is why I was distinguishing between 'evidence' and 'data'. Thus, the empirical method provides the data, and the data becomes evidence when only one of e.g. two competing theories provides a reasonable, cohesive, and consistent explanation. Of course, if you wish to use your definition of the word 'evidence', I will not dispute that. But I was making my point in the context of these definitions.

By creation theory, I mean that approach which assumes that God was responsible for the existence of the world, and seeks to examine the world with respect to the proposition that God created e.g. life through a divine act.

No, not everything imaginable is consistent with 'God did it', at least not with 'God did it with a divine act'. That is a popular criticism, but not supportable. For example, if we postulate that God created life through a divine act, and that He created the various life forms as basic types, and that those life forms formed different species within those basic types, we have an idea that is testable.

I don't include God because He helps me with my attempts to explain the world. Rather, I base my search for truth on the assumption that God exists.

Creation would equally well explain the non-emergence as emergence of a trait, as far as I understand it. So in fact the observation of it means nothing with regards to creation, whereas it does have relevance to evolution. Certainly it is consistent with both, but the opposite would only be inconsistent with evolution.
I wouldn't mind hearing about what would be falsifiable in creation theory, and if anyone has tried experiments on that.

The concept of basic types that I have been trying to explain, for example.

But if the organism is more adapted by the trait, then it's also evolution. Even so, I don't see how you can justifiably call it a 'loss of information' if a new trait is created. Whereas it may be true that you need less information to encode the genome, the usefull information in it is greater.

Indeed, if a novel organ were to be developed, it could not be considered a loss of information. If, however, it was a modification of an organ, such that we could discover the genetical explanation for the modification, we could look to see if that modification was a result of an increase of e.g. functioning genes, or a decease. Creation theory predicts that for every modification, there will not be a creation of a novel gene. Additional genes might be present (duplication, or gaining genes from other organisms) but that these genes would be due to a horizontal transfer of genetic information, not the creation of a novel gene. Thus, while there might be new traits, these traits would be described as not being from the sudden appearance of novel genes, but modifications that result in either horizontal transfers of genes, or loss of genes (or partial loss of gene fuction). Thus creation theory and evolutionary theory are not always incompatible, but creation theory explains evolution of species as one-directional, while evolution theory explains it as two-directional.

Would it be a fair characterization that creation theory would encompass all of evolutionary theory and then some?

No, not necessarily.

I disagree. Any selection is valid, regardless of which has brought intelligence to the point it is.
If IQ were a valid measure of intelligence, and we set up a eugenics campaign to kill/neuter everyone with an IQ under 120, it would certainly drive up intelligence. Quite unnaturally I might add. So while it's free of natural selection, it may not be free of other kinds of selection.

Of course selection continues to occur, but not on the general population, so that the average IQ will not increase, so long as the selection pressures that brought it about are removed. I suppose though, it is possible that new selection pressures could arise, but so long as they don't result in successful reproduction, they don't last.

Not really. You are confusing side effects with the beneficial traits. Forgive the example, but being able to pee standing up is not the function of our penis, its function is so we can impregnate women, peeing standing up is a side effect.
Altruism towards non-kin is like peeing standing up, it's a side effect. Generally the people that altruism will effect are kin. And when it isn't, the effect is not detrimental. So the benefits outweigh (supposedly) the negative aspect of the side effects.
And of course there is some interaction with other effects, like sexual selection and the handicap principle (showing fitness by non-beneficiary behaviour).

Aren't you forgetting one obvious difference? Helping refugee Jews was likely to get you shot (if caught, and many were), whereas peeing is completely legal (in the right places, of course).

The single queen might be a parochial rather than a universal. In fact, some species of bee do have multiple queens (they also enslave another bee hive rather than forming their own, given the chance).
As for organization, that's simple enough to explain. A more organized hive has a better chance of survival than a chaotic one. Evolution works on many levels, in fact you can look at a hive as a single organism. And some even look at earth as a single organism (Gaia theory).
That leaves why solitary bee ancestors started to form hives in the first place. There's strength in number of course. Possibly families of bees turned up that kept living together and things grew from there. Division of labour comes as a natural improvement of a society, as does more advanced communication. And also a lot of complicated behaviour simply emerges when lots of simple behaviours interact.
If you're looking for a gene by gene adaptation though, I'm afraid I must disappoint you. I don't know that much about bees

It isn't that hard to cover an observation with an explanation, but it's when these explanations can not be tested that is the problem. Exactly your criticism of creation theory. But here you are falling into the same trap--throwing explanations around that might be all very fine, theoretically, but are not useful at the level of methodological experiments. I suppose, though, most people don't want explanations at that depth. They just want to believe whatever fits in with their world view, and so long as they can come up with some sort of basic explanation.... But they should criticise others who do the same thing, but are merely on the other side of the debate.
What I am proposing is that we look a bit deeper into the details of both creation and evolution theory, and just see how they do match up.

Bruarong

31-05-2006, 22:57

That makes no sense, especially within the context of the scientific method. A given piece of evidence may equally support more than one theory.

It depends on what you define as 'evidence', which is why I was explaining what I meant by 'evidence' and 'data'.

It is only when one theory has garnered much more evidence than any other that it becomes the leading theory. As of right now, there is no scientific theory that rivals evolutionary theory. There are some religious ideas that people have, but they are, by definition, outside of science.

It also depends on your definition of 'scientific theory'. Since you think that creation theory is not scientific, you consider that it isn't a scientific alternative to evolutionary theory. I don't agree with your definition, since I consider that the discovery of the material world is possible without your definitions.

Actually, with most enzymes, you can. The reason for this is the extreme amount of redundancy in most of our processes.

Perhaps he/she meant it in the context of a single pathway, so that when an important step in that particular pathway is lacking, that particular pathway is abolished. The fact that modern complex life often contains redundant pathways does not mean that the mutation of enzymes does not knock out pathways, but that it does not necessarily result in death, or even have an observable effect, since there is often another pathway that can 'mask' the deleterious effect of the mutation.

The idea of irreducible complexity is an illogical leap. You have to assume that the process has always and will always be the same. You cannot look at a process or construct *now*, and say, "Look here, if I remove this little piece, it stops working. Guess that means it is irreducibly complex." To do so is to ignore the fact that those pieces may have done something entirely different in a different system - and that the system itself could now be optimized.

I don't think the concept of irreducible complexity is necessarily an illogical leap. I think it does need some more development before we can say whether it is useful, perhaps. It is possible that we can understand life processes well enough not to have to make assumptions about what is or isn't possible. It isn't necessarily a matter of such silly simplicity that you are painting it. Rather, it could be based on what we know about the limitations of life, and the requirements of complex organs (as opposed to what we don't know). Thus, it doesn't have to be based on ignorance, but scientific knowledge, what we know about life. As we discover more about the natural world, the potential for defining irreducible complexity becomes greater.

The point is that the amount of complexity we now see in life is not necessary for life to continue. All of those redundant pathways make life more robust (and often more fragile, at the same time), but they are not all necessary.

I think you misunderstood my original point. If you took away the control of cell replication, for example, the cell would no longer be able to replicate. In your given examples of cancerous cells, the control of cell replication is simply altered, not removed, so that cell replication is not repressed (as much as is normal). A lack of control over cell replication would mean that the information that codes for cell replication would be useless, resulting in the lack of cell replication.

No, it really wouldn't. I've seen all sorts of knockout models. The ones that are embryonic lethal or are lethal early in life are very rare when compared to those that seem to cause no measurable difference, only cause a difference in stressed states, or cause a disease state that is not immediately lethal.

Yeah, ok, but perhaps that is because of the redundant pathways. Not comparable to the theoretical primitive life.

Some of them are removed by the mutations - processes that were working no longer do anything.

The control of cell proliferation consists of many processes, many of them redundant. Remove one of them, and the control of cell proliferation is altered. Remove all of them, and I suggest cell proliferation is impossible.

....which is irrelevant to the original point made - which was that RNA is naturally less stable than DNA, even in the absence of enzymes.

I don't think I ever disputed that. Or if I did, then I now acknowledge that I agree with this point.

That is what this thread is about, is it not? And you started out in this thread by making the statement that evolutionary theory would be "against the predictions of the SLT2." Go back and look at your own first couple of posts.

The topic referred to evolutionary theory.

In your second post - the first where you addressed the original question, you made the following statement:

given that life is such a powerhouse of energy, is it reasonable to suggest that this sort of energy could have become so concentrated and potent AGAINST the predictions of the SLT2?

I suppose this might be referring to abiogenesis, rather than evolutionary theory and the complexity that might have been derived through evolutionary processes, but one way or another it clearly states that the processes are "against the predictions of the SLT2."

And you took that to mean that I was saying that the SLT is about how the processes of abiogenesis is unlikely, despite my clarifying my statement by saying that the SLT actually contains no mention of abiogenesis, but that it is reasonable for someone to predict that abiogenesis is unlikely, based on what we know about the SLT.

One implication of the SLT is that everything tends towards disorder. We all know that it doesn't mean that everything will go towards disorder, only that there is this tendency, in the absence of opposing forces. So I was pointing out that based on what we know about the SLT and the other forces of nature, and the nature of life as we know it, it is reasonable to predict that abiogenesis is unlikely. Of course, our knowledge is not perfect, and so we don't know if abiogenesis is impossible (or possible). But based on what we do know, I would say that is looks like it might be impossible.

Futhermore, I suggest that if you hold abiogenesis to be possible (without science being currently able to tell us if it is possible), you are allowing a postulation, which is hardly 'scientific' of you.

But each of those postulations, concepts, experiments, etc. must be within science to be considered part of science.

No, they need not be within science, but they must respect the limitations of science. (Although it does depend on what you mean by 'within science'.)

I never said any such thing. I simply pointed out that you cannot use SCIENCE without focussing on the material world, because the material world is the only area in which science can be used.

This point was never under debate.
You, however, are clearly arguing that a consideration of God as part of an explanation for the material world is unscientific because 1) science can only focus on the material world and 2) cannot allow any more than one assumption. I am saying that the search for truth in the material world is not exclusive of the assumption that God may have created. And I have evidence to support my position. Do you?

And I am saying that your second point looks wrong.

All of science allows for the supernatural to either exist or not exist.

That isn't the point. It is the concept that God may have interacted with the world that is the point under consideration, and whether that should be allowed as an assumption.

However, to remain within science, an experiment/explanation/etc. must work equally well in the presence or absence of the supernatural. Anything else is assuming one of those positions - both unscientific assumptions.

And I am arguing that allowing for a supernatural act in an explanation does not mean that a supernatural act is assumed, nor that an exploration which allows for divine acts is any way dimished because of that allowance, nor that it inhibits the search for truth. It simply does not fit your definition of science. But I am wondering what the benefits of your definition of science really is, and how accurate it is.

Doing so injects the supernatural into science - something you have already admitted is not permissable.

I have never admitted to your definition of 'injecting God into science'. I see a clear difference between allowing a divine act in an explanation, and thinking that science is capable of investigating a divine act.

If you know that God is untestable and unfalsifiable, then the existence or nonexistence of God cannot be an assumption upon which your science is based.

Why not?

It has nothing to do with what I want. The methods of science are, by definition, limited in this manner. You have admitted as much in this thread.

The point is that we differ over our definitions of science, and so long as our definitions differ, it is pointless, even false, to accuse me of admitting to something to which I obviously disagree, and have so from the beginning of our debate.

That assumption is the assumption upon which the entire method is based. Extra assumptions made within a given application of the scientific method must be testable and falsifiable.

Haven't I just explained to you that the concept that every effect has a cause is something that science assumes and yet cannot falsify? If we could show that a particular effect had no cause, we might be looking at true randomness, something that we don't know exists, and don't even know if we could detect it if it did.

Your statement is like saying, "We assume in mathematics that the axioms upon which mathematics is based are true. Thus, it would be perfectly acceptable to assume that x always equals y.

The first statement is fair enough. The second is silly.

Do you know all of the laws of nature? If you do not (and you do not), then this definition is useless. You would never know if a given event could not be described by the laws of nature.

But if our conclusion was based on what we *do* know of the laws of nature, then our conclusion could be scientific. One need not be afraid of making a conclusion simply because we lack knowledge. But we should remember that our knowledge is not perfect, thus our conclusions are not final.

You are once again confusing personal belief with scientific assumptions. Your personal beliefs are irrelevant (or at least should be) to the way you conduct science.

Personal beliefs will never be totally irrelevant. One usually doesn't look for aliens (e.g. SETI) if one believes that they don't exist.

You are clearly contradicting yourself, time and time again. If you cannot describe your position without contradictions, then perhaps you need to reexamine your position.

And I'm an trying to explain why I am not contradicting myself, but it seems that you don't want to hear that part. You are just happy to assume that I must have been contradicting myself (or even lying), despite my showing that you have misunderstood my posts.

But, within science, said events cannot be attributed to God, as doing so involves making the scientific assumption that God exists. Because science cannot investigate the existence or nonexistence of God, the scientific method must operate independent of either choice.

It does not follow that we cannot assume God exists simply because we cannot investigate Him. You are arguing this, perhaps, because you think that science allows for only one assumption. I think you are plain wrong about this.

So you don't think that explaining a process by saying, "God did it," is an injection of God into science? You don't think that basing an entire scientific theory in the assumption that God exists is an injection of God into science?

Pray tell, what exactly would have to be done to inject God into science, then?

What I have initially understood by your phrase 'injection of God into science' is the concept that science is forced to consider the possibility of measuring God. I don't think God can be measured by science, or even detected by science (science is far too small and limited).

Science is capable of searching for truth in the material world. It simply does so outside of the question of whether or not the supernatural exists.

I don't think it has to.

Meanwhile, evolutionary theory is not above question - and no one has suggested that it is. Every scientific theory is open to question.

So is my idea of creation theory open to question.

All science allows for God - by not addressing the question at all. Science, performed correctly, works just as well regardless of whether or not the supernatural exists. One cannot assume that God exists or that God does not exist within science.

If one rejects the idea that God may have created life by a divine act, instead of through abiogenesis, then one has assumed that God did not create life through a divine act. There is an assumption right there. If someone proposed the idea of a divine act, in order to be scientific (by your definition), you would not be able to either reject it or accept it, in your scientific opinion (what you might think personally is a different matter).

But say that someone asked you on the basis of your being a scientist what your professional opinion is regarding a divine act, you would not be able to say either way.

If modification is necessary, then the theory as it stands has been disproven.

A hypothesis within the theory would have been disproven, but the theory itself cannot be disproven when it does not allow alternatives.

If a theory cannot be modified to fit contradictory data, then it has been disproven. This is exactly how science progresses.

I think you are confused between a hypothesis and a theory.

Shrinking genomes would still be evidence of the evolutionary process continuing. Evolutionary theory does not equate to "growing genomes". It simply describes the processes by which life changes over time.

The processes of evolution (e.g. natural selection) that we observe are not under dispute here, but the implications of those processes are. And if we observe that genomes are not growing now, the implications are that genomes may have never been growing (since a reasonable alternative explanation is lacking). Thus, a theory which depends on genome growth is looking weak, compared to a theory which predicts genome shrinkage.

You do realize that, on the time scale of evolutionary theory, we have been watching genomes for an incredibly short period of time, right? To say that we would necessarily have already found something that you personally think is necessary is no different from those who claim that evolutionary theory is disproven by the fact that we haven't found a fossil for every form of every species that has ever existed.

I think this case is quite different, for in the case of the fossils, no one expects that we should have found a fossil for every possible life form, so it doesn't disturb evolutionary theory that much (although that is another story, and it also 'rocks the boat'.) However, it is reasonable to expect that not every genome should show a lack of growth.

Any scientific theory may be incorrect. This is why we continue to test and question them.

There is plenty of evidence that some hypotheses within evolutionary theory are questioned, but I find that there are several basic ones that are not, for example, the concept that all of modern life is decended from a primitive ancestor (or several primitive ancestors) is rarely questioned, and those who do are generally not listened to by the general scientific community. Until this changes, this concept will never undergo modification. Indeed, it isn't even tested (as far as I know), and I'm not sure how it could be tested, which makes me wonder if it is yet another assumption upon which much of modern 'scientific progress' rests.

Jocabia

31-05-2006, 23:41

*snip*

*ignores all the evidence that proves you wrong* What a well-informed post. I have never heard anyone question ancestry. Nope. It's not one of the most prevelent debates in evolution. Nope. No questioning at all. Carry on with your regularly scheduled program. *re-engages brain*

Science is a discipline that has a definition. It is not based on an assumption about the world that is unfalsified. It's based on a definition of itself that we all agreed upon when exploring science. Other disciplines can be similar and include similar practices but the practice of science has a definition that requires a falsifiable hypothesis. You can claim all day that you want to call a tree, a computer, but it still won't make it one in the English language. In the 'language' of science a falsifiable hypothesis is required. Without it, it's not science.

And at least we stopped being deceptive. You've stopped pretending like you're a scientist and believe that God cannot be addressed by science. I'm glad the masks off, because the contradictions were tiring.

By the way, a theory and a hypothesis are intrinsically related. One cannot disprove a hypothesis without debunking the theory based on it. To state otherwise is to misunderstand the very basics of science. You ready to admit you're not a scientist yet or do we have to continue to hear that lie as well? You've stopped lying about believing science can't address God, why not go all the way and be completely honest?

Bruarong

01-06-2006, 08:38

I have never heard anyone question ancestry. Nope. It's not one of the most prevelent debates in evolution.

I wasn't merely talking about ancestry, but the concept that all of life is related through ancestry. To argue about ancestry can be quite a different point than arguing about whether all of life is related through ancestry.

Science is a discipline that has a definition. It is not based on an assumption about the world that is unfalsified. It's based on a definition of itself that we all agreed upon when exploring science. Other disciplines can be similar and include similar practices but the practice of science has a definition that requires a falsifiable hypothesis. You can claim all day that you want to call a tree, a computer, but it still won't make it one in the English language. In the 'language' of science a falsifiable hypothesis is required. Without it, it's not science.

Who has the right to define science? Scientists? Or just one particular group of scientists?

And since I have pointed out that modern science has plenty of concepts that currently cannot be falsified, on what basis do you claim that these unfalsifiable concepts are worse that yours?

And at least we stopped being deceptive. You've stopped pretending like you're a scientist and believe that God cannot be addressed by science. I'm glad the masks off, because the contradictions were tiring.

It depends on what you mean by 'God cannot be addressed by science'. If anything, I have learned to be very careful about agreeing with your posts without completely understanding your definition of terms. I suspect that this is where the confusion is coming from, rather than any attempts at pretense.

By the way, a theory and a hypothesis are intrinsically related. One cannot disprove a hypothesis without debunking the theory based on it. To state otherwise is to misunderstand the very basics of science

That is absolutely not true. The hypothesis that modern man arose (evolved) independently in several locations around the globe has been debunked, while the theory that modern man evolved has not been debunked.

You ready to admit you're not a scientist yet or do we have to continue to hear that lie as well? You've stopped lying about believing science can't address God, why not go all the way and be completely honest?

I have been honest all along. My mistake has been to be too quick to agree with a post without first agreeing with the definition of terms. Your mistake has been to assume that I have deliberately contradicted myself, in order to win a debate. I have already claimed that I am not interested in a win. You can have that, if you wish.

The Alma Mater

01-06-2006, 08:47

Who has the right to define science? Scientists? Or just one particular group of scientists?

In principle every scientist. However, the definition needs to be internally consistent, self correcting and to work.

If you can define science in such a way while including the supernatural - go ahead. Noone has managed it sofar.

Jocabia

01-06-2006, 09:01

I wasn't merely talking about ancestry, but the concept that all of life is related through ancestry. To argue about ancestry can be quite a different point than arguing about whether all of life is related through ancestry.

Both of those points are debated without end. They are very much challenged. They simply haven't fallen to any of those challenges yet. You once again declare that if you haven't bother to find out about it, it doesn't exist.

Who has the right to define science? Scientists? Or just one particular group of scientists?

It's a discipline. It's a slow process of definition that originally occurred but in the case of such an important discipline it's necessary for members of the group to keep it from evolving to something nonsensical. Your brand of science has no use, but the argument "fairies did it' has as much evidence. Seriously, I don't believe you're not trolling at this point.

And since I have pointed out that modern science has plenty of concepts that currently cannot be falsified, on what basis do you claim that these unfalsifiable concepts are worse that yours?

Yes, so you keep saying, but you've not presented a SINGLE ONE.

It depends on what you mean by 'God cannot be addressed by science'. If anything, I have learned to be very careful about agreeing with your posts without completely understanding your definition of terms. I suspect that this is where the confusion is coming from, rather than any attempts at pretense.

You, my friend, are simply lying. I'm saying it plainly. You are lying. It depends on what YOU mean. You said it. I'm quite sure you know what YOU meant. And now you claim that science can. Quit pretending like you misunderstood us. If you didn't know what YOU meant, then I don't know what to say. I've shown what you said. You've completely reversed direction. You were very much acting like we were crazy when suggesting that you said science could address the supernatural. Now you're blatantly saying that you were claiming that science can address the supernatural all along.

That is absolutely not true. The hypothesis that modern man arose (evolved) independently in several locations around the globe has been debunked, while the theory that modern man evolved has not been debunked.

Ha. You don't get it. The hypothesis you listed was a drawn from the theory to make a new testable theory. It was not the basis OF the theory. However, before a theory developes one must first start with a hypothesis. If at any point that hypothesis is found to be flawed then the theory and the hypothesis evolve or BOTH are scrapped. They are intrinsically related. If an evolved theory can be considered the same theory than so can an evolved hypothesis.

You fail to grasp what is germaine to a theory and was is another hypothesis drawn from the theory.

I have been honest all along. My mistake has been to be too quick to agree with a post without first agreeing with the definition of terms. Your mistake has been to assume that I have deliberately contradicted myself, in order to win a debate. I have already claimed that I am not interested in a win. You can have that, if you wish.
You didn't just agree. You repeatedly stated it in your own words. Does this game actually work? In what broken world, do people lose their minds and forget that you expressly said, upon numerous challenges, that you were NEVER claiming that science could address the supernatural and now you act is if you never said otherwise. If you think that's not a contradiction, then I suspect you have a made-up definition for that word too.

Damor

01-06-2006, 11:40

Aren't you forgetting one obvious difference? Helping refugee Jews was likely to get you shot (if caught, and many were), whereas peeing is completely legal (in the right places, of course).Yes, but that was just for one decade in millions of years of human evolution. A large setback for the persons killed, certainly, but a very minor setback for the species.
In the larger scheme of things altruism benefits the species, and specifically kin (which likely share the trait for it). It may not always be to the advantage of the individual, but evolution doesn't work on the level of the individual. There's plenty of organisms that would do much better individually if foregoing reproduction, as it tends to get them killed. Of course, if they don't reproduce, then that's not a trait successive generation will inherit (unless it benefits their kin and it's a recessive trait).

Bruarong

01-06-2006, 12:57

Yes, but that was just for one decade in millions of years of human evolution. A large setback for the persons killed, certainly, but a very minor setback for the species.
In the larger scheme of things altruism benefits the species, and specifically kin (which likely share the trait for it). It may not always be to the advantage of the individual, but evolution doesn't work on the level of the individual. There's plenty of organisms that would do much better individually if foregoing reproduction, as it tends to get them killed. Of course, if they don't reproduce, then that's not a trait successive generation will inherit (unless it benefits their kin and it's a recessive trait).

So if I am to understand your point right, you are saying that altruism developed out of natural selection, that it is a product of natural selection? And that since altruism benefits the fitness of a species, we should not be surprised to see it all throughout the species.

But what is altruism? Or which definition are we discussing here? A dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=altruism gives us two definitions.
1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
2. Zoology. Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.

The second one is not the same as the first one, since the zoology altruism is a means to an end, and that end is the survival of the species. The first definition, however, does not necessarily result in the survival of the species, and in some cases, is even detrimental to the chances of survival. It may have a goal (e.g. the command to love one another), but it is not necessarily linked to survival, as I pointed out with my example of the folks who helped the Jewish refugees.

So, the question is whether zoology altruism can explain the presence of selflessness in humans. Humans are capable of both forms of altruism, but are animals capable of selflessness (i.e. the first definition). What say you?

Bruarong

01-06-2006, 13:42

Both of those points are debated without end. They are very much challenged. They simply haven't fallen to any of those challenges yet. You once again declare that if you haven't bother to find out about it, it doesn't exist.

Would you like to provide some evidence for the supposed challenges to the concept that all of modern life is genetically related to either a single ancestor or a very few similar primitive ancestors?

It's a discipline. It's a slow process of definition that originally occurred but in the case of such an important discipline it's necessary for members of the group to keep it from evolving to something nonsensical. Your brand of science has no use, but the argument "fairies did it' has as much evidence. Seriously, I don't believe you're not trolling at this point.

Who decides what is nonsensical?

Yes, so you keep saying, but you've not presented a SINGLE ONE.

I have claimed that the basic concept within evolutionary theory that all of modern life is genetically related forms an unchallenged assumption (mostly unchallenged, anyway).

And then there is always the concept that every effect has a cause. I don't think anyone challenges this, but we don't have any way to prove it. While there is plenty of evidence to support it, it has not yet been proven, and we don't even know if it can be falsified.

And then there is the concept that natural causes are adequate to explain things like the presence and complexity of life. I don't see that one being falsified anytime soon.

These are all concepts within modern science that are not currently testable, and we don't know if they ever will.

You, my friend, are simply lying. I'm saying it plainly. You are lying. It depends on what YOU mean. You said it. I'm quite sure you know what YOU meant. And now you claim that science can. Quit pretending like you misunderstood us. If you didn't know what YOU meant, then I don't know what to say. I've shown what you said. You've completely reversed direction. You were very much acting like we were crazy when suggesting that you said science could address the supernatural. Now you're blatantly saying that you were claiming that science can address the supernatural all along.

I am not lying. I am not pretending. And you do not have conclusive evidence for that, since you cannot show anywhere where I have been lying or pretending. But I have learnt that I must know what you mean by your terms before I agree with them. And I suggest that you learn the definition of my terms before you accuse me of lying.

For example, what do you mean by the use of the word 'address' and the word 'science'? If can define them for me, I can tell you once and for all whether I think that science can address God.

Ha. You don't get it. The hypothesis you listed was a drawn from the theory to make a new testable theory. It was not the basis OF the theory. However, before a theory developes one must first start with a hypothesis. If at any point that hypothesis is found to be flawed then the theory and the hypothesis evolve or BOTH are scrapped. They are intrinsically related. If an evolved theory can be considered the same theory than so can an evolved hypothesis.

You fail to grasp what is germaine to a theory and was is another hypothesis drawn from the theory.

You sound a little confused here, or at least your points are confusing me, for I don't understand what your point is, nor why I have failed to grasp the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. I simply said that the hypothesis that modern humans emerged from primitive ape-like creatures at several independent locations around the globe has been rejected. This hypothesis was based on the theory of evolution, but the rejection of the hypothesis did not lead to the rejection of the theory, but rather, a modification of the theory.

Perhaps you could have another go at explaining what I got wrong, and why.

You didn't just agree. You repeatedly stated it in your own words. Does this game actually work? In what broken world, do people lose their minds and forget that you expressly said, upon numerous challenges, that you were NEVER claiming that science could address the supernatural and now you act is if you never said otherwise. If you think that's not a contradiction, then I suspect you have a made-up definition for that word too.

If you mean by 'science' the empirical method, and if you mean by 'address' the ability to investigate, then I agree that science cannot investigate God. However, if you mean by 'science' the search for truth in a material world, and by 'address' the ability to refer to God, then I stand by my claim that I have always had the position that science can address God.

If there has been a shift in my position, it would be over the choice of terms that I have been using, and because I realized that you and Dem had different definitions of the terms than I.

Grave_n_idle

01-06-2006, 15:40

So if I am to understand your point right, you are saying that altruism developed out of natural selection, that it is a product of natural selection? And that since altruism benefits the fitness of a species, we should not be surprised to see it all throughout the species.

But what is altruism? Or which definition are we discussing here? A dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=altruism gives us two definitions.
1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
2. Zoology. Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.

The second one is not the same as the first one, since the zoology altruism is a means to an end, and that end is the survival of the species. The first definition, however, does not necessarily result in the survival of the species, and in some cases, is even detrimental to the chances of survival. It may have a goal (e.g. the command to love one another), but it is not necessarily linked to survival, as I pointed out with my example of the folks who helped the Jewish refugees.

So, the question is whether zoology altruism can explain the presence of selflessness in humans. Humans are capable of both forms of altruism, but are animals capable of selflessness (i.e. the first definition). What say you?

I think you are seeing conflict where none exists.... sure, altuism doesn't HAVE TO specifically aid the survival of the species in EVERY instance... but it not hard to imagine that a tendency TOWARDS altruism might very well be a valuable species-survival mechanism.

Damor

01-06-2006, 16:57

But what is altruism? Or which definition are we discussing here? A dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=altruism gives us two definitions.
1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
2. Zoology. Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.I'd say the 1st definition is an instance of the second, a more evolved version if you will.

The second one is not the same as the first one, since the zoology altruism is a means to an end, and that end is the survival of the species.It's a means to the species though, not the individuals. I hardly think bees think about how their serving the hive continues their species. They just do what they do, and it 'happens' to work out. (Of course, it 'happens' to work out, because the behaviours that didn't died out ages ago)

The first definition, however, does not necessarily result in the survival of the species, and in some cases, is even detrimental to the chances of survival. It may have a goal (e.g. the command to love one another), but it is not necessarily linked to survival, as I pointed out with my example of the folks who helped the Jewish refugees.As grave_n_idle suggested, you shouldn't look at specific instances. The tendency towards altruism (of both kinds) increases the tendancy to survival. Even if some days it does the opposite, it is compensated sufficiently the rest of the time (or in any case, it seems plausable to me that's the case)

Humans are capable of both forms of altruism, but are animals capable of selflessness (i.e. the first definition). What say you?Well, a mother animal might fight to the death protecting her children rather than fleeing, even if she has the opportunity. But whther that comes from selfless concern for her children, or something else, is hard to say. You can certainly interpret it as concern, but likewise you can assume she's just programmed to behave that way.
And then you have animals raising offspring from other species occasionally. wolves raising orphaned children (which has been documented a few times if I recall), dogs adopting kittens, cats adopting puppies. So even cross-species altruism occurs in nature (which again, I'd put down to a side effect of the beneficial intraspecies altruism).

Jocabia

01-06-2006, 17:03

Would you like to provide some evidence for the supposed challenges to the concept that all of modern life is genetically related to either a single ancestor or a very few similar primitive ancestors?

Ha. Are you honestly claiming that no on is disputing common ancestry? Really? If it's a flawed theory, as you say it is, and based on assumption, as you say it is, then why would be just let it sit? Did scientists suddenly become a mass of lazy, unambitious individuals who would hate to become famous for disproving one of the most controversial theories in history wrong? Did Creationists fall of the planet, because they've been disputing common ancestry for some time? Or do you only count it if the contest of the issue is successful? No, I won't find a paper that successfully debunks the theory. Know why? Because if it existed common ancestry would no longer be an accepted theory.

Who decides what is nonsensical?

In this case, the people in this thread. In science's case, scientists and engineers who would watch as science became a pointless mechanism for discovery because 'alternative' theories would pop up everywhere. Quick question - how is your Creation any more supported or likely than a theory that we were sneezed out of the nose of a giant alien?

I have claimed that the basic concept within evolutionary theory that all of modern life is genetically related forms an unchallenged assumption (mostly unchallenged, anyway).

Really? You're a scientist, and you're challenging it. If you have a valid challenge then I'd be happy to help you get published. But you're either going to have to show the flaw or show a better alternative that fits the theory. Science isn't truth. We find best fit theories for the evidence we have. Show you've got a better fit and I'll make you famous.

And then there is always the concept that every effect has a cause. I don't think anyone challenges this, but we don't have any way to prove it. While there is plenty of evidence to support it, it has not yet been proven, and we don't even know if it can be falsified.

That's because it's another basic tenet. It's not a theory of science. It's the philosophical basis for the scientific method. It's the means by which we analyze the world. It actually doesn't even fully espouse that theory, to be factual, it simply is unable to look at something that has no cause. Something you admitted earlier, but now you appear to doing what you usually do and TOTALLY contradicting yourself.

And then there is the concept that natural causes are adequate to explain things like the presence and complexity of life. I don't see that one being falsified anytime soon.

Ha. Show me a scientific principle that says such a thing. One. Science makes no such claim and you've openly admitted as much. You read that into the theory. Again, scientific theories are just best fits. They do not rule out supernatural causes. They simply CANNOT address them.

These are all concepts within modern science that are not currently testable, and we don't know if they ever will.

Ha. Two of those are part of the definition of the discipline. It's like calling for a test that a pair of apples and two apples are the same thing. It's necessarily true because we defined it that way to make it useful. If you have a better design for science that's useful, I'm quite certain that people will love to hear it. Keep in mind though when you open your knew pseudo-science up to the supernatural and things with no evidence that are unfalsifiable all theories become equal and the theory from the Matrix movie that we are all hooked up to machines and looking at virtual reality because the leading theory. Astrology and palmreading become pseudosciences right along Creation. Astrology may be real as may be palmreading, but science does not address them.

I am not lying. I am not pretending. And you do not have conclusive evidence for that, since you cannot show anywhere where I have been lying or pretending. But I have learnt that I must know what you mean by your terms before I agree with them. And I suggest that you learn the definition of my terms before you accuse me of lying.

Yes, yes, I do. You have said things you cannot possibly claim were a misunderstanding. Here.

I do address the fact that I cannot explore God with science. The very thought is preposterous. And no, it is not naturalist to recognise the limitations of science.

Maybe I misunderstood the word "preposterous". Ha.

Dem was saying that a scientific theory cannot include the supernatural, at least that is what I think she was saying. I agree that science does not test for the supernatural, cannot measure it, cannot falsify it, and thus should not include the supernatural within the theory. However, as has been my position all along, that does not mean that we cannot allow the idea that God created. (In my work, for example, it doesn't really matter whether bacteria evolved or created, so neither idea impacts my work.) Just as the naturalistic concept of everything being explainable by natural forces should not be a part of scientific theory, since it cannot be tested or falsified, so also should we avoid including the supernatural in theories that we hope to test.

You're right. We shouldn't include anything about ONLY natural forces in theories or science. Fortunately, we don't. What we do include is that only things which are falsifiable and follow the scientific method may be included. This precludes supernatural forces from being addressed by science (as you, yourself, stated, calling the idea preposterous) but it says nothing about whether they exist in the world or are responsible for things. They simply are left out of theories.

"Naturalism" as you define it, has nothing whatsoever to do with science. The vast majority of scientists are religious people who believe in a Creator. They just recognize what you often fail to - that the methods of science are only valid within nature. Nothing about any scientific theory precludes the involvement of God. It simply cannot and will not assume it.

So you think I fail to see that the methods of science are limited to nature? I don't think you have understood my position very much. Which is fine. You don't have to. But what both debating with me if you aren't going to at least try to understand me, sister? I don't think my position is really that hard to understand.

And incidentally, I have always said that science does not rule out God. Just goes to show that you are just saying your little piece irrespective of what I have been saying.

Let's see. Science doesn't rule out God, according you, me AND Dem, so out the window goes your little Creationist lie about science's assumptions of only natural causes. It does allow for God, which is what you said you ask of it. Glad that settled and we won't hear the opposite claim come out of your mouth. /wishful thinking

Out of your mouth, we see you explicitly saying that science is limited to nature and that you recognize those limits as necessary.

For example, what do you mean by the use of the word 'address' and the word 'science'? If can define them for me, I can tell you once and for all whether I think that science can address God.

What did you mean? We're talking about what YOU said. Quit actiing like you didn't understand what I meant. I'm quoting you throughout this thread contradicting what YOU said. Does this really ever work? Seriously?

You sound a little confused here, or at least your points are confusing me, for I don't understand what your point is, nor why I have failed to grasp the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. I simply said that the hypothesis that modern humans emerged from primitive ape-like creatures at several independent locations around the globe has been rejected. This hypothesis was based on the theory of evolution, but the rejection of the hypothesis did not lead to the rejection of the theory, but rather, a modification of the theory.

I'm not confused. From one theory might come lots of further hypotheses that create other theories when enough evidence is found. They are related, but the hypotheses that spark those theories are seperate even when derived from the original theory. She was talking about the root hypothesis of a theory and you are talking about the fruit of the theory. It would be like you saying that destroying the foundation of the house next door without destroying my house proves that destroying the foundation of a house doesn't destroy the house. The root hypothesis is the initial assumption of the theory and it is what someone tests. If it fails, the theory fails. Hypothesis is used a couple of ways in science and you are using the fallacy of equivocation to argue with Dem. It's called a fallacy for a reason.

Perhaps you could have another go at explaining what I got wrong, and why.

Well, first you started arguing with me, Dem and GnI. Then you got caught contradicting yourself badly and consistantly. Then you claimed we evolved from apes among a LOT of other creationist lies right out of the Creationist Handbook for Rejecting Science (tm). Oh, wait, is that what you were asking. I fear I was a little general on that one.

If you mean by 'science' the empirical method, and if you mean by 'address' the ability to investigate, then I agree that science cannot investigate God. However, if you mean by 'science' the search for truth in a material world, and by 'address' the ability to refer to God, then I stand by my claim that I have always had the position that science can address God.

And if you mean by 'can', it's possible. You're just being silly. Yes, it's possible. It's just no longer science. God is not falsifiable which is requirement in the basic definition of science. In fact, I believe in your own words you called it a preposterous idea. You are committing the fallacy of equivocation. We're not falling for it.

If there has been a shift in my position, it would be over the choice of terms that I have been using, and because I realized that you and Dem had different definitions of the terms than I.
You realized we were not talking about the ability to investigate? Ridiculous. We are and always have been talking about it. You changed from using the terms as we use them to using them differently, according to you. It's equivocation and it's a fallacy. You know you're equivocating. We know you're equivocating. I again say you're lying when you make the claim that you didn't know what YOU meant when you said what you said earlier and that you are lying when you say you have always clearly been saying the same thing.

I've seen you accuse Dem twice of not understanding you. Once for not noticing that you consistently argue that the idea of science dealing with other than nature is 'preposterous' and another time for not noticing that you consistently argue that God belongs in science. I'll tell you this. There isn't anything consistent about your arguments other than your inconsistencies.

Quick question - would you say that a person saying something that s/he knows to not be true is "lying"? I don't mean a question or a scenario, but actually stating something clearly that they KNOW is not actually true.

Snow Eaters

01-06-2006, 22:19

I believe this is a PERFECT example of the 'ad hominem fallacy' in action.

Jocabia is 'mean', so his argument must be wrong...

Not so perfect since the only point that Jocabia seems to be interested in making, over and over and over is that Bruarong is lying.

The fact that Jocabia is a "mean" prick might very well explain why he spends so much time focusing on his Opponent (because it is always clear that Jocabia is destroying and shredding an opponent, he tells us) instead of attempting to understand what a poster might be trying to convey.

The almost incestuous Old Boys club in NS debate is revolting. You yourself will snipe the slightest misstep that Bruarong will take in this thread, but won't even consider pointing out the almost constant ad hominem that Jocabia engages in.

Grave_n_idle

01-06-2006, 22:34

Not so perfect since the only point that Jocabia seems to be interested in making, over and over and over is that Bruarong is lying.

The fact that Jocabia is a "mean" prick might very well explain why he spends so much time focusing on his Opponent (because it is always clear that Jocabia is destroying and shredding an opponent, he tells us) instead of attempting to understand what a poster might be trying to convey.

The almost incestuous Old Boys club in NS debate is revolting. You yourself will snipe the slightest misstep that Bruarong will take in this thread, but won't even consider pointing out the almost constant ad hominem that Jocabia engages in.

The 'ad hominem' fallacy is NOT that one person is 'mean' to another. It is that the perceived faults in your opponent somehow affects the validity of their arguments.

Jocabia may make (what you consider) attacks on the person of Braurong, about what he perceives as dishonesty... but saying 'this is not true' or 'you have changed your argument' (especially when you can PROVE it) is not an example of an 'ad hominem' fallacy.

On the other hand - when Braurong then turns around and attempts to invalidate the arguments of Jocabia BECAUSE he thinks Jocabia is 'mean' (or whatever), that IS an example of an 'ad hominem' fallacy.

I don't mind people being mean to each other... knock yourself out. Just - don't think it is a valid method of strengthening your arguments, or of weakening the argument of another.

I like the idea of an Old Boys club, though... I wonder how it is I didn't get a memo...?

Dinaverg

01-06-2006, 22:37

Jocabia

01-06-2006, 23:06

Not so perfect since the only point that Jocabia seems to be interested in making, over and over and over is that Bruarong is lying.

The fact that Jocabia is a "mean" prick might very well explain why he spends so much time focusing on his Opponent (because it is always clear that Jocabia is destroying and shredding an opponent, he tells us) instead of attempting to understand what a poster might be trying to convey.

The almost incestuous Old Boys club in NS debate is revolting. You yourself will snipe the slightest misstep that Bruarong will take in this thread, but won't even consider pointing out the almost constant ad hominem that Jocabia engages in.

Wait, wait. You jumped into the thread to talk about me because you think talking about the poster is wrong. Fun. Nothing like my daily dose of hypocrisy.

Meanwhile, the 'slightest misstep' is our little friend claiming that addressing God in science is 'preposterous' when someone suggests that he wants to address God with science and then says that God MUST be addressed by science because it's naturalist.

What you don't realize is that this thread is so long because we initially tried to debate the very point we eventually landed on with Bruarong because we took that as his belief and he insulted people suggesting they simply didn't understand his beliefs. Now he acts as if he was arguing this point the whole time. He has repeatedly contradicted himself making it impossible to debate because as soon as you try to talk about one thing he acts like he was talking about something else.

I guess you guys should hang out. If he was presenting an argument we would address it. As it is, all he keeps doing is equivocating.

Jocabia

01-06-2006, 23:09

It would be ad hominem if he didn't also address the points Bruarong makes. Something your post lacked.

Not to mention quietly flipping your argument and then suggesting the other poster is too dense to understand is hardly the 'slightest misstep'. He's been doing exactly that to Dem for the entire thread. And I'm not addressing the poster. I'm addressing what the poster is doing.

If he wants to talk about me addressing the poster, it would be when I say I don't believe he's a scientist. I really wish if people are going to attack me they'd recognize the difference. I get tired of explaining to them what's wrong with me.

Snow Eaters

02-06-2006, 05:49

The 'ad hominem' fallacy is NOT that one person is 'mean' to another. It is that the perceived faults in your opponent somehow affects the validity of their arguments.

Do you just regurgitate definitions now without bothering to read?

If his argument is "You are a liar" then his being 'mean' does affect the validity of his argument.

I like the idea of an Old Boys club, though... I wonder how it is I didn't get a memo...?

Founding members don't typically need a dispatch to inform them.

Bruarong

02-06-2006, 10:55

In principle every scientist.

So we agree on that. We might not agree on the definition of 'scientist' though.

However, the definition needs to be internally consistent, self correcting and to work.

I agree. I have proposed a definition of science whereby the assumption that God is responsible for all of creation is included as one of the assumptions upon which I base my science. The fact that I can successfully produce results in my research suggests that my proposal 'works'.

If you can define science in such a way while including the supernatural - go ahead. Noone has managed it sofar.

On the contrary, before Darwin, much of science was done in this way.

Bruarong

02-06-2006, 14:33

Ha. Are you honestly claiming that no on is disputing common ancestry? Really? If it's a flawed theory, as you say it is, and based on assumption, as you say it is, then why would be just let it sit? Did scientists suddenly become a mass of lazy, unambitious individuals who would hate to become famous for disproving one of the most controversial theories in history wrong? Did Creationists fall of the planet, because they've been disputing common ancestry for some time? Or do you only count it if the contest of the issue is successful? No, I won't find a paper that successfully debunks the theory. Know why? Because if it existed common ancestry would no longer be an accepted theory.

Possibly the major reason why you won't find a paper that actually challenges the 'common ancestor' hypothesis is because there are none. Why does no one challenge it? Good question. I reckon it's because no one (or very few) are prepared to accept that backlash that such a challenge generally produces, and because of the common answer, 'What is the alternative?' combined with a mindset that is generally unwilling to seriously consider alternatives.

In this case, the people in this thread. In science's case, scientists and engineers who would watch as science became a pointless mechanism for discovery because 'alternative' theories would pop up everywhere. Quick question - how is your Creation any more supported or likely than a theory that we were sneezed out of the nose of a giant alien?

No offense meant, but I reckon the engineers could be left out of the process of defining science, particularly if they are not scientists.

Sneezed out of the nose of a giant alien is a possibility that science cannot directly test. However, it is possible to investigate the world to see if it fits with that proposition. We could look for evidence that is consistent from what we might find in the theoretical nose of a giant alien, or evidence that is consistent with the effects of a sneeze. In short, we would look for consistency with the concept. We also might speculate over the origin of the alien, and the cause of the sneeze. Unless we could find sufficient evidence for such a proposition, and unless it was as least as adequate at explaining natural phenomena, it would probably not be regarded as a viable alternative, since we would predict that such a proposition would not help us discover more about the material world.

My original point is that you cannot argue against my position by claiming rights to the definition of science, and then claiming that my position defies your definitions, and is therefore not capable of discovering truth about the material world. One only has to go back in history to see that much of scientific progress was NOT necessarily through your definition of science. Many scientists made great discoveries working from my position.

Really? You're a scientist, and you're challenging it. If you have a valid challenge then I'd be happy to help you get published. But you're either going to have to show the flaw or show a better alternative that fits the theory. Science isn't truth. We find best fit theories for the evidence we have. Show you've got a better fit and I'll make you famous.

Yes, I am challenging it. But not in a very conclusive way, and it was never the focus of my time here in this particular thread. I actually only named one or two examples of situations that do not necessarily fit with common ancestry, such as shrinking genomes. However, my position does not depend on the idea that evolutionary theory has it wrong. My position is simply a persuit of truth from a different perspective. Thus, my criticism of evolutionary theory is not an attempt to debunk evolutionary theory, but to show how my point of view (which I have called 'creation theory') allows a sensible investigation of the material world, and actually fits better (in some cases at least) with observed phenomena.

If I did want to provide a reasonable challenge to evolutionary theory, I suggest that you would have trouble finding a journal in which to publish, despite the details of the challenge.

That's because it's another basic tenet. It's not a theory of science. It's the philosophical basis for the scientific method. It's the means by which we analyze the world. It actually doesn't even fully espouse that theory, to be factual, it simply is unable to look at something that has no cause. Something you admitted earlier, but now you appear to doing what you usually do and TOTALLY contradicting yourself.

So do you see a difference between 'another basic tenet' and an assumption. If creation theory proposes God as *the* basic tenet, or at least a major one, it will obviously make it a different theory to the current popular one, but being different does not make it wrong.

That science is unable to measure something that has no cause is because this is outside of the limitations of science, because science is limited to observing effects. However, I am not suggesting that science observe God (who is a cause but does not need a cause). I respect that limitation. I am only suggesting that it is possible to make a postulation that God, who is responsible for the universe, may have used a divine act. If he did, the history of life on this planet may have been dramatically different from history given to us from evolutionary theory. And if there is a difference, this is theoretically observable.

Ha. Show me a scientific principle that says such a thing. One. Science makes no such claim and you've openly admitted as much. You read that into the theory. Again, scientific theories are just best fits. They do not rule out supernatural causes. They simply CANNOT address them.

I think a correct definition of science does not imply that natural causes are adequate to explain every observable effect. However, I am claiming that there are many scientists who do think this way, and are not (openly) criticised for it. Futhermore, scientists who (openly) do not believe that natural causes are sufficient are openly criticised. This is enough for me to level criticism at the atmosphere of current popular 'scientific' thinking as being unjust and hypocritical. You may not hold that natural causes are adequate, so I will reserve that criticism for those who do.

Ha. Two of those are part of the definition of the discipline. It's like calling for a test that a pair of apples and two apples are the same thing. It's necessarily true because we defined it that way to make it useful. If you have a better design for science that's useful, I'm quite certain that people will love to hear it. Keep in mind though when you open your knew pseudo-science up to the supernatural and things with no evidence that are unfalsifiable all theories become equal and the theory from the Matrix movie that we are all hooked up to machines and looking at virtual reality because the leading theory. Astrology and palmreading become pseudosciences right along Creation. Astrology may be real as may be palmreading, but science does not address them.

I have provided examples of testable hypotheses that come out of creation theory. Evidence for 'basic types' in taxonomy is one. Direction of evolution (downhill with respect to information) is another.

Yes, yes, I do. You have said things you cannot possibly claim were a misunderstanding. Here.

I do address the fact that I cannot explore God with science. The very thought is preposterous. And no, it is not naturalist to recognise the limitations of science.

This statement seems to be fine. I maintain that I cannot explore God with science, but that the effects of a divine act theoretically might be observable.

Maybe I misunderstood the word "preposterous". Ha.

Dem was saying that a scientific theory cannot include the supernatural, at least that is what I think she was saying. I agree that science does not test for the supernatural, cannot measure it, cannot falsify it, and thus should not include the supernatural within the theory. However, as has been my position all along, that does not mean that we cannot allow the idea that God created. (In my work, for example, it doesn't really matter whether bacteria evolved or created, so neither idea impacts my work.) Just as the naturalistic concept of everything being explainable by natural forces should not be a part of scientific theory, since it cannot be tested or falsified, so also should we avoid including the supernatural in theories that we hope to test.

Here is the closest you have been to showing that I have altered my position. And I can see why you may have genuinely thought that I have been. The words '....science
does not test for the supernatural, cannot measure it, cannot falsify it, and thus should not include the supernatural within the theory.' might indeed give the impression that I have at one time (at least) conceded that God cannot be allowed for in a scientific theory. However, the following statement '...that does not mean that we cannot allow the idea that God created.' goes on to show that I was not stopping at that point, but trying to find a way to allow for God in a pursuit of truth in the material world. Here, I was trying to distinguish between allowing God in a testable part of a theory, and allowing God in a non-testable part of the theory, i.e. as an assumption. I further indicated this in the last sentence '...., so also should we avoid including the supernatural in theories that we hope to test.' But I was not saying that we should not include God in theories, only in theories that we want to test.

I think this post shows that I was having trouble presenting my position clearly, back in another thread, and so I can understand the confusion that it may have caused. But it does not indicate that I have been lying or using deceit. It was so long ago that I cannot remember whether it was extra late at night or early in the morning or if I had just had a bad day at the time of posting. But I do agree that my presentation of my position in this issue has been somewhat muddled at times.

Do you have any more posts of mine like this that I can interpret for you?

You're right. We shouldn't include anything about ONLY natural forces in theories or science. Fortunately, we don't. What we do include is that only things which are falsifiable and follow the scientific method may be included.

Here you have introduced a new element. You were saying that science includes only things which are falsifiable, and now you are saying only things which are falsifiable *and* follow the scientific method. Now, you and I might agree on what we think is falsifiable, but things which 'follow the scientific method' needs to be clearly defined before I will agree to that proposition.

This precludes supernatural forces from being addressed by science (as you, yourself, stated, calling the idea preposterous) but it says nothing about whether they exist in the world or are responsible for things. They simply are left out of theories.

What I meant by 'addressed' is measured, observed, etc. If it helps to avoid the confusion, simply address my current posts, rather than going back to the old ones. Of course, I can understand your wanting to discredit me by showing how I appear to have altered my viewpoint several times, etc., but I suggest that you leave off the 'discredit your opponent' approach and simply consider my current points. Consider me a crappy poster if you like, making multiple mistakes and muddlings. I'm more interested in defending my current position than my history of postings.

But I cannot agree that I have been lying, since that would be totally dishonest of me. I have made no attempt to lie or deceive anyone in this issue.

Let's see. Science doesn't rule out God, according you, me AND Dem, so out the window goes your little Creationist lie about science's assumptions of only natural causes.

So we all agree that genuine science does not rule out God and should not assume only natural causes.

It does allow for God, which is what you said you ask of it. Glad that settled and we won't hear the opposite claim come out of your mouth. /wishful thinking

But does it allow for a divine act of God in the history of life?

Out of your mouth, we see you explicitly saying that science is limited to nature and that you recognize those limits as necessary.

I say that science is limited to an investigation of the natural world, and yes, those limits are necessary. However, allowing for a divine act and investigation a divine act are not the same thing. My approach would be to investigate the natural world to see if it can be interpreted consistently with a possible divine act, and to see if this approach yields successful discoveries of the natural world.

What did you mean? We're talking about what YOU said. Quit actiing like you didn't understand what I meant. I'm quoting you throughout this thread contradicting what YOU said. Does this really ever work? Seriously?

OK, then if we are talking about what I said, why don't you accept it when I try to explain to you the definition of the terms that I used?

I'm not confused. From one theory might come lots of further hypotheses that create other theories when enough evidence is found. They are related, but the hypotheses that spark those theories are seperate even when derived from the original theory.

I think that was also my point.

She was talking about the root hypothesis of a theory and you are talking about the fruit of the theory. It would be like you saying that destroying the foundation of the house next door without destroying my house proves that destroying the foundation of a house doesn't destroy the house. The root hypothesis is the initial assumption of the theory and it is what someone tests. If it fails, the theory fails. Hypothesis is used a couple of ways in science and you are using the fallacy of equivocation to argue with Dem. It's called a fallacy for a reason.

But we have already said that we cannot test the root hypotheses (initial hypotheses) in evolutionary theory. They are untestable (currently). Thus, if she were to say that if they were proven false, then the whole theory would collapse, I would agree with her. (But that is not an option so long as they cannot be falsified.) And if that was what she meant by the words ''If a theory cannot be modified to fit contradictory data, then it has been disproven. This is exactly how science progresses.'', then she did not specify this very clearly, and perhaps I could be forgiven for thinking that she was implying that every time evolutionary theory fails to explain everything, it should be considered disproven. I thank you for your interpretation of her post. Without it, I would have not understood her point.

But in order to show how I might have misunderstood her, consider my post to which she was responding, ''Where the theory could not be modified, then you would have a hole in the theory, not necessarily a disproven theory.'' The reason why I said this was, for example, if shrinking genomes could not be explained by current evolutionary theory, that this would not mean that scientists should consider the theory disproven, only that they are in need of explaining a phenomenon in the natural world which their theory does not expect--i.e. a new explanation is needed. And that if a new explanation could not be supported by empirical evidence, it would remain a hole in the theory. It was in that context that she said ''If a theory cannot be modified to fit contradictory data, then it has been disproven. This is exactly how science progresses.''

Obviously, I disagreed with her, since I do not think that evolutionary theory should not be discarded simply because it currently cannot explain every phenomenon.

Well, first you started arguing with me, Dem and GnI. Then you got caught contradicting yourself badly and consistantly. Then you claimed we evolved from apes among a LOT of other creationist lies right out of the Creationist Handbook for Rejecting Science (tm). Oh, wait, is that what you were asking. I fear I was a little general on that one.

From a creationist point of view, a skeleton or fossil of an ape-like creature is simply an ape, if that creationist point of view predicts that humans did not evolve from ape-like creatures. This is not a creationist lie, but simply a product of the creationist point of view. You may not agree to the creationist point of view, but you cannot call them liars for being consistent with their own theory.

As for the possibility of my contradicting myself in my history of posting, you can have that one, for I no longer wish to argue about it.

And if you mean by 'can', it's possible. You're just being silly. Yes, it's possible. It's just no longer science. God is not falsifiable which is requirement in the basic definition of science. In fact, I believe in your own words you called it a preposterous idea. You are committing the fallacy of equivocation. We're not falling for it.

So you are going for refuge in calling my position 'not science'. OK fair enough. But I don't think you can give me adequate reasons why it should not be science, particularly when it is capable of pursuing truth in the material world. Or would you say that my approach cannot discover truth in the material world?

You realized we were not talking about the ability to investigate? Ridiculous. We are and always have been talking about it. You changed from using the terms as we use them to using them differently, according to you. It's equivocation and it's a fallacy. You know you're equivocating. We know you're equivocating. I again say you're lying when you make the claim that you didn't know what YOU meant when you said what you said earlier and that you are lying when you say you have always clearly been saying the same thing.

Like I said. Just address my current points. I'm done with arguing about my posting history.

Quick question - would you say that a person saying something that s/he knows to not be true is "lying"? I don't mean a question or a scenario, but actually stating something clearly that they KNOW is not actually true.

Yes. But in order to accuse me of lying, you need to demonstrate that you know what I know.

Bruarong

02-06-2006, 15:17

How much, and what sort of evidence would you want?

Good question. Let's agree that 'evidence' in this context means data which supports a theory, and that 'evidence for evolutionary theory' means evidence that cannot be explained by any alternative theory, e.g. creation theory.

Evidence that mitochondria and plastids arose via ancient endosymbiosis of bacteria is as follows:

* Both mitochondria and plastids contain DNA, which is fairly different from that of the cell nucleus, and that is similar to that of bacteria (in being circular and in its size).

There are several explanations for this. One is simply that small chromosomes are very frequently circular, although not always. The Agrobacterium, for example, has one linear chromosome and one circular chromosome. Thus, we might expect that mitochondrial DNA is similar to bacterial DNA *because* of the secondary structure and the size of the DNA molecule, not because of common ancestry (between mitochondria and modern bacteria). The source doesn't actually specify what it means by 'similar'. It might mean similarity in GC content, or condon usage (e.g. third base in a codon).

* They are surrounded by two or more membranes, and the innermost of these shows differences in composition compared to the other membranes in the cell. The composition is like that of a prokaryotic cell membrane.

The mitochondrial membrane is special compared to the other membranes, since it undergoes far more merging and dividing processes than the other membranes. Also, since the mitochondria is the 'powerhouse' for the cell, one might expect that the membranes (situated in the membranes is a hydrogen (or proton) pump which transfers hydrogen from one side of the membrane to the other, creating a gradient across the inner membrane with a higher concentration of hydrogen ions in the space between the inner and outer membranes). Thus, simply citing a difference in membrane composition is not evidence for common ancestry between bacteria and mitochondria in my opinion.

* New mitochondria and plastids are formed only through a process similar to binary fission. In some algae, such as Euglena, the plastids can be destroyed by certain chemicals or prolonged absence of light without otherwise affecting the cell. In such a case, the plastids will not regenerate.

Perhaps that is because processes similar to binary fission are simply the most efficient for replication of small organelles and for bacteria, rather than common ancestry. The inability of plastids in Euglena to regenerate after being destroyed by light or chemicals does not suggest common ancestry, but simply that Euglena to not have the ability to create novel plastids (either they have lost that ability, or they never had it in the first place). It means that each plastid present in Euglena must have arisen through plastid division, rather than a creation of a new plastid from scratch. This observation possible fits better with creation theory than evolutionary theory.

* Much of the internal structure and biochemistry of plastids, for instance the presence of thylakoids and particular chlorophylls, is very similar to that of cyanobacteria. Phylogenetic estimates constructed with bacteria, plastids, and eukaryotic genomes also suggest that plastids are most closely related to cyanobacteria.

Homology does not equal common ancestry. In most cases, homology suggests similar functions, regardless of ancestral relatedness. We don't expect the bill of a duck to be genetically closely related to the bill of a platypus, and yet we see obvious homology.

* DNA sequence analysis and phylogenetic estimates suggests that nuclear DNA contains genes that probably came from the plastid.

Probably? This is an explanation that is based on evolution theory, or more specifically, the endosymbiotic theory, but cannot be used to provide evidence for common ancestry. Mere speculation.

* Some proteins encoded in the nucleus are transported to the organelle, and both mitochondria and plastids have small genomes compared to bacteria. This is consistent with an increased dependence on the eukaryotic host after forming an endosymbiosis. Most genes on the organellar genomes have been lost or moved to the nucleus. Most genes needed for mitochondrial and plastid function are located in the nucleus. Many originate from the bacterial endosymbiont.

Is there any idea that is supported with empirical evidence for how so many of these genes could have left the mitochondria and found their way into the nucleus? The number of obstacles needed to be overcome within the multiple steps is quite large, and the development of eukaryotes is not given an unlimited amount of time.

It's one thing to provide explanations, but can these explanations be considered evidence for common ancestry?

* Plastids are present in very different groups of protists, some of which are closely related to forms lacking plastids. This suggests that if chloroplasts originated de novo, they did so multiple times, in which case their close similarity to each other is difficult to explain. Many of these protists contain "secondary" plastids that have been acquired from other plastid-containg eukaryotes, not from cyanobacteria directly.

The transfer of plastids between protists is perhaps difficult enough to explain, but such is outside of my area of knowledge, so I cannot really say. The concept of chloroplasts originating from symbiotic bacteria on several different occasions should give us an opportunity to study modern chloroplasts to gain an idea of a common pathway of development. From this we should be able to determine the steps in the development of chloroplasts from bacteria. The last time I read up on this area, people were doing this very thing.

But once again, these observations are explained with speculations about what might have happened. And explanations, as such, do not provide evidence for common ancestry, since they are based on the postulation of common ancestry.

* These organelle's ribosomes are like those found in bacteria (70s).

I consider this to be one of the best sources of evidence for common ancestry, as I mentioned in an earlier post, referring to homology in the DNA sequence. But, as I pointed out, homology should not be considered sufficient evidence, since similar functions are also a source for homology, not only ancestry.

A possible secondary endosymbiosis (i.e. involving eukaryotic plastids) has been observed by Okamato & Inouye (2005). A heterotrophic protist ingested a green alga, which lost its flagella and cytoskeleton, while the host switched to photosynthetic nutrition and gained the ability to move towards light.

This is an interesting observation, but not inconsistent with what we know about symbiosis. However, the green alga is not a bacteria. The experiment shows that one eukaryotic cell can engulf another and recieve the benefits (we've known this for a long time now, particularly the protists, which usually set about digesting the captured organism). What is surprising is the protist gained some properties, presumeably from the green alga. However, we need to be able to distinguish between a symbiotic effect and a step in endosymbiosis before we can determine whether this is evidence for common ancestry between mitochondria and bacteria.

Most scientists consider the evidence for the endosymbiotic theory compelling as a whole, and it is now generally accepted. I personally am critical of this position, since much of the evidence is not supported by experiments but only explanations for which we are not (yet) able to confirm with experiments.

Pan-Celtica

02-06-2006, 15:49

Its a great song by Flanders and Swann:

The First Law of Thermodynamics:
Heat is work and work is heat.
Heat is work and work is heat
Very good! The Second Law of Thermodynamics:
Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body,
Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body

Heat won't pass from a cooler to a hotter,
Heat won't pass from a cooler to a hotter
You can try it if you like but you'd far better notter,
You can try it if you like but you'd far better notter
'Cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a ruler,
'Cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a ruler
'Cos the hotter body's heat will pass to the cooler,
'Cos the hotter body's heat will pass to the cooler

Good, First Law:
Heat is work and work is heat and work is heat and heat is work
Heat will pass by conduction,
Heat will pass by conduction
And heat will pass by convection,
Heat will pass by convection
And heat will pass by radiation,
Heat will pass by radiation
And that's a physical law.

Heat is work and work's a curse,
And all the heat in the universe,
Is gonna cooooool down
'Cos it can't increase,
Then there'll be no more work
And there'll be perfect peace
Really?
Yeah, that's entropy, maan!

And its all because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which lays down:

That you can't pass heat from a cooler to a hotter,
Try it if you like but you far better notter,
'Cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a ruler,
'Cos the hotter body's heat will pass to the cooler.
Oh you can't pass heat, cooler to a hotter,
Try it if you like but you'll only look a fooler
'Cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a ruler
And that's a physical Law!

Oh, I'm hot!
Hot? That's because you've been working!
Oh, Beatles - nothing!
That's the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics!

:)

Bottle

02-06-2006, 16:01

Possibly the major reason why you won't find a paper that actually challenges the 'common ancestor' hypothesis is because there are none. Why does no one challenge it? Good question. I reckon it's because no one (or very few) are prepared to accept that backlash that such a challenge generally produces, and because of the common answer, 'What is the alternative?' combined with a mindset that is generally unwilling to seriously consider alternatives.

As a scientist, allow me to correct your misconception. I, personally, make my living challenging known hypotheses and theories, including many which fall under the heading of "evolutionary theory." I am one of hundreds of scientists in my institution who make our living doing this. I have never, at any time, felt reluctant to challenge a theory out of fear of backlash from my collegues or from peers in the field.

Sure, sometimes I'll get some data that I know is going to piss off another lab, because my data suggests that their theory isn't right. They're probably going to be annoyed. They might even be petty enough to act like jerks at the next conference. It happens. But that's not gonna stop me from publishing.

There are plenty of papers that have challenged evolutionary theory over the years. Evolutionary theory is not set in stone; it is a living theory in every sense of the word. The theory is shaped and modified as our understanding grows. We've had to change parts of it, reject some hypotheses, add new ones, and adapt existing ones as we have gained new insights. This is not something scientists fear.

Science is all about considering other alternatives. It's what we do. We are used to being challenged and having our theories "attacked" by our peers. Any scientist who can't deal with these things is probably going to wash out before they make it through grad school.

No, the reason why you can't find papers that present data against the common ancestor hypothesis is because there's no such data right now. Sure, people can write editorial papers about it, or can spin whatever theories they like in the media, but nobody has got DATA that disproves it. That's why there's no real debate about it in the scientific world.

Grave_n_idle

02-06-2006, 16:31

Do you just regurgitate definitions now without bothering to read?

If his argument is "You are a liar" then his being 'mean' does affect the validity of his argument.

If you post something that is not true - and I can prove it - then calling it a lie isn't a fallacy...

If you post one thing, and then pretend you posted something else - then saying you have changed direction isn't fallacious.

If you post something, and - with no evidence on that point - I disclaim it because it 'is well known you are a liar, or a cheat, or a frenchman... whatever...' THAT would be an 'ad hominem fallacy'.

I'm sorry you don't LIKE me using the explicit meanings of definitions... but I'm not going to pervert the language just to accomodate you.

Founding members don't typically need a dispatch to inform them.

Ah. Got it. No one agrees with you, so we must all be in on some big anti-you conspiracy... :rolleyes:

Jocabia

02-06-2006, 16:56

If you post something that is not true - and I can prove it - then calling it a lie isn't a fallacy...

If you post one thing, and then pretend you posted something else - then saying you have changed direction isn't fallacious.

If you post something, and - with no evidence on that point - I disclaim it because it 'is well known you are a liar, or a cheat, or a frenchman... whatever...' THAT would be an 'ad hominem fallacy'.

I'm sorry you don't LIKE me using the explicit meanings of definitions... but I'm not going to pervert the language just to accomodate you.

Ah. Got it. No one agrees with you, so we must all be in on some big anti-you conspiracy... :rolleyes:

Yeah, I guess he missed when the couple of threads lately where the 'old boys club' (that, incidentally, includes several women given that we know he's talking about Dem and Bottle too) was at each other's throats. We argue the same against each other as against others. Our debate skills aren't reserved for those we don't like.

Meanwhile, I think I'm going to leave Bruarong's last post alone. It does more damage to his position then I ever could. Those are my favorite posts.

Grave_n_idle

02-06-2006, 17:13

Jocabia

02-06-2006, 17:17

Oh... wait. WE are the Old Boys club? Those of us who argue against Braurong?

I didn't realise it was something so specific... so... if you agree with someone on a point... it is collusion perpetuated by a secret hidden agenda?

No, no, no, silly. The one's who don't accept the undeniable truth of SE's position, duh. We just happen to reject Bruarong's position as well. It's probably because they both agree on destroying science so it doesn't threaten their faith.

Bottle

02-06-2006, 17:20

Yeah, I guess he missed when the couple of threads lately where the 'old boys club' (that, incidentally, includes several women given that we know he's talking about Dem and Bottle too) was at each other's throats. We argue the same against each other as against others. Our debate skills aren't reserved for those we don't like.

Hehe, indeed. The "old-timers" around here tend to argue even more hotly with each other than we do with the young whippersnappers who poke their noses in. ;)

Of course, he makes the same assumption about scientists that he does about the "old boys club" on this forum, when he assumes that scientists are all just going along to get along. I crack up when I hear people say stuff like that...as though SCIENTISTS were people who didn't want to argue! Imagine, a group of scientists who DON'T like to challenge hypotheses! Try to picture the kind of moron who would enter a scientific field because he wanted to follow entrenched dogma without question!

Tee hee, tee hee. It is to laugh.

Jocabia

02-06-2006, 17:26

Hehe, indeed. The "old-timers" around here tend to argue even more hotly with each other than we do with the young whippersnappers who poke their noses in. ;)

Of course, he makes the same assumption about scientists that he does about the "old boys club" on this forum, when he assumes that scientists are all just going along to get along. I crack up when I hear people say stuff like that...as though SCIENTISTS were people who didn't want to argue! Imagine, a group of scientists who DON'T like to challenge hypotheses! Try to picture the kind of moron who would enter a scientific field because he wanted to follow entrenched dogma without question!

Tee hee, tee hee. It is to laugh.

Yeah, that's the part that makes me simply not believe he's a scientist. He acts like I wouldn't cut off my right foot to find a theory that was better tuned to the evidence than evolution. I'd be the most famous scientist alive, not to mention I could write my own check.

Sure, there are tons of worker bee scientists who simply do grunt work but I've never met a scientist who didn't have a dream to revolutionize something about their field. And generally revolutionizing means destroying some poor codger's old theory.

Bottle

02-06-2006, 17:34

Yeah, that's the part that makes me simply not believe he's a scientist. He acts like I wouldn't cut off my right foot to find a theory that was better tuned to the evidence than evolution. I'd be the most famous scientist alive, not to mention I could write my own check.

Damn right. Even if you want to believe that all scientists are heartless, immoral, selfish opportunists, then you're still left with a world in which scientists should be doing everything in their power to challenge evolutionary theory.

Sure, there are tons of worker bee scientists who simply do grunt work but I've never met a scientist who didn't have a dream to revolutionize something about their field. And generally revolutionizing means destroying some poor codger's old theory.
Indeed. Although quite often it can mean destroying your own theory. I'm only about a year into my thesis work, and I've already had to destroy one of my own theories.

Snow Eaters

02-06-2006, 20:17

If you post something that is not true - and I can prove it - then calling it a lie isn't a fallacy...

Yes it is.
You have assumed intent.
All you have proven is that someone is wrong, not that someone is lying.

Jocabia hasn't proven lying, not even close. He's barely proven someone to be wrong. What he has done is demonstrate that he disagrees and provided some evidence to support his position.

Rather than rely on that, he continually goes after the character of the poster and the quality of the posts.
I find it bizzare that you even try to argue this since you and Jocabia just went through your little aside conversation about how he's the "bad guy" having taken over your apparent former role.

If you post one thing, and then pretend you posted something else - then saying you have changed direction isn't fallacious.

It is if there was a genuine misunderstanding of the message.
If someone has made either a muddled post or has obviously used terms without a common understanding, then it was my belief that simple courtesy says that you seek clarification.
It seems that the M.O. here is to capitalise on a misunderstanding to "win" the thread.

I'm sorry you don't LIKE me using the explicit meanings of definitions... but I'm not going to pervert the language just to accomodate you.

I wouldn't dream of hoping you'd pervert the language.
I'm quite aware of the proper definition, have been since the 70's.
You quoting the definition didn't address the point I raised.

Ah. Got it. No one agrees with you, so we must all be in on some big anti-you conspiracy... :rolleyes:

ROFL
Agrees with me?
I'm not even this debate Grave, there's nothing here for "no one to agree with".
I'm simply digusted with reading another thread full of Jocabia's bile.
His arrogant, condescending, intolerant, rude attitude over-shadows anything topical he might try to bring, and you are an enabler of it
The conversation between Dem and Bruarong is far more interesting, even when they also miss each others' points.

Dinaverg

02-06-2006, 20:44

I'm simply digusted with reading another thread full of Jocabia's bile.

I'm confused...Why are you reading this topic again?

Jocabia

02-06-2006, 20:45

Yes it is.
You have assumed intent.
All you have proven is that someone is wrong, not that someone is lying.

Jocabia hasn't proven lying, not even close. He's barely proven someone to be wrong. What he has done is demonstrate that he disagrees and provided some evidence to support his position.

I can't prove lying? You sure. Let me ask you. Let's pick a random position by a random poster.

Let's say that someone claimed that evolution says we evolved from apes.

We assume he's wrong so we correct him by telling him that evolution states no such thing.

His reply is that we should not treat him like he is stupid and of course he knows that evolution does not say we evolved from apes.

He then continues to say that evolution says we evolved from apes.

He was specifically asked if he was joking and he said no. His statements were meant to be serious.

If we quote a person doing EXACTLY this, saying something he knows is untrue intending it seriously, not as a joke, would it be inaccurate or unfair to refer to it as a lie?

You may claim otherwise, but he was caught lying and admitted he was saying something he knew was untrue because he didn't care to state it correctly and if anyone took his statements as honest it was their fault. He was caught doing so repeatedly. Now when we find him switching back and forth on statements and apparently saying what he wants us to believe not what he actually believes, we have the choice of assuming he is just making mistakes or that he is lying, but given that we were chastised the first time we assumed he was making mistakes, I'll assume the latter, thank you. Considering after being caught doing it, he continues, all the evidence is in my favor.

However, feel free to prove he's not lying. I'm willing to listen to the evidence. Right now, he has no evidence in favor of his credibility.

Jocabia

02-06-2006, 20:50

It is if there was a genuine misunderstanding of the message.
If someone has made either a muddled post or has obviously used terms without a common understanding, then it was my belief that simple courtesy says that you seek clarification.
It seems that the M.O. here is to capitalise on a misunderstanding to "win" the thread.

You ignore what ACTUALLY has occurred. Clarification was asked for and he treated Dem like she was unable to understand him. His position was restated back to him, in an effort to make sure it was clear and again, it was treated like a ridiculous act. Dem's acts of patience have rewarded her with bile. I'm not willing to be so patient.

Most of what I'm talking about isn't about how this poster acted towards me or said to me. This is stuff he said to others. How am I responsible for Bruarong's behavior towards Dem?

I'm sorry that you've not got enough in your life that you must follow me from thread to thread and attack me. I'm glad I can give your life meaning. Let me know if there is anything else I may do for you, my friend.

Grave_n_idle

02-06-2006, 20:55

I trust you'll forgive that I've slightly re-ordered some of these points, to address them together, rather than hitting the same point twice.

Yes it is.
You have assumed intent.
All you have proven is that someone is wrong, not that someone is lying.

Jocabia hasn't proven lying...

It is if there was a genuine misunderstanding of the message...

Both points MIGHT be relevent... IF Braurong wasn't portraying himself in the role of 'expert witness'. If this IS my field of expertise, and I have claimed as much... IF I then consistently fail to accurately represent the facts - I have EITHER 'lied' about my expertise... in which case my 'misunderstanding' is excused by my ignorance - or I have lied about my points... in which case, my expertise was misrepresented.

I find it bizzare that you even try to argue this since you and Jocabia just went through your little aside conversation about how he's the "bad guy" having taken over your apparent former role.

I was formerly somewhat more.... acidic, than my current radio-friendly-unit-shifter approach. Jocabia was formerly a sweeter disposition in the forum. It seems ironic to us, that I have become less sarcastic, and he more so.

Like some form of equilibrium.

I don't REALLY see what that has to do with fallacy, misrepresentation, of tea in China.

Agrees with me?
I'm not even this debate Grave, there's nothing here for "no one to agree with".

You don't have to have stated a platform to be in agreement...

Grave_n_idle

02-06-2006, 20:56

I'm sorry that you've not got enough in your life that you must follow me from thread to thread and attack me. I'm glad I can give your life meaning. Let me know if there is anything else I may do for you, my friend.

It's because you're so damned pretty... ;)

Dinaverg

02-06-2006, 20:58

You don't have to have stated a platform to be in agreement...

Not to mention that he does, albeit an off-topic one.

Grave_n_idle

02-06-2006, 21:01

Not to mention that he does, albeit an off-topic one.

I hope you realise that, this simple communication, agreeing with something I might have said, probably identifies you as one of the Priory de Sion... erm.. sorry (Wrong conspiracy theory)... Old Boys Club, and thus, enemy of Cathol... sorry, wrong conspiracy theory, again... erm... enemy of free-peoples? The American Way? ..... something, anyway.

Jocabia

02-06-2006, 21:04

I hope you realise that, this simple communication, agreeing with something I might have said, probably identifies you as one of the Priory de Sion... erm.. sorry (Wrong conspiracy theory)... Old Boys Club, and thus, enemy of Cathol... sorry, wrong conspiracy theory, again... erm... enemy of free-peoples? The American Way? ..... something, anyway.

I'm done with it. The sniping of some on these forums who drive-by threads to tell me what a prick I am is getting tiresome. If it's a problem, they can report me. Otherwise, it's griefing.

Grave_n_idle

02-06-2006, 21:09

I'm done with it. The sniping of some on these forums who drive-by threads to tell me what a prick I am is getting tiresome. If it's a problem, they can report me. Otherwise, it's griefing.

It's the price of celebrity, my friend. You're a superstar within these silicon-and-electron walls.

You just have to accept... dogs will always be trying to get scraps from the Master's table...

Snow Eaters

02-06-2006, 21:50

I trust you'll forgive that I've slightly re-ordered some of these points, to address them together, rather than hitting the same point twice.

Not a problem, go right ahead since it doesn't appear that you're playing loose with the context.

Both points MIGHT be relevent... IF Braurong wasn't portraying himself in the role of 'expert witness'. If this IS my field of expertise, and I have claimed as much... IF I then consistently fail to accurately represent the facts - I have EITHER 'lied' about my expertise... in which case my 'misunderstanding' is excused by my ignorance - or I have lied about my points... in which case, my expertise was misrepresented.

Supposed experts can and do make mistakes.
He may even be "wrong" in how much of an expert he is, that still doesn't make him a liar.

I was formerly somewhat more.... acidic, than my current radio-friendly-unit-shifter approach. Jocabia was formerly a sweeter disposition in the forum. It seems ironic to us, that I have become less sarcastic, and he more so.

Like some form of equilibrium.

I don't REALLY see what that has to do with fallacy, misrepresentation, of tea in China.

You recognised how your behaviour hurt your message, yet encourage his while expecting his message will be heard.

You don't have to have stated a platform to be in agreement...

Nice catch.
Still, I can hardly be taking the positions in this thread personally if I haven't even put out my own position.

Grave_n_idle

02-06-2006, 21:57

Supposed experts can and do make mistakes.
He may even be "wrong" in how much of an expert he is, that still doesn't make him a liar.

Supposed experts that make mistakes should admit it, and learn from it. If one continues (this is far from the first thread in which I have had this 'kind' of debate with Braurong) to claim realworld experience and expertise as justification or authority.... but we debate generality, it is the specific issues, each time, that are the seeds of accusations of 'dishonesty'.

You recognised how your behaviour hurt your message, yet encourage his while expecting his message will be heard.

I'm not his father, mentor, patron or pastor. I don't get to teach others how to live. Based on my history, it would be hypocrisy, anyway.

I'm not sure how much I 'encourage' anything. 'Comment on' does not equate to 'endorse'.

Nice catch.
Still, I can hardly be taking the positions in this thread personally if I haven't even put out my own position.

True... but if you weigh in against a platform (describing the proponents of that platform as some collective evil... Old Boys Club...), then you are going to get tarred with a certain brush.

One can have their platform described in negative... if you are not WITH x, you are AGAINST x.

Jocabia

02-06-2006, 22:00

It's the price of celebrity, my friend. You're a superstar within these silicon-and-electron walls.

You just have to accept... dogs will always be trying to get scraps from the Master's table...

Actually, I would attribute that more to the "me too's" than what this is. I guess if I was get the same criticisms from the people who agree with me that I do from the people who are so diametrically and fervently opposed I might be a bit more worried about. I'm more concerned about the criticisms I've gotten in the past from Dinaverg or you, because I know there are not the result of bias.

Sinuhue

02-06-2006, 22:11

Wow...this is crazy! I find Jocabia to be irritatingly reasonable...I guess people just can't stand someone who is precise, and who doesn't let them slither out of their statements.

And the Old Timer's Club (let's just remove gender bias okay?) is mostly composed of people who take the gloves off before battling it out in the ring with one another...being much gentler with the younguns.

Jocabia

02-06-2006, 22:25

Sinuhue

02-06-2006, 22:29

Still irritating though. ;)
Well, yes. And too religious. But 'insulting' or 'prick'-ish? No.

Jocabia

02-06-2006, 22:37

Well, yes. And too religious. But 'insulting' or 'prick'-ish? No.

Ok, even I have to argue with that. Sure, I would say that I would find some of my posts a bit insulting in their sarcasm. Whether a person is objectively wrong or not, it's not suprising that they would feel insulted by it being stated so bluntly. I've got big ears but many would find it insulting to tell me so (now it would be completely inappropriate to tell me so on here, but replace big ears with a poor logical progression or what have you). Let's not pretend like people are never going to feel insulted by what we do here. And some will find me to be a prick for doing so bluntly and callously (I do wish I was less callous). I don't think it's appropriate to enter a thread for the sole purpose of attacking me, but I won't pretend like his ire is completely unfounded.

Bruarong

02-06-2006, 22:47

Ok, even I have to argue with that. Sure, I would say that I would find some of my posts a bit insulting in their sarcasm. Whether a person is objectively wrong or not, it's not suprising that they would feel insulted by it being stated so bluntly. I've got big ears but many would find it insulting to tell me so (now it would be completely inappropriate to tell me so on here, but replace big ears with a poor logical progression or what have you). Let's not pretend like people are never going to feel insulted by what we do here. And some will find me to be a prick for doing so bluntly and callously (I do wish I was less callous). I don't think it's appropriate to enter a thread for the sole purpose of attacking me, but I won't pretend like his ire is completely unfounded.

Somehow, this thread has gone from the Second Law of Thermodynamics into how Bruarong is lying and Jocabia is a prick.

Now I really wish Dem would come back. The thread is definitely taking a non-science slant (that would be a slant that is not even 'pretending' to be science).

Sinuhue

02-06-2006, 22:48

Welcome to thread-shift, aided by drive-by bitching...

Jocabia

02-06-2006, 22:52

Somehow, this thread has gone from the Second Law of Thermodynamics into how Bruarong is lying and Jocabia is a prick.

Now I really wish Dem would come back. The thread is definitely taking a non-science slant (that would be a slant that is not even 'pretending' to be science).

Ha. Something we can certainly agree on. Back to the show.

By the way, I'll agree to being a prick if...;)

EDIT: As a positive aside, you do have a way at times of cutting through all the BS. I very much appreciate that about you.

Bruarong

02-06-2006, 23:02

There are plenty of papers that have challenged evolutionary theory over the years. Evolutionary theory is not set in stone; it is a living theory in every sense of the word. The theory is shaped and modified as our understanding grows. We've had to change parts of it, reject some hypotheses, add new ones, and adapt existing ones as we have gained new insights. This is not something scientists fear.

I don't think evolutionary theory is challenged anywhere near enough, nowadays. I think you would have a hard time finding a review that genuinely challenges evolutionary theory. But I am interested in finding one. Perhaps you have a suggestion.

Science is all about considering other alternatives. It's what we do. We are used to being challenged and having our theories "attacked" by our peers. Any scientist who can't deal with these things is probably going to wash out before they make it through grad school.

Strangely enough, there doesn't seem to be any papers presenting alternatives to evolutionary theory. You do have a nice concept of science, (since I think that science really ought to be this way) but I doubt that you will be able to find any papers that propose an alternative to evolutionary theory. I am open to surprises though.

No, the reason why you can't find papers that present data against the common ancestor hypothesis is because there's no such data right now.

Do you mean that there is no data, or no published data? Some creationists think that they have lots of data. I have even presented the case of shrinking genomes. If I thought I could get it published, I probably would investigate it some more to see if it could be published. But we are not allowed to publish things that support creation theory in a journal. Don't believe me? Try it sometime.

Sure, people can write editorial papers about it, or can spin whatever theories they like in the media, but nobody has got DATA that disproves it. That's why there's no real debate about it in the scientific world.

I argue that the data could relatively be easily found. Getting it published is another matter altogether.

Jocabia

02-06-2006, 23:11

I don't think evolutionary theory is challenged anywhere near enough, nowadays. I think you would have a hard time finding a review that genuinely challenges evolutionary theory. But I am interested in finding one. Perhaps you have a suggestion.

Strangely enough, there doesn't seem to be any papers presenting alternatives to evolutionary theory. You do have a nice concept of science, (since I think that science really ought to be this way) but I doubt that you will be able to find any papers that propose an alternative to evolutionary theory. I am open to surprises though.

You won't find any papers that propose an alternative to gravity either. It doesn't mean it's never tested. It just means it never fails those tests.

Do you mean that there is no data, or no published data? Some creationists think that they have lots of data. I have even presented the case of shrinking genomes. If I thought I could get it published, I probably would investigate it some more to see if it could be published. But we are not allowed to publish things that support creation theory in a journal. Don't believe me? Try it sometime.

Yes, but every time they publish it, no matter where they publish it, it is debunked. They're theories requires altering accepted evolutionary theory and then claiming it's flawed (you know things like saying we've evolved from apes). The data doesn't support those theories.

They don't get published in Scientific journals because "We don't have a better explanation, so God did it" is not a scientific theory.

I argue that the data could relatively be easily found. Getting it published is another matter altogether.
Easily found? I'll personally ensure you're published if you find that data provided you give me equal credit. We'll be famous. I notice you do a lot of claiming the data exists and not a lot of presenting the data. So far all the challenges you offer are speculative. You've offered no alternative scientific theory. Not one.

Grave_n_idle

02-06-2006, 23:11

Welcome to thread-shift, aided by drive-by bitching...

At least when I hijack a thread, I do it to recruit Vikings for beer and pillage...

Bruarong

02-06-2006, 23:14

Ha. Something we can certainly agree on. Back to the show.

By the way, I'll agree to being a prick if...;)

EDIT: As a positive aside, you do have a way at times of cutting through all the BS. I very much appreciate that about you.

Well, Jocabia, I never expected to get a compliment from you, but there you go--just goes to show that no matter how much you disagree with someone, they will always have a nice side.

But as for agreeing to lying, sorry, it wouldn't be honest of me. But I can agree to making mistakes and being muddled in presenting my position.

I propose that you try to be nicer and deal with the points that I am currently making in this thread (rather than running back to old threads for more ammunition), and in turn, I will redouble my efforts to be clear in my presentation of my points and I won't criticise your posting style. Deal?

I do appreciate having opponents, even if I can't get the better of them in my arguments.

And just for the record, the word 'prick' was never my description of you.

Jocabia

02-06-2006, 23:18

Well, Jocabia, I never expected to get a compliment from you, but there you go--just goes to show that no matter how much you disagree with someone, they will always have a nice side.

But as for agreeing to lying, sorry, it wouldn't be honest of me. But I can agree to making mistakes and being muddled in presenting my position.

I propose that you try to be nicer and deal with the points that I am currently making in this thread (rather than running back to old threads for more ammunition), and in turn, I will redouble my efforts to be clear in my presentation of my points and I won't criticise your posting style. Deal?

I do appreciate having opponents, even if I can't get the better of them in my arguments.

And just for the record, the word 'prick' was never my description of you.

Do you still support the positions you expressed in those threads? Because if you say you no longer hold those positions I'll abandon your posts. Otherwise, I think they are useful in showing a particular trend or style that is germaine to the way you approach the issue.

And I'm satisfied with your reply on the consistency point. My advice would be to be a bit more patient with people who you believe are misunderstanding your point since you admit your point was muddled. I don't jump in to protect Dem often. One, I'm generally more likely to jump on her in issues of science (although not lately) so if I'm defending her posts it's likely justified. Two, she doesn't really need it.

As far as being nicer, I don't know why, but I suck at being nice lately. I blame Pepsi.

EDIT: I've complimented you before, my friend. You just missed it. And, it should be noted that you're really messing up SE's arguments when you say I'm not a prick. I'm obviously universally a prick and anyone who doesn't agree is part of our biased secret society of eeeevviiiillll. I think you just accidentally joined.

I propose we call ourselves the Secret Society of Jocabian Enablers. We could have a secret handshake and a decoder ring and we could replace very vowel with the next on in order (AEIOUY) su piupli cen't till whet wi'ri sryong. It'll be awesome. My mom is sewing us a flag as we speak.

Snow Eaters

02-06-2006, 23:31

Supposed experts that make mistakes should admit it, and learn from it. If one continues (this is far from the first thread in which I have had this 'kind' of debate with Braurong) to claim realworld experience and expertise as justification or authority.... but we debate generality, it is the specific issues, each time, that are the seeds of accusations of 'dishonesty'.

I'm not sure I've seen Bruarong in previous threads, NS is not one of the forums I've been in long, so I can't comment on what he's done before, but in this thread alone I've noted that he used "cell wall" incorrectly when he really meant cell membrane, his intent was clear from the context and he admitted his error, he admitted to inaccurately labeling pre-human ancestors as apes, he admitted to being off on which step he uses 97C as a temperature in his reverse transcriptase process.

To badger him over admitted mistakes, to question his personal character and accuse him of not admitting his mistakes when perhaps he's just not admitting something that the accuser wants him too seems to be less in the interest of honesty and more in the interest of "nailing him to the wall".

I'm not his father, mentor, patron or pastor. I don't get to teach others how to live. Based on my history, it would be hypocrisy, anyway.

I'm not sure how much I 'encourage' anything. 'Comment on' does not equate to 'endorse'.

You're his peer, and you allegedly have the experience to speak from, that wouldn't be hypocrisy.

You don't believe you endorse Jocabia??
Really?
You pop into threads to comment on posts that Jocabia's opponents make.
You defend Jocabia from perceived ad hominen attacks.
You reminisce about times gone by.
You flatter him as a "superstar", a "master" from whom the dogs of the forum demand scraps, yet you are not sure how much you encourage anything?

True... but if you weigh in against a platform (describing the proponents of that platform as some collective evil... Old Boys Club...), then you are going to get tarred with a certain brush.

One can have their platform described in negative... if you are not WITH x, you are AGAINST x.

Absolutely true.
But the reality is that the platforms that I'm a proponent of aren't terribly different than Jocabia's from what I can gather.
I share Bruarong's peeve with evolutionists that fall back on "we're here so it must have happened, stop asking questions" or "if you give it enough time, anything can happen" because it serves to shut down inquiry regarding gaps in our theories and knowledge just as assuredly as the "God did it" defense.
I don't share Bruarong's need or desire to bring God or supernatural forces into science.

I wasn't weighing in against platforms, just how those platforms were being attacked, or rather, weren't being attacked in favour of discrediting the poster instead.

Dinaverg

02-06-2006, 23:41

You don't believe you endorse Jocabia??
Really?
You pop into threads to comment on posts that Jocabia's opponents make.
You defend Jocabia from perceived ad hominen attacks.
You reminisce about times gone by.
You flatter him as a "superstar", a "master" from whom the dogs of the forum demand scraps, yet you are not sure how much you encourage anything?

It's not so much we like Jocabiaa, as is you're a unitingly annoying person. Well, cept me. I've not been around long enough to be in the Old-Timers Club, I'm more of a free agent disliker. And I'm the self-proclaimed peanut gallery leader.

Jocabia

02-06-2006, 23:46

It's not so much we like Jocabiaa, as is you're a unitingly annoying person. Well, cept me. I've not been around long enough to be in the Old-Timers Club, I'm more of a free agent disliker. And I'm the self-proclaimed peanut gallery leader.

Actually, it's a bit amusing because when someone isn't entering threads just to attack me, I often get a little nudge from you to not do certain things. To suggest that the only reason I get any support here is because people are sycophants is just silly.

Grave_n_Idle frequents the same threads I frequent because we tend to like hearing each other's arguments. Sometimes he defends me, but it's not uncommon for him to tell me I'm full of it. The implied sycophanty is so ridiculous, I can't believe it's not butter.

Snow Eaters

02-06-2006, 23:46

It's not so much we like Jocabiaa, as is you're a unitingly annoying person. Well, cept me. I've not been around long enough to be in the Old-Timers Club, I'm more of a free agent disliker. And I'm the self-proclaimed peanut gallery leader.

Fascinating, I united and provoked Jocabia et al. into their treatment of Bruarong without even being in the thread?

I must have unheard levels of annoying powers even as a lurker.

Jocabia

02-06-2006, 23:49

Dinaverg

03-06-2006, 00:05

Jocabia

03-06-2006, 00:07

Fascinating, I united and provoked Jocabia et al. into their treatment of Bruarong without even being in the thread?

I must have unheard levels of annoying powers even as a lurker.

See, Dinaverg, now THIS is a strawman. We were not united in the treatment of anyone. The united front that you see comes from people who don't all agree on pretty much anything other than your griefing.

Dinaverg

03-06-2006, 00:07

Actually, it's a bit amusing because when someone isn't entering threads just to attack me, I often get a little nudge from you to not do certain things. To suggest that the only reason I get any support here is because people are sycophants is just silly.

Aye, I do do that...You must realize of course that if the necessities of life allowed, you'd just keep debating forever sometimes.

Jocabia

03-06-2006, 00:08

Your brainwaves come in an odd frequency pervasive throughout the internet.

Admittedly, I like your way of handling it better. I've always noticed that. If it doesn't merit a serious response, you rarely give it one.

Cyrian space

03-06-2006, 00:09

The second law of thermodynamics simply states that energy, once expended, never comes back. In evolution, that energy is simply being expended on life. The sun does not have an infinite fuel source, however, and will eventually run out. The second law has nothing at all to do with evolution, and only by creating a misnomer by replacing "energy" with "complexity" can it be made to appear so. Rocks do blow uphill when the sun-powered wind blows hard enough.

Dinaverg

03-06-2006, 00:09

Admittedly, I like your way of handling it better. I've always noticed that. If it doesn't merit a serious response, you rarely give it one.

Aye...Serious is draining if I'm not in the right mood, I suppose...I get more serious and snippy when I'm hungry, or tired...

Jocabia

03-06-2006, 00:10

Aye, I do do that...You must realize of course that if the necessities of life allowed, you'd just keep debating forever sometimes.

You don't have to tell me. You think it's annoying from the outside, try being inside my freakin' head. Nothing like needing to get up in the middle of the night to research something to find out if something someone said was accurate or waiting for a reply till all hours. it's rather amazing, but I seem to more likely to leave the screen to go see a movie or hit a club than to sleep. Morning Jocabia hates night Jocabia's inability to leave an argument to get some sleep.

Snow Eaters

03-06-2006, 00:12

Your brainwaves come in an odd frequency pervasive throughout the internet.

Cool. Maybe my mutant power is finally showing up.
Not very combat ready though, is it?

Jocabia

03-06-2006, 00:14

Aye...Serious is draining if I'm not in the right mood, I suppose...I get more serious and snippy when I'm hungry, or tired...

Which reminds me, I'm starving. After the Oprah cheeseburger joke my stomach started growling and never stopped. The nice thing about this thread is griefing appears to be a unifying force. Golly, perhaps peace on earth just requires people to grief Jocabia. Maybe that's my purpose in life. Cure cancer? Nah. Just get a lot of fanatics searching you out around the world trying to convince people you're evil. Suddenly even though you're not very charismatic or popular the fanatics will accuse everyone of following you like sycophants and it'll be a lovefest among the united front of people annoyed with griefing or UFOPAWG (pronounced oof - O - pawg).

Dinaverg

03-06-2006, 00:15

Cool. Maybe my mutant power is finally showing up.
Not very combat ready though, is it?

Nah, but I'm sure it could be useful....gimme a minute...

Think of porn. Considering it'll affect internet-connected people, they can go straight to the porn en masse...then...Hmmm.

I dunno, it sounds useful.

Snow Eaters

03-06-2006, 00:18

Nah, but I'm sure it could be useful....gimme a minute...

Think of porn. Considering it'll affect internet-connected people, they can go straight to the porn en masse...then...Hmmm.

I dunno, it sounds useful.

You want me to get masses of internet browsers to go to porn??
Ummm, I think my power might be off the scale if I've been responsible for that...

Dinaverg

03-06-2006, 00:18

Which reminds me, I'm starving. After the Oprah cheeseburger joke my stomach started growling and never stopped. The nice thing about this thread is griefing appears to be a unifying force. Golly, perhaps peace on earth just requires people to grief Jocabia. Maybe that's my purpose in life. Cure cancer? Nah. Just get a lot of fanatics searching you out around the world trying to convince people you're evil. Suddenly even though you're not very charismatic or popular the fanatics will accuse everyone of following you like sycophants and it'll be a lovefest among the united front of people annoyed with griefing or UFOPAWG (pronounced oof - O - pawg).

I see...Of course, in the backwards universe, it'll have to be GWAPOFU.

And, as with any good lovefest, requires :fluffle:s.

Jocabia

03-06-2006, 00:20

I see...Of course, in the backwards universe, it'll have to be GWAPOFU.

And, as with any good lovefest, requires :fluffle:s.
I like it easy to pronounce and when you look at the words, it's fun. Griefing with annoyed people, hehe.

Methinks this topic has reached it's conclusion due to a thread hijack by someone with a beef with a 'mean' prick.

Dinaverg

03-06-2006, 00:27

You want me to get masses of internet browsers to go to porn??
Ummm, I think my power might be off the scale if I've been responsible for that...

Exactly, then you realize you'll need to be careful about your powers, and you go on repressing it. until...I dunno, you meet a nice girl, and like all nice girls, she has the power to remove any reasoning capabilities your frontal lobe may have had. So, you, in a haze of hormones (and a little bit of inside influence) decide to show off your net power, when suddenly, a bolt of electricity jumps out from your head...originating somewhere between the hypothalumus and the cortex, and to her computer. The camera shows the whole room as a surge radiates outward from the computer, everything turns off then back on. The camera goes outside, birds eye veiw, and shows the pulse going worldwide. Your a little dazed, it might have been the bolt, or the very impressed "I want your babies" look you're getting from the girl. We'll assume she's an electrophiliac or something. Anyhow, turns out the repressed ability has become an entity of it's own, something of a rampant AI, now lose on the net. We'll put this slightly futuristic, so most everything is computer controlled, but not necessarily net connected. Or, not yet. The world collectives (US, EU, LAK, etc.) have a plan. Sortof a world-wide Wi-Fi. Everything will be connected, which means your Rampant will be able to get to everything.

Surely you see where I'm going with this.

Dinaverg

03-06-2006, 00:29

I like it easy to pronounce and when you look at the words, it's fun. Griefing with annoyed people, hehe.

Methinks this topic has reached it's conclusion due to a thread hijack by someone with a beef with a 'mean' prick.

Woohoo! We finially moved it! This was quite a behemoth I tell ya. How do you hijack something when it gets to the next page in a couple of minutes?

Dinaverg

03-06-2006, 01:21

What, no one wants to make my movie?

Grave_n_idle

03-06-2006, 01:30

I propose we call ourselves the Secret Society of Jocabian Enablers. We could have a secret handshake and a decoder ring and we could replace very vowel with the next on in order (AEIOUY) su piupli cen't till whet wi'ri sryong. It'll be awesome. My mom is sewing us a flag as we speak.

That. Rocks.

Grave_n_idle

03-06-2006, 01:43

You're his peer, and you allegedly have the experience to speak from, that wouldn't be hypocrisy.

You don't believe you endorse Jocabia??
Really?
You pop into threads to comment on posts that Jocabia's opponents make.
You defend Jocabia from perceived ad hominen attacks.
You reminisce about times gone by.
You flatter him as a "superstar", a "master" from whom the dogs of the forum demand scraps, yet you are not sure how much you encourage anything?

I pop into quite a lot of threads, actually - a lot more than I post into. There are certain Generalites that will 'turn me on' to a thread - if I see their name attached, will probably give the thread a second look - like Sinuhue, Bottle, Dempublicents, Straughn, UpwardThrust, Willamena... and, yes - Jocabia.

This is because those are all people I've learned things from... information... or attitudes.

I defend lots of people from ad hominem, or any other fallacy - but, since I read a lot of threads that Jocabia posts in, it is possible I refer to more ad hominems in threads with him in... it's a statistical thing.

I do reminisce about times gone by... posters long gone, both allies and adversaries. I'm not sure how that connects.

As for 'superstar', etc... when Jocabia left the forum for a while, the "farewell" thread got more hits than most threads get on ANY topic. He's known.. and not just by me.

You make it sound like I can't respect a poster, without some strategic agenda...

I share Bruarong's peeve with evolutionists that fall back on "we're here so it must have happened, stop asking questions" or "if you give it enough time, anything can happen" because it serves to shut down inquiry regarding gaps in our theories and knowledge just as assuredly as the "God did it" defense.

I don't think "if you give it enough time, anything can happen" is that flawed, OR that it shuts down inquiry. As for the other, I don't believe I've ever seen anything posted quite like that...

Snow Eaters

03-06-2006, 03:45

I pop into quite a lot of threads, actually - a lot more than I post into. There are certain Generalites that will 'turn me on' to a thread - if I see their name attached, will probably give the thread a second look - like Sinuhue, Bottle, Dempublicents, Straughn, UpwardThrust, Willamena... and, yes - Jocabia.

This is because those are all people I've learned things from... information... or attitudes.

I defend lots of people from ad hominem, or any other fallacy - but, since I read a lot of threads that Jocabia posts in, it is possible I refer to more ad hominems in threads with him in... it's a statistical thing.

I do reminisce about times gone by... posters long gone, both allies and adversaries. I'm not sure how that connects.

As for 'superstar', etc... when Jocabia left the forum for a while, the "farewell" thread got more hits than most threads get on ANY topic. He's known.. and not just by me.

You make it sound like I can't respect a poster, without some strategic agenda...

*sigh*
I didn't say you had any agenda, strategic or otherwise.
In fact, one of the primary reasons I pointed out your behaviour was because I doubted that it was a deliberate choice you were making.

You claimed you don't encourage or endorse Jocabia. I listed behaviours you have exhibited that demonstrate that you do.
You're free to respect whomever you wish, but to deny endorsing Jocabia is a bit of a stretch.

You say Jocabia is known, great for Jocabia. How that translates into the Master's table with us poor dogs begging for scraps is beyond me.
Are we expected to acquiesce to his belligerence simply because he's been around this block too many times to count?

I don't think "if you give it enough time, anything can happen" is that flawed, OR that it shuts down inquiry. As for the other, I don't believe I've ever seen anything posted quite like that...

You don't see the flaw in it?
If anything CAN happen given enough time, then given ENOUGH time, everything will happen.
Perhaps it's true that existence is one big accident of chance, but if so, that's as meaningful to inquiry as "God did it".
If we keep saying, "God did it" we never look at the why or the how.
If we keep saying, "It's all just one big accident" again, we stop questioning.

As for the other? It's been used in this thread already.

Dinaverg

03-06-2006, 03:55

*snip*

Seriously, I think it has potential. Also, at least we can study an accident.

Snow Eaters

03-06-2006, 04:00

Seriously, I think it has potential. Also, at least we can study an accident.

You can study the effects of an accident, but..

hrrmm, wait.

Which accident are you referring to?
The beginning of the universe or formation of life?

Dinaverg

03-06-2006, 04:02

You can study the effects of an accident, but..

hrrmm, wait.

Which accident are you referring to?
The beginning of the universe or formation of life?

*koffen* (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11080569&postcount=336)

I dunno, both technically, which one were you refering to?

Anglachel and Anguirel

03-06-2006, 04:06

Creationists don't decide based on arguments, they invent arguments based on what they've decided.

That's terrifyingly true.

"An experiment can be considered a success if fewer than 50% of the results must be thrown out in order to support the theory."

Grave_n_idle

03-06-2006, 04:52

*sigh*
I didn't say you had any agenda, strategic or otherwise.
In fact, one of the primary reasons I pointed out your behaviour was because I doubted that it was a deliberate choice you were making.

You claimed you don't encourage or endorse Jocabia. I listed behaviours you have exhibited that demonstrate that you do.
You're free to respect whomever you wish, but to deny endorsing Jocabia is a bit of a stretch.

You say Jocabia is known, great for Jocabia. How that translates into the Master's table with us poor dogs begging for scraps is beyond me.
Are we expected to acquiesce to his belligerence simply because he's been around this block too many times to count?

*sigh*

Superstar = celebrity.

Jocabia is known. Stop trying to make more of it than it is.

You don't see the flaw in it?
If anything CAN happen given enough time, then given ENOUGH time, everything will happen.
Perhaps it's true that existence is one big accident of chance, but if so, that's as meaningful to inquiry as "God did it".
If we keep saying, "God did it" we never look at the why or the how.
If we keep saying, "It's all just one big accident" again, we stop questioning.

As for the other? It's been used in this thread already.

Your logic is flawed - just because anything CAN happen, doesn't mean EVERY thing WILL happen.

Like flipping a coin - against all the odds, it comes up tails a thousand times.... at any point it COULD have come up heads - but it didn't.

As to accidents of chance, and being meaningful - you miss the point. Evolution isn;t about pure chance. Planetary formation isn't about pure chance. The difference between the science explanation and the religious explanation, is that the science answer is... "We don't know... but this is how it COULD have happened", whereas the religious answer is "We weren't there... but this is how we KNOW it happened, anyway".

To me - one of those answers is more 'honest' than the other, although the other may be more 'comforting'. But - I'll pick an honest "buggered if I know" over comforting assurances based on faith.

The Black Forrest

03-06-2006, 05:12

Jocabia

03-06-2006, 05:16

*sigh*

Superstar = celebrity.

Jocabia is known. Stop trying to make more of it than it is.

I think he misses when you're being facetious. The amusing part is that he makes an over the top accusation, apparently without knowing it's over the top, so you reply in kind on purpose with a bit of an exaggeration and he acts like you must have been entirely serious.

You couldn't have been joking around. You were really calling me the master and my detractors dogs.

Perhaps Dinaverg was serious when he said this as well -
Your brainwaves come in an odd frequency pervasive throughout the internet.

I find it interesting that Dinaverg calls him a superhero in this thread and that regarded as a joke, but you make similarly silly comments about me and you must have meant it literaly. Start arguing that Dinaverg is a SE sycophant that believes he's a superhero.

Grave_n_idle

03-06-2006, 05:19

And I thought you loved me!

*runs away sobbing*

I forgot Muravyets, too. And Tropical Sands. and DCD.

*sigh*

The list wasn't supposed to be exclusive. :)

Grave_n_idle

03-06-2006, 05:21

I think he misses when you're being facetious. The amusing part is that he makes an over the top accusation, apparently without knowing it's over the top, so you reply in kind on purpose with a bit of an exaggeration and he acts like you must have been entirely serious.

You couldn't have been joking around. You were really calling me the master and my detractors dogs.

Perhaps Dinaverg was serious when he said this as well -

I find it interesting that Dinaverg calls him a superhero in this thread and that regarded as a joke, but you make similarly silly comments about me and you must have meant it literaly. Start arguing that Dinaverg is a SE sycophant that believes he's a superhero.

Also - the 'master and dogs' reference, as I'm sure you decoded, had at least one more level of humour attached... :)

I notice he jumped all over the 'superstar', but ignored it when I said you were 'so damn pretty'. I mean... you're cute, but I'm not getting divorced over it...

:D

Jocabia

03-06-2006, 05:42

Also - the 'master and dogs' reference, as I'm sure you decoded, had at least one more level of humour attached... :)

I notice he jumped all over the 'superstar', but ignored it when I said you were 'so damn pretty'. I mean... you're cute, but I'm not getting divorced over it...

:D

No, no, everything must be literal. That sycophant, Dinaverg, was seriously calling him a superhero and stop trying to suggest otherwise with your nonsense.

You know what's awesome to me. He came in this thread griefing and he ended up getting caught on seriously flawed logic. It's so priceless. I hope SE never stops following me around.

Perhaps he doesn't think I'm a superstar but agrees that I'm so damn pretty.

The Black Forrest

03-06-2006, 05:47

and you are who?

To badger him over admitted mistakes, to question his personal character and accuse him of not admitting his mistakes when perhaps he's just not admitting something that the accuser wants him too seems to be less in the interest of honesty and more in the interest of "nailing him to the wall".

Yup. You haven't read other threads. Some of the attitude of "nailing him to the wall" stems from the fact Braurong is a practioner of the cyclical argument and a repeater of the discredited argument.

You don't believe you endorse Jocabia??

I don't defend Jocabia and you can verify that with him. You have been making ad hominens on him.

I share Bruarong's peeve with evolutionists that fall back on "we're here so it must have happened, stop asking questions"

No actually you are talking Creationist logic. Evolutionists like if not love questions. It tightens the theory.

or "if you give it enough time, anything can happen" because it serves to shut down inquiry regarding gaps in our theories

You read the Bible sites eh? Nobody shuts down questions. They shut down arguments that say see there is a gap so it's false! The gaps haven't proved or disproved anything.

You disprove Evolution and most will accept it. There are hard core types but they are few.

I wasn't weighing in against platforms, just how those platforms were being attacked, or rather, weren't being attacked in favour of discrediting the poster instead.

That's what the problem is with Braurong. You keep parroting arguments that everybody has argued away and you practice the cyclical argument strategy then it turns to discrediting the poster to make them go away.

Jocabia

03-06-2006, 05:59

and you are who?

Yup. You haven't read other threads. Some of the attitude of "nailing him to the wall" stems from the fact Braurong is a practioner of the cyclical argument and a repeater of the discredited argument.

I don't defend Jocabia and you can verify that with him. You have been making ad hominens on him.

No actually you are talking Creationist logic. Evolutionists like if not love questions. It tightens the theory.

You read the Bible sites eh? Nobody shuts down questions. They shut down arguments that say see there is a gap so it's false! The gaps haven't proved or disproved anything.

You disprove Evolution and most will accept it. There are hard core types but they are few.

That's what the problem is with Braurong. You keep parroting arguments that everybody has argued away and you practice the cyclical argument strategy then it turns to discrediting the poster to make them go away.

In all fairness, it's not Bruarong griefing the thread, so SE managed to create an argument where a bunch of posters talk about a bunch of other posters that are not him. Isn't that a great tactic? He attacks me and anyone who argues that he's wrong has to attack someone else.

I appreciate the rather unexpected defense, but we don't need to let him draw us into attacking Bruarong in defense of me. I fully support discrediting him as an expert in terms of the argument but discrediting him to protect me is allowing SE to create a bunch of silliness.

SE is upset because I've done the same thing to him in other threads because he likes the fallacy of equivocation or worse he tells everyone they are misrepresenting his arguments while being completely unwilling to actually state what his arguments are. And according to him he should be permitted to do that without anyone calling him on it because that way he can continue to do it.

In his defense, his argument for why I'm a 'mean' prick is pretty much the most clear argument I've heard from him. Perhaps it's the beginning of a new era of clear and concise Snow Eaters' arguments. If so, it was worth it.

Snow Eaters

03-06-2006, 14:54

*koffen* (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11080569&postcount=336)

I dunno, both technically, which one were you refering to?

LOL, yes, interesting treatment.
About 15 years too late for me to be meeting the girl that wants to have my babies, but still, sounds like fun, especially if the world population becomes enslaved.

Well, I'm referring to both too, for the same general reasons. We can explain anything with it but can never test an "accident".

Snow Eaters

03-06-2006, 15:20

*sigh*

Superstar = celebrity.

Jocabia is known. Stop trying to make more of it than it is.

Fine.

Your logic is flawed - just because anything CAN happen, doesn't mean EVERY thing WILL happen.

Like flipping a coin - against all the odds, it comes up tails a thousand times.... at any point it COULD have come up heads - but it didn't.

The logic isn't flawed, and your coin flipping example, while completely true, doesn't mean anything to this point.

Regardless of how unlikely something is, if you make enough attempts, it will become likely that you will observe that event.
It's the intuitively understood change in odds with more attempts.
Let's bet our next paycheck on the roll of a die, if it comes up 6, you win.
Not very likely you will take that bet.
Roll the die 24 times.
You win if a 6 comes up.
Now it's a fool's bet for me.

Reduce the likelyhood of the event and you need a corresponding increase in the number of attempts to compensate.
If your number of attempts approaches infinity, you are assured of every result, it's just a matter of when.

As to accidents of chance, and being meaningful - you miss the point. Evolution isn;t about pure chance. Planetary formation isn't about pure chance. The difference between the science explanation and the religious explanation, is that the science answer is... "We don't know... but this is how it COULD have happened", whereas the religious answer is "We weren't there... but this is how we KNOW it happened, anyway".

To me - one of those answers is more 'honest' than the other, although the other may be more 'comforting'. But - I'll pick an honest "buggered if I know" over comforting assurances based on faith.

I don't miss the point, because I never said anything about planetary formation, let alone it being pure chance.

I don't care about the difference between the science answer and the religious answer, because I don't care what the religious answer is.

I'm quite content with possible explanations or even the buggered if I know. I don't accept appealing to chance when we don't know.

Grave_n_idle

03-06-2006, 15:27

The logic isn't flawed, and your coin flipping example, while completely true, doesn't mean anything to this point.

Regardless of how unlikely something is, if you make enough attempts, it will become likely that you will observe that event.
It's the intuitively understood change in odds with more attempts.
Let's bet our next paycheck on the roll of a die, if it comes up 6, you win.
Not very likely you will take that bet.
Roll the die 24 times.
You win if a 6 comes up.
Now it's a fool's bet for me.

Reduce the likelyhood of the event and you need a corresponding increase in the number of attempts to compensate.
If your number of attempts approaches infinity, you are assured of every result, it's just a matter of when.

What about betting your paycheck on the odds of the coin landing perfectly balanced on one side? It's possible - it's just way unlikely.

Or maybe, flipping your coin, and betting on the possibility of it being an otter when it lands...

Just because something feasibly COULD happen, doesn't mean it ever will.

I don't miss the point, because I never said anything about planetary formation, let alone it being pure chance.

I don't care about the difference between the science answer and the religious answer, because I don't care what the religious answer is.

I'm quite content with possible explanations or even the buggered if I know. I don't accept appealing to chance when we don't know.

But it isn't appealing to chance. Or, at least, I'm no longer sure if it is - you seem to be running around the field, placing goalposts wherever you like, so I don't know which goalposts I'm aiming for, any more. Indeed - I'm not actually sure which sport it is, now.

Skibereen

03-06-2006, 15:35

I've never actually looked it up myself, but it's a common argument of IDers that supposedly proves evolution wrong. So, out of curiosity, I finally looked it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

...hang on. I thought the IDers said it had to do with a system's complexity. Did I just kick the supports out from under one of the most pervasive and largest arguments of IDers? Or is there more to it, and I'm just being a simplistic idiot?

So...IDers...actual learned folks...what do you have to say on this?
First of all as Christian I never been able to understand why so many other "Christians" believe evolution is beyond the realm of an Omnipotent being scope of power.....so whatever.

I believe in God and evolution....I dont see what is so hard about that.

As far as IDers as you call them suggesting this relates to a systems complexity they are one hundred percent correct it is directly related to a systems complexity.....I again do not see how this effects;
1.Evolution directly as entropy is not chaos and chaos is not entropy though one I suppose could 'relate' the two.

2. How can you not see this relates to system complexity?

Now lets approach it from the IDers point of veiw(I suppose I am IDer since I beleive God "designed" evolution)

The earth is merely a tiny factor in the broad universe, so it is indeed not a system but simply part of a much larger system---since we can not veiw the much larger system we can not say what is going on with relation to this rule about 1. The Universe or 2. The earth
Because they are not seperate, but indeed interacting---so since i am not a very well educated person can someone tell me if science applies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to the system that is the Universe?
If they do, then indeed it does apply to us as well as we are in the system....does that somehow chnage evolution? Idont think so...it is merely a another small function inside the larger system.

Or maybe I dont know what I am talking about.

Snow Eaters

03-06-2006, 15:48

and you are who?

I'm Snow Eaters, it says so right there in that handy box to the left of every post I make.

Yup. You haven't read other threads. Some of the attitude of "nailing him to the wall" stems from the fact Braurong is a practioner of the cyclical argument and a repeater of the discredited argument.

I have read other threads. Not threads with Bruarong, but threads with Jocabia. Jocabia is a practitioner the condescension, the sarcasm, the arrogant dismissal of the poster's character and the stubborn refusal to accept that a poster might understand what they intended to say better than Jocabia's self serving interpretations.

I don't defend Jocabia and you can verify that with him. You have been making ad hominens on him.

Well, you are defending him now. I think you mean that you don't defend him often?
I've been commenting on Jocabia the poster, in a negative fashion, yes, that's absolutely true, but since I'm not debating anything with him, it's really not ad hominen.

No actually you are talking Creationist logic.

Logic is logic.

You read the Bible sites eh?

Nope. Why? Do you?

You disprove Evolution and most will accept it. There are hard core types but they are few.

I'm not trying to disprove evolution.

That's what the problem is with Braurong. You keep parroting arguments that everybody has argued away and you practice the cyclical argument strategy then it turns to discrediting the poster to make them go away.

Now I don't know who you're talking to, Snow Eaters or Bruarong.

Grave_n_idle

03-06-2006, 15:55

I have read other threads. Not threads with Bruarong, but threads with Jocabia. Jocabia is a practitioner the condescension, the sarcasm, the arrogant dismissal of the poster's character and the stubborn refusal to accept that a poster might understand what they intended to say better than Jocabia's self serving interpretations.

You're just not seeing any irony, are you...

Snow Eaters

03-06-2006, 16:07

What about betting your paycheck on the odds of the coin landing perfectly balanced on one side? It's possible - it's just way unlikely.

Give me enough flips, and absolutely.

Or maybe, flipping your coin, and betting on the possibility of it being an otter when it lands...

Just because something feasibly COULD happen, doesn't mean it ever will.

Now you're being silly, that's not feasible.

Although, if we flipped a coin and it landed as an otter, and I said, "Wow! Somethig weird happened, something is going on here that we don't understand, we better investigate and adjust our ntheory of Coin Flipping to address this gap"
And then you said with a shoulder shrug, "Meh, it happened, sometimes these accidents happen, stop thinking this means there's anything wrong with our theory of coin flipping"
Well, I'd have to think you're mad as a hatter.

Taking a step back away from insane examples.
If I'm still flipping that coin, and it does land on it's edge. I might recognise that it is a possibility, but I'm still going to check under the table and look for a magnet maybe, or bit of sticky jam on the table or maybe a worn spot on the table. I wouldn't just accept it as is and write it off to having flipped the coin enough times, even if that was true.

But it isn't appealing to chance. Or, at least, I'm no longer sure if it is - you seem to be running around the field, placing goalposts wherever you like, so I don't know which goalposts I'm aiming for, any more. Indeed - I'm not actually sure which sport it is, now.

No Grave, you made an assumption that there were religious goal posts here for you to shoot for. I never put them there, nor moved them.
I don't care what goofy explanations the religious come up with and find comfort in.

Snow Eaters

03-06-2006, 16:17

You're just not seeing any irony, are you...

Sometimes you burn a fire break.

Jocabia

03-06-2006, 16:18

Grave_n_idle

03-06-2006, 16:19

Give me enough flips, and absolutely.

Now you're being silly, that's not feasible.

Although, if we flipped a coin and it landed as an otter, and I said, "Wow! Somethig weird happened, something is going on here that we don't understand, we better investigate and adjust our ntheory of Coin Flipping to address this gap"
And then you said with a shoulder shrug, "Meh, it happened, sometimes these accidents happen, stop thinking this means there's anything wrong with our theory of coin flipping"
Well, I'd have to think you're mad as a hatter.

Taking a step back away from insane examples.
If I'm still flipping that coin, and it does land on it's edge. I might recognise that it is a possibility, but I'm still going to check under the table and look for a magnet maybe, or bit of sticky jam on the table or maybe a worn spot on the table. I wouldn't just accept it as is and write it off to having flipped the coin enough times, even if that was true.

I don't see how this is NON-consistent with what science does. SUre - it argues that given enough time, and a bucketload of chemicals, molecular combinations are practically inevitable. If DNA is the coin landing on it's side, it still comes under that coin-flipping, but it requires a lot of extra digging around... and, as far as I can tell - that is what science DOES - as much as possible. Of course - we weren't THERE for the flip, so we can only investigate it through the echoes, and through trying to recreate smaller flips.

As for the otter... well, our current science doesn't find it all THAT likely... but, maybe we just haven't flipped enough coins?

No Grave, you made an assumption that there were religious goal posts here for you to shoot for. I never put them there, nor moved them.
I don't care what goofy explanations the religious come up with and find comfort in.

I'm working under the assumption that your whole debate (the part that wasn't trying to assassinate Jocabia) was about the flaws of the science establishment, and it's value versus the religious models. I don't recall saying you WERE religious... but you seem to be disclaiming your original stance.

If I don't know where the goalposts are, from moment to moment, how can I even play your game?

Jocabia

03-06-2006, 16:20

Sometimes you burn a fire break.

So, do you suppose if I looked I might find you being rude to other posters, since you're in a position to decide what Grave should 'allow' me to do?

The fact that Jocabia is a "mean" prick

The almost incestuous Old Boys club in NS debate is revolting.

Do you just regurgitate definitions now without bothering to read?

I'm simply digusted with reading another thread full of Jocabia's bile.
His arrogant, condescending, intolerant, rude attitude over-shadows anything topical he might try to bring, and you are an enabler of it

You are uninterested in debate and only interested in reading what you type. When you read my posts, you're not even considering what I'm saying, only what you can respond with to score some points in your own head.

Oops, I mean I suck poorly... I forgot to add poorly.

You know, I am strugglionmg to follow these weak lame arguments, I'm tired of getting my ass kicked.

I'm going to agree with Jocabia from now on and we can start right there with that quote.

Jocabia, I fully agree, you ARE pompous. FREQUENTLY.

No they are not, basic Biology.

Here we go. "You're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with biology."

Now mind you so far this is the entire argument in each of these posts. It's not as if these snarky points are just part of an argument. They ARE the argument.

I'm not advocating that as the point where abortion becomes either wrong or illegal, but the biology of the situation is clear.

To be fair this one is part of an argument but he adds at the end that biology gives my argument, it's not me. As if the original person, me, he was replying to obviously doesn't understand the "biology of sitution".

I think you're missing why I posed the justification question.

"Wait, you're disagreeing with me? You must not understand."

You have entirely missed Lewis' point.

I seriously question your ability to discuss the issue rationally if you can actually hold to that claim.

You are free to disagree with Lewis and his point if you wish, or rather, with the imaginary point you think he's making.

you miss the point that Lewis is dealing in concepts.

your continual use of them demonstrates a lack of grasping the point.

You are one of the least objective people I've come across on this forum and you have chosen to argue with me even when we agree, so you'll pardon me if your critique holds no value in my eyes.

Interesting how you say I'm not objective and then demonstrate why I am. Moving on.

That's not a point, that's a topic you were discussing.

Here he corrects someone's proper use of vocabulary to avoid addressing the point. If you look at the above quotes you'll see him SE misuse the word point again.

The bold highlights how you continue to miss the point regardless of your claim otherwise.

You're not nearly interesting enough to warrant even the effort I've already put into discussing your claims with you.a

You're too dumb to understand Lewis.
And getting dumber.
If you're going to try and turn independence or self sufficiency into selfishness as if you can't make the distinction, then you clearly are dumb, or simply stubborn and trolling now.

And I was showing a flaw, the flaw in your understanding.

Good thing SE is never condescending or rude. In fact, if there was ever a person I should model after it's SE.

EDIT: And in case we get to hear about how it's my fault -

I do understand their views, I just don't agree with them. If there was a way I could have assured poor women access without involving the government, and so tax money, at all, I would have included it.

I'm sorry, but I can't accept your words at face value. You claim understanding with disagreement, but then you couple it with statements that fly in the face of any such understanding.

Perhaps you do understand and choose to not only disagree, but to also ignore that understanding?

Pretty clear that in similar circumstances you'll suggest that contradictions evidence not only being wrong but intent to present things in a way he know is wrong.

Grave_n_idle

03-06-2006, 16:21

Hilarious. The 'gaps' you speak of are where evidence does not exist not where it doesn't explain the evidence that does exist. Evolutionary theory does not ignore evidence. You're thinking of ID.

Making a false comparison and then acting like it shows anything is faulty logic. The 'gaps', Creationists speak of in Evolutionary Theory are because they think the particular order of flips that occurred is unlikely. They've never evidenced anything that doesn't make sense under the current theory and I challenge you to give a single example of 'a coin turning into an otter' in Evolutionary Theory. Just one.

I think the otter is mine, actually... I'm beginning to wish I'd left him at home, he doesn't travel well, and allegories make him nervous.

:)

Jocabia

03-06-2006, 16:36

I think the otter is mine, actually... I'm beginning to wish I'd left him at home, he doesn't travel well, and allegories make him nervous.

:)

Yes, but you didn't pretend that theories would not adjust to such a happening. The otter is an appropriate way to show that because some things are possible with enough time doesn't mean all things are possible with time. The ID argument says highly improbable. If it actually showed something impossible according to current theory it would be an excellent debunking. It does no such thing.

Jocabia

03-06-2006, 16:39

I think the otter is mine, actually... I'm beginning to wish I'd left him at home, he doesn't travel well, and allegories make him nervous.

:)

Stop your constant enabling of SE. Drawing logical conclusions and explaining them is not acceptable. If a poster is ever rude you must SHUN him or her. ;)

Snow Eaters

03-06-2006, 22:19

I don't see how this is NON-consistent with what science does. SUre - it argues that given enough time, and a bucketload of chemicals, molecular combinations are practically inevitable. If DNA is the coin landing on it's side, it still comes under that coin-flipping, but it requires a lot of extra digging around... and, as far as I can tell - that is what science DOES - as much as possible. Of course - we weren't THERE for the flip, so we can only investigate it through the echoes, and through trying to recreate smaller flips.

Because if we accept that, then we no longer need to inquire about any process, we just accept that buckets and time get the job done.
Science doesn't do that though, science does the extra digging around.

As for the otter... well, our current science doesn't find it all THAT likely... but, maybe we just haven't flipped enough coins?

You can hold to that opinion/belief if you choose, but I don't, nor do I see any evidence that would lead me to accept that more coin flips will ever become otters.

I'm working under the assumption that your whole debate...<snip> ...was about the flaws of the science establishment, and it's value versus the religious models. I don't recall saying you WERE religious... but you seem to be disclaiming your original stance.

You're working under a false assumption, I made no such original stance to disclaim it.

If I don't know where the goalposts are, from moment to moment, how can I even play your game?

Seems odd to that one would try and score points on a goalpost by assumptions only. Play games with someone else.

Jocabia

04-06-2006, 00:05

*snip*

What is so hard about explicitly stated what you're talking about?. You are presenting arguments so it's natural for people to think you have a thesis. Otherwise everything you're saying is just words. Every single thread you claim you're not making an argument that everyone is mistakingly addressing something you're not saying. State your argument. Seriously, what is it about you that makes you so afraid of speaking clearly? Not confident enough in your position to make it clear?

Do you know why you're not allowed to just post an article as a thread with nothing else? Because this is a debate forum so you have to present a thesis, an point to your arguments. It's a requirement. If you don't believe me ask the mods. It's not a game. It's to fit with the purpose of this forum, which is debate. it's not just informational. You have to state your position. Go ahead. Ask the mods what the point is.

We're not playing a game we made up. We're interacting on a forum according to the rules of the forum. You don't like it. Well, there's an ignore feature. It doesn't make us ignore you but it makes it so you don't have to hear our replies.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10569819&postcount=10

Grave_n_idle

04-06-2006, 00:25

Because if we accept that, then we no longer need to inquire about any process, we just accept that buckets and time get the job done.
Science doesn't do that though, science does the extra digging around.

Isn't that what I said? That science does the digging around... isn't that the opposite of what you say - that science accepts the 'eventual' approach, and thus stops digging?

I can't keep up. I'm so busy chasing goalposts...maybe it wasn't goalposts to begin with...

You can hold to that opinion/belief if you choose, but I don't, nor do I see any evidence that would lead me to accept that more coin flips will ever become otters.

If you wish to rule things out, feel free. I'm not the boss of you.

You're working under a false assumption, I made no such original stance to disclaim it.

Too much stuff to do, and feeling kind of lazy. I can't be too motivated to go back through the thread trying to work out what you did say... so - whatever, you were right, I was wrong. You win.

Whatever it was.

Seems odd to that one would try and score points on a goalpost by assumptions only. Play games with someone else.

I'm sorry - I didn't realise we were being exclusive... :o

I've been debating with other people this whole time! I feel terrible...

Jocabia

04-06-2006, 00:46

I'm sorry - I didn't realise we were being exclusive... :o

I've been debating with other people this whole time! I feel terrible...

How does one get Coke out of their keyboard?

Notice that recurring SE theme rising again. "I'm not actually making an argument because that way every time you demonstrate that something I say is wrong I can just claim not to be claiming it's right."

Dinaverg

04-06-2006, 00:48

How does one get Coke out of their keyboard?

Very carefully?

Bottle

04-06-2006, 01:31

I'm sorry - I didn't realise we were being exclusive... :o

I've been debating with other people this whole time! I feel terrible...
GASP!

You slut! You debated with me in the boathouse last night, and now I walk in and catch you in flagrante debate with this...this HUSSY!

*SLAP*

You bastard!

Dinaverg

04-06-2006, 02:13

GASP!

You slut! You debated with me in the boathouse last night, and now I walk in and catch you in flagrante debate with this...this HUSSY!

*SLAP*

You bastard!

*smacks own forehead* The boathouse, of course! That's where the cameras should be set up...

Grave_n_idle

04-06-2006, 02:49

How does one get Coke out of their keyboard?

Notice that recurring SE theme rising again. "I'm not actually making an argument because that way every time you demonstrate that something I say is wrong I can just claim not to be claiming it's right."

Keyboard? Ah man... I was hoping for monitor... :D

Grave_n_idle

04-06-2006, 02:51

GASP!

You slut! You debated with me in the boathouse last night, and now I walk in and catch you in flagrante debate with this...this HUSSY!

*SLAP*

You bastard!

But... but... it didn't mean anything!

And, come on... wouldn't you rather I was debating with someone else and thinking of you, than debating with you and thinking of someone else...?

Jocabia

04-06-2006, 03:09

Keyboard? Ah man... I was hoping for monitor... :D

It's a laptop. I only hook up a monitor at work. And I can't run this keyboard through the dishwasher like I would normally.

Dinaverg

04-06-2006, 03:10

It's a laptop. I only hook up a monitor at work. And I can't run this keyboard through the dishwasher like I would normally.

Well, you could take it apart...I recommend a few practice attempts first, so you know how to put it back together.

Grave_n_idle

04-06-2006, 03:17

It's a laptop. I only hook up a monitor at work. And I can't run this keyboard through the dishwasher like I would normally.

When a 'friend' of mine owned a computer store, the question of Coke in keyboards DID come up, and he recommended a fine mist of water (while the machine is unplugged, obviously), until the Coke is clear of anything vital, then a hairdryer set on warm.

Of course, he was a goon, so I don't know how much faith I'd put in it...

Dinaverg

04-06-2006, 03:18

Sometimes you burn a fire break.

Also, am I the only one that didn't understand this sentence?

Jocabia

04-06-2006, 03:20

When a 'friend' of mine owned a computer store, the question of Coke in keyboards DID come up, and he recommended a fine mist of water (while the machine is unplugged, obviously), until the Coke is clear of anything vital, then a hairdryer set on warm.

Of course, he was a goon, so I don't know how much faith I'd put in it...

Remove power from the keyboard (remove batteries if wireless) and then put it in the dishwasher without the heated drying. Then give it a day to dry. I've done it several times to regular keyboards. I used to teach people to do it when I was working for the online university.

Mezarix

04-06-2006, 03:22

All creationist arguments are based on flawed science. Usually it's a flawed understanding of evolutionary biology.:headbang:
not matter can suddenly apear out of no where,if the the star that caused the big bang(supermasive star containing all of the universes atoms,neutrons,electron etc.)then it would have collapsed into itself and would have become a black hole.thus if the big bang is impossible all of ur evolutionary science is useless because without creation nothing would exist,do we not exist?ohh and incase u wer going to retort giving some argument about "how come(according to fossil records)life gradually became more complex?".its simple,in the bible it mentions that Jehova (God) first created the plant,then the animals,plant=less complex than animals therefore using this pattern we discover that Jehova created the less complex creatures first,then finally he gave life to man,who was eventually tricked by Satan.Evolution,just like the fruit that Adam an Eve ate(by the way it probably wasn't an apple) is a test of faith,I'm sure that once the end of this system of things comes and the new order is established people will ask why others could belive in such an unscientific and atheist(thats right,anyone who belives in evolution,no matter what religion you claim to be,you're spitting in the face of Jehova and when the time comes if you do not see the light you will be destroyed) and it will end up being like the story of Adam and Eve eating the fruit.:cool:

Jocabia

04-06-2006, 03:22

Also, am I the only one that didn't understand this sentence?

He's suggesting he's fighting fire with fire.

The fact that he has less than 300 posts and I can quote him doing exactly what he's complaining about in roughly 10% of his posts evidences the fact that he's a hypocrite. I admit I do it, I don't chase people from thread to thread whining about how they are 'mean'. If someone actually makes a clear argument I could care less if they're 'mean'.

Jocabia

04-06-2006, 03:24

:headbang:
not matter can suddenly apear out of no where,if the the star that caused the big bang(supermasive star containing all of the universes atoms,neutrons,electron etc.)then it would have collapsed into itself and would have become a black hole.thus if the big bang is impossible all of ur evolutionary science is useless because without creation nothing would exist,do we not exist?ohh and incase u wer going to retort giving some argument about "how come(according to fossil records)life gradually became more complex?".its simple,in the bible it mentions that Jehova (God) first created the plant,then the animals,plant=less complex than animals therefore using this pattern we discover that Jehova created the less complex creatures first,then finally he gave life to man,who was eventually tricked by Satan.Evolution,just like the fruit that Adam an Eve ate(by the way it probably wasn't an apple) is a test of faith,I'm sure that once the end of this system of things comes and the new order is established people will ask why others could belive in such an unscientific and atheist(thats right,anyone who belives in evolution,no matter what religion you claim to be,you're spitting in the face of Jehova and when the time comes if you do not see the light you will be destroyed) and it will end up being like the story of Adam and Eve eating the fruit.:cool:

When looking for a profound and compelling argument I always find the ones that start with Idiot!

Dinaverg

04-06-2006, 03:25

:headbang:
not matter can suddenly apear out of no where,if the the star that caused the big bang(supermasive star containing all of the universes atoms,neutrons,electron etc.)then it would have collapsed into itself and would have become a black hole.thus if the big bang is impossible all of ur evolutionary science is useless because without creation nothing would exist,do we not exist?ohh and incase u wer going to retort giving some argument about "how come(according to fossil records)life gradually became more complex?".its simple,in the bible it mentions that Jehova (God) first created the plant,then the animals,plant=less complex than animals therefore using this pattern we discover that Jehova created the less complex creatures first,then finally he gave life to man,who was eventually tricked by Satan.Evolution,just like the fruit that Adam an Eve ate(by the way it probably wasn't an apple) is a test of faith,I'm sure that once the end of this system of things comes and the new order is established people will ask why others could belive in such an unscientific and atheist(thats right,anyone who belives in evolution,no matter what religion you claim to be,you're spitting in the face of Jehova and when the time comes if you do not see the light you will be destroyed) and it will end up being like the story of Adam and Eve eating the fruit.:cool:

1) Paragraphs.
2) Spaces after commas, full stops, and question marks.
3) Shorter sentences.
4) What the hell did you just say?

Snow Eaters

04-06-2006, 07:07

Isn't that what I said? That science does the digging around...

Yup.
I agreed, and I liked the wording.
I really never meant to confuse you by agreeing with you.

isn't that the opposite of what you say - that science accepts the 'eventual' approach, and thus stops digging?

Nope.
I say that when one accepts the 'eventual' approach, it's bad science, if it's science at all.
Science does the digging.

I can't keep up. I'm so busy chasing goalposts...maybe it wasn't goalposts to begin with...

It wasn't.
Sit a spell, relax, discuss, leave the goalposts alone.

If you wish to rule things out, feel free. I'm not the boss of you.

Right then.
Flipped coins landing as otters are right out altogether then.

Too much stuff to do, and feeling kind of lazy. I can't be too motivated to go back through the thread trying to work out what you did say... so - whatever, you were right, I was wrong. You win.

Whatever it was.

I only entered the thread a few pages ago, but fine.

I'm sorry - I didn't realise we were being exclusive... :o

I've been debating with other people this whole time! I feel terrible...

What are you imagining you're responding to????
I commented on assumptions, goalposts and playing games, did I accidentally slip you the keys to my place and blank it out?

Snow Eaters

04-06-2006, 07:10

4) What the hell did you just say?

Dunno either, but I dare you to retort with:
Why did life, according to fossil records, gradually became more complex?

Bruarong

04-06-2006, 19:47

I'm not sure I've seen Bruarong in previous threads, NS is not one of the forums I've been in long, so I can't comment on what he's done before, but in this thread alone I've noted that he used "cell wall" incorrectly when he really meant cell membrane, his intent was clear from the context and he admitted his error, he admitted to inaccurately labeling pre-human ancestors as apes, he admitted to being off on which step he uses 97C as a temperature in his reverse transcriptase process.

Yeah, my mistakes are scattered all through this thread. But that's not surprising. I expect that anyone will make mistakes. It's not that easy to defend your position against greater numbers, without making a mistake sooner or later. Of course, the other posters make mistakes too, but those ones tend to be forgotten and buried in the great number of posts. But my mistakes keep coming back. The reason has to do with the type of criticism and arguments that my opponents have been using. The like to remind me of my mistakes, in order to discredit me. Which is why I feel the need to continually remind them that I'm not interested in holding up a reputation or to make good impressions. I was here to debate a position, not my ability to defend that position.

I'm impressed that you have read all the posts though, as your list of my mistakes seems to indicate

To badger him over admitted mistakes, to question his personal character and accuse him of not admitting his mistakes when perhaps he's just not admitting something that the accuser wants him too seems to be less in the interest of honesty and more in the interest of "nailing him to the wall".

This approach of theirs is perhaps the most disappointing thing about the debate. It has clouded the issue, making it harder to distinguish between my personality and my position.

You're his peer, and you allegedly have the experience to speak from, that wouldn't be hypocrisy.

You don't believe you endorse Jocabia??
Really?
You pop into threads to comment on posts that Jocabia's opponents make.
You defend Jocabia from perceived ad hominen attacks.
You reminisce about times gone by.
You flatter him as a "superstar", a "master" from whom the dogs of the forum demand scraps, yet you are not sure how much you encourage anything?

I wouldn't be surprised if Grave will admit to supporting the side that appears least Christian (or conservative Christian), regardless of who it is. The 'old boys club' which you mentioned includes anyone that is either against Christianity or like Jocabia and Dem who seem to be against conservative Christian view points. That doesn't mean they are not Christians, of course, but one wonders why they are so chumy with those who are obviously against Christianity.

Absolutely true.
But the reality is that the platforms that I'm a proponent of aren't terribly different than Jocabia's from what I can gather.

Interesting that you should be so upset with him. Do it have something to do with clashes on other threads?

I share Bruarong's peeve with evolutionists that fall back on "we're here so it must have happened, stop asking questions" or "if you give it enough time, anything can happen" because it serves to shut down inquiry regarding gaps in our theories and knowledge just as assuredly as the "God did it" defense.

Interesting assesment.

I don't share Bruarong's need or desire to bring God or supernatural forces into science.

Fair enough. It would be interesting to see some of your arguments, although beware, because the criticism can be harsh.

I wasn't weighing in against platforms, just how those platforms were being attacked, or rather, weren't being attacked in favour of discrediting the poster instead.

Actually, I appreciate your posting here, because it helped me see some of the (disappointing) tatics that my opponents were using. However, I do feel that the topic has changed from the philosophy of science to the philosophy of arguing.

Dinaverg

04-06-2006, 20:00

I'm impressed that you have read all the posts though, as your list of my mistakes seems to indicate

We assume he has little better to do. :D

...making it harder to distinguish between my personality and my position.

I can only imagine your personality has a lot to do with your opinion.

...but one wonders why they are so chumy with those who are obviously against Christianity.

Maybe because we aren't anti-Christian?

Interesting that you should be so upset with him. Do it have something to do with clashes on other threads?

He's been subject to teh Wrath of Jocabia before, yeah.

Fair enough. It would be interesting to see some of your arguments, although beware, because the criticism can be harsh.

It is intresting to see his arguements, he tries so hard to make them unclear.

Bruarong

04-06-2006, 20:40

Do you still support the positions you expressed in those threads? Because if you say you no longer hold those positions I'll abandon your posts. Otherwise, I think they are useful in showing a particular trend or style that is germaine to the way you approach the issue.

But don't you see that my style is separate from my position? Can't you attack a position without attacking the person? Some people can't handle their position being attacked, they take it personally. But I gave you the opportunity to attack my position without being personal. I repeatedly told you that I'm not in this for a win, and I don't care what you think of me. Even so, most of your arguments come down to how Bruarong is either confused or lying. I can't tell you how useless that is to my time on NS. A waste of my time. That's why I preferred Dem's posts to yours, since even though she like to place the odd insult in her posts, she basically attacked the position. Willamena is even better, since she is almost never personal in her criticisms, but she has a sharp mind, and it is obvious in her posts.

I don't really care about my previous positions on previous threads. I can't say that I would still support those positions. I don't even know. I would have to look at them again one by one. If you want to bring them up again on this thread, do so, and I'll tell you what I think about them if you really want to know.

And I'm satisfied with your reply on the consistency point. My advice would be to be a bit more patient with people who you believe are misunderstanding your point since you admit your point was muddled. I don't jump in to protect Dem often. One, I'm generally more likely to jump on her in issues of science (although not lately) so if I'm defending her posts it's likely justified. Two, she doesn't really need it.

My criticism of Dem was pretty mild. Hardly an insult, and certainly less insulting to what she was saying to me. She also accused me of lying and deceit, which I still think is completely unneccessary. And you are right--she certainly doesn't need defending. And it is a bit much to ask me to be more patient when I have a feeling that I have demonstrated more patience than you and Dem put together. I could have it wrong, though, but it certainly feels that way.

On the other hand, I realize that I have made mistakes (who doesn't?) and when I started on NS, I really hadn't developed my point of view at all. It is still reasonably underdeveloped. And I may well have altered some of my points. Perhaps there are many points that need alteration still. Such is the nature of development, and this is a part of my own personal journey to find the truth in this issue, to throw questions at every direction. And I can see how this caused confusion and anger.

As far as being nicer, I don't know why, but I suck at being nice lately. I blame Pepsi.

The first step to improvement is to take the responsibility for your own faults.

EDIT: I've complimented you before, my friend. You just missed it. And, it should be noted that you're really messing up SE's arguments when you say I'm not a prick. I'm obviously universally a prick and anyone who doesn't agree is part of our biased secret society of eeeevviiiillll. I think you just accidentally joined.

Yes, I must have missed your compliment. And while SE is criticising your approach to debating on this thread (I agree with many of his points), I think it was you that first referred to yourself as a 'prick', and blamed my poor presentation of my position as an excuse (when you jolly well know that there is no excuse for that).

I doubt I'll ever be a part of your society. I like to be on good terms with all my opponents, if possible. I'd buy you a drink any day, Jocabia, no problem. But your society just seems to have too many things that I disagree with, one of them being character assassination tactics, the other being generally at odds with Christianity (maybe not you and Dem, but the others). The next best thing after a good friend is a good opponent. I'll be satisfied with that.

I don't think of you as a prick. I consider no man evil. I think you have a reasonably good mind for debating. But your style lets you down, and no wonder SE is upset with you. Even Grave is a better opponent than you, since he usually manages to attack 'nicely'. Though I suppose Grave and I will disagree on just about any issue you care to name. But I would rather spend time arguing with Grave, than bitch-fight with anyone. At least there is a chance to learn something other than how to get better at insulting people.

I propose we call ourselves the Secret Society of Jocabian Enablers. We could have a secret handshake and a decoder ring and we could replace very vowel with the next on in order (AEIOUY) su piupli cen't till whet wi'ri sryong. It'll be awesome. My mom is sewing us a flag as we speak.

Don't tell me you still live with your mum!?! You are 31, for heaven's sake!

Dinaverg

04-06-2006, 20:43

*snip*

Bwahaha! This stuff is funny...

Dakini

04-06-2006, 20:45

Remove power from the keyboard (remove batteries if wireless) and then put it in the dishwasher without the heated drying. Then give it a day to dry. I've done it several times to regular keyboards. I used to teach people to do it when I was working for the online university.
Does that seriously work for cleaning keyboards?!

Dakini

04-06-2006, 20:50

not matter can suddenly apear out of no where,
No one has ever claimed it has.

if the the star that caused the big bang(supermasive star containing all of the universes atoms,neutrons,electron etc.)then it would have collapsed into itself and would have become a black hole.thus if the big bang is impossible all of ur evolutionary science is useless because without creation nothing would exist,do we not exist?
Your argument makes a number of silly and outright false statements.
1. There was no star that caused the big bang.
2. You obviously do not know how the big bang happened, learn a little something about what scientists consider to have occured before you try to criticise it. This is possibly the worst attempt at explaining the big bang I have ever come accross and I've come accross some pretty sad attempts.
3. The big bang is not impossible.
4. Evolution is in no way related to the big bang. Evolution is a completely separate scientific theory.
5. No creation was necessary, natural processes are thought to be quite capable of producing everything we see, including ourselves.

ohh and incase u wer going to retort giving some argument about "how come(according to fossil records)life gradually became more complex?".its simple,in the bible it mentions that Jehova (God) first created the plant,then the animals,plant=less complex than animals therefore using this pattern we discover that Jehova created the less complex creatures first,then finally he gave life to man,who was eventually tricked by Satan.
The bible has no place in scientific discussions.

I'm sure that once the end of this system of things comes and the new order is established people will ask why others could belive in such an unscientific and atheist(thats right,anyone who belives in evolution,no matter what religion you claim to be,you're spitting in the face of Jehova and when the time comes if you do not see the light you will be destroyed)
Wrong, there are many christians, muslims, buddhists, et c who consider evolution to be the way life developed on earth. Even the catholic church's official stance supports evolution.

Dinaverg

04-06-2006, 20:52

No one has ever claimed it has.

Your argument makes a number of silly and outright false statements.
1. There was no star that caused the big bang.
2. You obviously do not know how the big bang happened, learn a little something about what scientists consider to have occured before you try to criticise it. This is possibly the worst attempt at explaining the big bang I have ever come accross and I've come accross some pretty sad attempts.
3. The big bang is not impossible.
4. Evolution is in no way related to the big bang. Evolution is a completely separate scientific theory.
5. No creation was necessary, natural processes are thought to be quite capable of producing everything we see, including ourselves.

The bible has no place in scientific discussions.

Wrong, there are many christians, muslims, buddhists, et c who consider evolution to be the way life developed on earth. Even the catholic church's official stance supports evolution.

...You could read that?

Bruarong

04-06-2006, 20:52

We assume he has little better to do. :D

Would you wear the same label?

I can only imagine your personality has a lot to do with your opinion.

It is related, perhaps, but there is a lot more to a position than one supporter's personality. If you can't see that, I suggest you need a check-up on your imagination.

Maybe because we aren't anti-Christian?

You have yet to convince me of that. Actually, I don't know much about you, personally, but the others like Grave and The Black Forrest......

He's been subject to teh Wrath of Jocabia before, yeah.

If you really wanted to help Jocabia, you would encourage him to be good at debating, instead of being good at insulting. He doesn't upset people because he is a good debator, but because he insults people. He would be a better debator if he didn't insult.

It is intresting to see his arguements, he tries so hard to make them unclear.

And how do you know that your opinion is not a product of your bias?

Bruarong

04-06-2006, 20:59

[QUOTE=Dakini]
3. The big bang is not impossible.
[QUOTE]

Actually, we don't know from science if the big bang is possible. It is theoretically possible, perhaps (because our knowledge is incomplete), but empirical science cannot tell us if the big bang is possible.

Dakini

04-06-2006, 20:59

...You could read that?
It involved picking it apart into smaller pieces and pretending there were spaces when there weren't any, it was rather fortunate that he only ignored the spacebar after punctuation or else it would have been truly illegeible.

Dakini

04-06-2006, 21:00

3. The big bang is not impossible.

Actually, we don't know from science if the big bang is possible. It is theoretically possible, perhaps (because our knowledge is incomplete), but empirical science cannot tell us if the big bang is possible.
Read the part you just quoted again and tell me where I said it was possible. I believe I said that it was not impossible unless my eyes deceive me. Furthermore, the big bang is quite possible since the observational evidence does not contradict it.
And as a student of astrophysics, it seems quite likely that it happened anyways. Absolute certainty is a scientific impossibility.

Dinaverg

04-06-2006, 21:01

Would you wear the same label?

Probably...I don't have much of a social life.

You have yet to convince me of that. Actually, I don't know much about you, personally, but the others like Grave and The Black Forrest......

My guess is anti-dogma, or anti-irrationality. Makes more sense than saying "anti-Christian, except the two they like".

If you really wanted to help Jocabia, you would encourage him to be good at debating, instead of being good at insulting. He doesn't upset people because he is a good debator, but because he insults people. He would be a better debator if he didn't insult.

True. It'd also help him out if he could let a debate go, apparently. (Nothing to do with this debate, this one seems fine...). My guess is he gets a little...exicted, when debating. I dunno, maybe if'n he was less emotional about it...Course, he doesn't only insult, and SE made for quite the irritating opponent...at least, when he seemed to be against you, he kept sliding around.

And how do you know that your opinion is not a product of your bias?

How do any of us know that? I think so because he constantly complaimed about misrepresentation, when we argued the points he makes, because those apparently aren't his position. Oy, t'was bothersome that.

Grave_n_idle

04-06-2006, 21:11

What are you imagining you're responding to????
I commented on assumptions, goalposts and playing games, did I accidentally slip you the keys to my place and blank it out?

You don't remember?

So - I guess this means you want the ring back...

Grave_n_idle

04-06-2006, 21:21

Even Grave is a better opponent than you...

Backhanded compliment?

Grave_n_idle

04-06-2006, 21:22

You have yet to convince me of that. Actually, I don't know much about you, personally, but the others like Grave and The Black Forrest......

...yes?

You KNOW that's only half a sentence, right?

Jocabia

04-06-2006, 21:45

But don't you see that my style is separate from my position? Can't you attack a position without attacking the person?

Attacking the way you make the argument is not attacking you. Attacking your expertise is not attacking you. I attacked things you presented as arguments and the way you presented them. It is you that is not seperating.

You presented the fact that you are a scientist as a support for your position. You attacked Dem as not understanding you because she saw in your position things you'd ACTUALLY SAID. You claimed you'd never said things you did say. I showed that you'd done so. I showed you were at the very least wrong and at worst lying. Eventually I settled on lying after you admitted to doing it earlier. I didn't just randomly attack you as a poster.

Some people can't handle their position being attacked, they take it personally. But I gave you the opportunity to attack my position without being personal. I repeatedly told you that I'm not in this for a win, and I don't care what you think of me. Even so, most of your arguments come down to how Bruarong is either confused or lying. I can't tell you how useless that is to my time on NS. A waste of my time. That's why I preferred Dem's posts to yours, since even though she like to place the odd insult in her posts, she basically attacked the position. Willamena is even better, since she is almost never personal in her criticisms, but she has a sharp mind, and it is obvious in her posts.

I don't think anything of you. You might be a wonderful person. You might be brilliant. You might be the best thing that's ever happened to this world. I have no way of knowing anything about your person. I respond to what that person brings here. You bring racism (you didn't, just an example) here I'll comment on it. You bring xenophobia (again, you didnt) here, I'll comment on it. You bring anti-science here I'll comment on it. You claim your job in life presents expertise, then I'll comment on it. And you lie and say you didn't say things you did, I'll comment on it.

I don't really care about my previous positions on previous threads. I can't say that I would still support those positions. I don't even know. I would have to look at them again one by one. If you want to bring them up again on this thread, do so, and I'll tell you what I think about them if you really want to know.

Yes, well, when your previous position contradicts your current position and you get upset with people who are confused, then perhaps the problem is yours.

My criticism of Dem was pretty mild. Hardly an insult, and certainly less insulting to what she was saying to me. She also accused me of lying and deceit, which I still think is completely unneccessary. And you are right--she certainly doesn't need defending. And it is a bit much to ask me to be more patient when I have a feeling that I have demonstrated more patience than you and Dem put together. I could have it wrong, though, but it certainly feels that way.

I think she's right. However, she did not do so until after you keep claiming you didn't say something you did and accusing her of problems with comprehension. Again, I believe you brought this on yourself. I did not make a single comment about you lying or being inconsistent until you attacked her comprehension because she reacted to what you said IN CONTEXT. If you knew the history of myself and Dem, you'd realize it's not something I'm anxious to do.

On the other hand, I realize that I have made mistakes (who doesn't?) and when I started on NS, I really hadn't developed my point of view at all. It is still reasonably underdeveloped. And I may well have altered some of my points. Perhaps there are many points that need alteration still. Such is the nature of development, and this is a part of my own personal journey to find the truth in this issue, to throw questions at every direction. And I can see how this caused confusion and anger.

That's a fair assessment. I had the same issue when I started on NS. It was frustrating for me. I'm absolutely willing to take that into account and I apologize (that's right, I said it) for not allowing you to better figure out your own position without a heavy load of criticism. However, keep in mind that people WILL be confused when your position alters without any acknowledgement that it's changed.

Imagine an exaggerated example, Nordland shows up arguing for equal rights for all. Don't you imagine that people would question the credibility. We tend to take things in context here, and other threads give context.

Your didn't reverse position like this, but you have equivocated and it's frustrating for people are tyring to argue the merits and flaws in your position.

The first step to improvement is to take the responsibility for your own faults.

The Pepsi part was a joke. I do get passionate as others mentioned. Not mad. Just passionate. So wehn I see someone being illogical I point it out even if by pointing it out they'll be insulted. If a part of their argument appears to be dishonest, I say so (though I could be more tactful). If they claim expertise, but they're words suggest otherwise, then I say so. Etc.

Yes, I must have missed your compliment. And while SE is criticising your approach to debating on this thread (I agree with many of his points), I think it was you that first referred to yourself as a 'prick', and blamed my poor presentation of my position as an excuse (when you jolly well know that there is no excuse for that).

No, I'm a prick sometimes. However, It is never just an unfair attack on a position. It's a thought out intentional attack on all parts of an argument. All parts. If people present themselves as an expert, I debunk the expert. I approach the style of the argument, the arguments and the conclusions. You may be more tactful, but I'm certain you do it as well. I can prove it if you like.

I doubt I'll ever be a part of your society. I like to be on good terms with all my opponents, if possible. I'd buy you a drink any day, Jocabia, no problem. But your society just seems to have too many things that I disagree with, one of them being character assassination tactics, the other being generally at odds with Christianity (maybe not you and Dem, but the others). The next best thing after a good friend is a good opponent. I'll be satisfied with that.

You admitted to saying things you knew were not true. What do you expect to come from that? A toast to your honesty.

I don't think of you as a prick. I consider no man evil. I think you have a reasonably good mind for debating. But your style lets you down, and no wonder SE is upset with you. Even Grave is a better opponent than you, since he usually manages to attack 'nicely'. Though I suppose Grave and I will disagree on just about any issue you care to name. But I would rather spend time arguing with Grave, than bitch-fight with anyone. At least there is a chance to learn something other than how to get better at insulting people.

Fair enough. I am a bit ruthless at times and I recognize it. I also recognize that some posters appear to think since they cannot ever be approached in person that it is acceptable to misrepresent certain parts of their argument because it's not like people can prove they're doing it. This is a common SE tactic and you appear to do so as well. When that becomes a tactic it's appropriate to bring up that tactic. Again, you started my approach to you when you said that a poster responding to what you actually wrote was having comprehension problems, claiming that your position is NOT one that you eventually admitted IS IN FACT your position. Sorry, but that speaks to your credibility my friend.

Don't tell me you still live with your mum!?! You are 31, for heaven's sake!

Ha.

Jocabia

04-06-2006, 21:48

Does that seriously work for cleaning keyboards?!

Yep. As long as all power is removed and it is allowed to dry properly before power is reapplied. Be careful that your keyboard can dry, some keyboards have areas that are nearly sealed. They are rare however.

Dakini

04-06-2006, 22:09

Yep. As long as all power is removed and it is allowed to dry properly before power is reapplied. Be careful that your keyboard can dry, some keyboards have areas that are nearly sealed. They are rare however.
I'll have to keep that in mind next time I get junk in my keyboard.
Do you put soap in the dishwasher when you do this or not?

Bruarong

04-06-2006, 22:51

Read the part you just quoted again and tell me where I said it was possible.

You didn't say it was possible, (and I didn't say you did) but that is what I thought you meant. Was I wrong?

I believe I said that it was not impossible unless my eyes deceive me.

It's not a problem with our eyes so much as with our imaginations. You and I might look at the same thing and come to different conclusions. The world that one percieves is really a reflection of what is already in the mind.

The other point that is obvious here is that you are expressing your belief--that the big bang is possible. On that basis, it doesn't seem fair to criticise someone who doesn't share your belief (regardless of how well or poorly they presented their position). You appeared to be quite scathing of his/her belief, all the while supporting your position by your belief. I was not trying to prevent you from doing this, but trying to point out that you were doing so on the basis of belief, not necessarily empirical science. You might believe that empirical science supports your position, but that is a belief, and not a statement of empirical science. To make your position presentable, you would have to provide persuasive arguments demonstrating why your belief best represents the evidence. Hence the need for debate.

Furthermore, the big bang is quite possible since the observational evidence does not contradict it.

Possibly the observable evidence depends on your point of view, which gets back to my previous point about how one interprets the evidence according to what the mind is capable of recognising.

Futhermore, what we think is possible is limited by our knowledge. It could be our lack of knowledge that makes the big bang possible in our perception, or not possible.

And as a student of astrophysics, it seems quite likely that it happened anyways. Absolute certainty is a scientific impossibility.

I doubt that all students of astrophysics would consider it likely. Most, perhaps. But being a student of astrophysics does not mean you think the big bang is likely, surely. I suggest it has a lot to do with your world view.

Tell me your world view, and I might be able to predict your conclusion regarding the big bang.

Grave_n_idle

04-06-2006, 22:57

You didn't say it was possible, (and I didn't say you did) but that is what I thought you meant. Was I wrong?

Yes.

Dinaverg

04-06-2006, 22:57

Futhermore, what we think is possible is limited by our knowledge. It could be our lack of knowledge that makes the big bang possible in our perception, or not possible.

I percive it to mean God asploded himself. Because Scott Adams said so, and it sounds cool.

Jocabia

04-06-2006, 23:15

I'll have to keep that in mind next time I get junk in my keyboard.
Do you put soap in the dishwasher when you do this or not?

Oh, crap. Should have said that. Absolutely not.

Jocabia

04-06-2006, 23:17

Futhermore, what we think is possible is limited by our knowledge. It could be our lack of knowledge that makes the big bang possible in our perception, or not possible.
Which is why the wording was that it is not impossible.

Dakini

04-06-2006, 23:28

You didn't say it was possible, (and I didn't say you did) but that is what I thought you meant. Was I wrong?
Yes. The poster said that the big bang was impossible. I said it was not. You read too much into it.

It's not a problem with our eyes so much as with our imaginations. You and I might look at the same thing and come to different conclusions. The world that one percieves is really a reflection of what is already in the mind.
Well, you're the one reading too much into my statement.

The other point that is obvious here is that you are expressing your belief--that the big bang is possible.
That's not my belief, it's science. Until something disproves the possibility of the big bang, that's how it is.

On that basis, it doesn't seem fair to criticise someone who doesn't share your belief (regardless of how well or poorly they presented their position). You appeared to be quite scathing of his/her belief, all the while supporting your position by your belief.
They presented a misinterpretation and complete and total misunderstanding of the big bang theory. They obviously did not know the first thing about it. If you're going to criticize a scientific theory, you have to at least learn something about it. In the same way, I can't criticize A Midsummer's Night Dream because I haven't read it or seen it preformed or even heard a proper synopsis of it.
This isn't a matter of belief, this is a matter of presenting a scientific theory accurately.

I was not trying to prevent you from doing this, but trying to point out that you were doing so on the basis of belief, not necessarily empirical science. You might believe that empirical science supports your position, but that is a belief, and not a statement of empirical science. To make your position presentable, you would have to provide persuasive arguments demonstrating why your belief best represents the evidence. Hence the need for debate.
Actually, according to emprical science, the big bang is possible in that it is not impossible. Please try to learn how scientific theories work before you sit here and dispute the possibility of the big bang on your poor understanding of it.

Possibly the observable evidence depends on your point of view, which gets back to my previous point about how one interprets the evidence according to what the mind is capable of recognising.
No, it doesn't. If the observable evidence made the big bang impossible then the theory would be dismissed entirely.

Futhermore, what we think is possible is limited by our knowledge. It could be our lack of knowledge that makes the big bang possible in our perception, or not possible.
I still don't see how this means the big bang is not possible.

I doubt that all students of astrophysics would consider it likely.
All good ones do. I can't think of a single modern astrophysicst who doesn't consider the big bang likely. (a credible modern astrophysicist at least...)

But being a student of astrophysics does not mean you think the big bang is likely, surely. I suggest it has a lot to do with your world view.
Having studied it is what makes it seem quite likely to me.

Tell me your world view, and I might be able to predict your conclusion regarding the big bang.
My world view? How on earth do you propose I tell you my world view? Is this some extremely poor attempt at psychoanalysis?

Bruarong

05-06-2006, 00:04

Attacking the way you make the argument is not attacking you. Attacking your expertise is not attacking you. I attacked things you presented as arguments and the way you presented them. It is you that is not seperating.

Personal insults are not necessary. Personal criticism might be.

You presented the fact that you are a scientist as a support for your position.

I have used my position as a scientist to support my arguments, but I think that my position in this debate does not depend on my position as a scientist.

You attacked Dem as not understanding you because she saw in your position things you'd ACTUALLY SAID.

It seemed that Dem was actually dragging up my statements from other threads too. And in the one case where she was going to a statement that I made early in this thread, I demonstrated that she had misread my post--something that she admitted.

You claimed you'd never said things you did say. I showed that you'd done so. I showed you were at the very least wrong and at worst lying. Eventually I settled on lying after you admitted to doing it earlier. I didn't just randomly attack you as a poster.

I have admitted to a poor presentation of my position, but I have never admitted to lying. Simply because I have not.

I have explained every single post of mine that you have provided as evidence for lying. And I challenge you to either to demonstrate my lying, or to admit your error. I hate this sort of debate, but you won't let go.

I don't think anything of you. You might be a wonderful person. You might be brilliant. You might be the best thing that's ever happened to this world. I have no way of knowing anything about your person. I respond to what that person brings here. You bring racism (you didn't, just an example) here I'll comment on it. You bring xenophobia (again, you didnt) here, I'll comment on it. You bring anti-science here I'll comment on it. You claim your job in life presents expertise, then I'll comment on it. And you lie and say you didn't say things you did, I'll comment on it.

Like I said. I need to see evidence of my lying, Jocabia. Good hard evidence. Otherwise, I think you are just sticking to your old tactic of character assassination, and all your wonderful words about just commenting on whatever I post will be just that--words.

So, lay it out clearly, and provide good reasons why it must be lying. There seems to be no other way forward here.

Yes, well, when your previous position contradicts your current position and you get upset with people who are confused, then perhaps the problem is yours.

I get upset when people assume lying without checking first for a simple misunderstanding. Like I said before, I don't care if you think I am a poor debator (I already think that of myself), if I am inconsistent (same goes), if I have poorly presented my position, or if there are previous statements in my posts that I would now disagree with. But the moment you accuse someone of lying, I think that is a killer of any future beneficial discussions that you and I might have. So I want to get to the bottom of this before we go any further.

Make your case for my dishonesty, or take it back.

I think she's right. However, she did not do so until after you keep claiming you didn't say something you did and accusing her of problems with comprehension. Again, I believe you brought this on yourself. I did not make a single comment about you lying or being inconsistent until you attacked her comprehension because she reacted to what you said IN CONTEXT. If you knew the history of myself and Dem, you'd realize it's not something I'm anxious to do.

My first case of 'accusing her of problems with comprehension' amounted to this

It looks like you are not getting my point. I'll try to be plainer. My point is that ......

Is this your idea of my attacking Dem? Would you consider this an insult? I thought I was being quite patient with her. There was no insult intended.
After this post, your comment on me was:

I find it amusing that in each thread you make more and more of an effort to pretend like your analysis in this subject is objective and simply looking for truth. All evidence supports that you start with truth in hand and deny all that you believe goes against your 'truth'. Why pretend otherwise?

I consider this as basically accusing me of pretense, of deceit. It seemed to form the basis of your argument for the next 20 pages. You made the comment that my posts were more objective, but instead of commending me for what you thought was a change in the right direction, you assumed that I was only pretending to be more objective. In other words, if I was really more objective, I would end up agreeing with you. I couldn't possible be more objective and yet still hold my general views. You don't see any possible flaw in your thinking?

That's a fair assessment. I had the same issue when I started on NS. It was frustrating for me. I'm absolutely willing to take that into account and I apologize (that's right, I said it) for not allowing you to better figure out your own position without a heavy load of criticism. However, keep in mind that people WILL be confused when your position alters without any acknowledgement that it's changed.

OK, so you apologise for giving me a hard time over my defense of my position. And I accept it. No hard feelings. And I didn't realize that you expected me to begin my posts on this thread by mentioning that my position was now altered from posts I made half a year ago.

But we still have to clear up this point of lying, because I have never admitted to lying on NS, and I can't do so without being dishonest.

Imagine an exaggerated example, Nordland shows up arguing for equal rights for all. Don't you imagine that people would question the credibility. We tend to take things in context here, and other threads give context.

Your didn't reverse position like this, but you have equivocated and it's frustrating for people are tyring to argue the merits and flaws in your position.

Your mistake was to run back to previous threads for ammunition, rather than just confining the debate to the points on this thread. I suggest that you contributed to your own frustration, since I didn't refer you back to my previous posts on other threads.

The Pepsi part was a joke. I do get passionate as others mentioned. Not mad. Just passionate. So wehn I see someone being illogical I point it out even if by pointing it out they'll be insulted. If a part of their argument appears to be dishonest, I say so (though I could be more tactful). If they claim expertise, but they're words suggest otherwise, then I say so. Etc.

You can get as passionate as you like. I've no problem with that. The personal insults are not from your passion. Neither is this accusation of lying.

No, I'm a prick sometimes. However, It is never just an unfair attack on a position. It's a thought out intentional attack on all parts of an argument. All parts. If people present themselves as an expert, I debunk the expert. I approach the style of the argument, the arguments and the conclusions. You may be more tactful, but I'm certain you do it as well. I can prove it if you like.

You can claim all you like that I am not a scientist, but the truth is that I am. I choose not to provide you any evidence. But for me, it just goes to show how wrong you are when you say that you believe that I am not a scientist. I got my PhD degree in 2004 and currently hold a position as a post-doc. That is the truth as I know it, and it would be dishonest of me to say otherwise.

I hold unorthodox views, and my knowledge of science is limited (whose isn't?), and I make lots of mistakes (who doesn't?). But I think it would be wrong of me to change my view simply to gain more acceptance or recognition. I would change my views only when I can see error in them, which is part of my reason for coming here on NS.

You admitted to saying things you knew were not true. What do you expect to come from that? A toast to your honesty.

I have admitted to making mistakes, but not to deceit, therefore my honesty has not been compromised. If you think otherwise, present your evidence, mister.

Fair enough. I am a bit ruthless at times and I recognize it. I also recognize that some posters appear to think since they cannot ever be approached in person that it is acceptable to misrepresent certain parts of their argument because it's not like people can prove they're doing it. This is a common SE tactic and you appear to do so as well. When that becomes a tactic it's appropriate to bring up that tactic. Again, you started my approach to you when you said that a poster responding to what you actually wrote was having comprehension problems, claiming that your position is NOT one that you eventually admitted IS IN FACT your position. Sorry, but that speaks to your credibility my friend.

If you can provide evidence of deceit, do so.

Bruarong

05-06-2006, 00:44

Yes. The poster said that the big bang was impossible. I said it was not. You read too much into it.

Then you should have said that we don't even know if it is possible or impossible, based on empirical science. But you said that it was not impossible. If it isn't impossible, then it must be possible.

Well, you're the one reading too much into my statement.

You have yet to convince me.

That's not my belief, it's science. Until something disproves the possibility of the big bang, that's how it is.

Define what you mean by 'science', since you insist that your conclusion does not contain any belief. And may I point out yet again that we don't even know if the big bang is possible, based on empirical evidence. So whatever your understanding of science is, you cannot say that your conclusion is free from belief.

They presented a misinterpretation and complete and total misunderstanding of the big bang theory. They obviously did not know the first thing about it. If you're going to criticize a scientific theory, you have to at least learn something about it. In the same way, I can't criticize A Midsummer's Night Dream because I haven't read it or seen it preformed or even heard a proper synopsis of it.

At some point, we all need to recognise our limited understanding of the material world. Even the experts cannot agree over the various models of the big bang. So at which point does someone suddenly become qualified to criticise the theory? When they know at least as much as you?

This isn't a matter of belief, this is a matter of presenting a scientific theory accurately.

I suggest that you don't see how much belief is a part of science. Would you look for alien intelligence (SETi) if you did not *believe* it might be possible? Would you look for 'missing links' if you believed that they could not be found? Neither would you believe in the big bang unless you thought it was possible. Rather, as you have demonstrated, you don't only believe that it might be possible, but that it is possible.

Actually, according to emprical science, the big bang is possible in that it is not impossible. Please try to learn how scientific theories work before you sit here and dispute the possibility of the big bang on your poor understanding of it.

We can't prove that the big bang is not impossible. Or what sort of experiment have we done to show that it isn't?

No, it doesn't. If the observable evidence made the big bang impossible then the theory would be dismissed entirely.

What sort of evidence would you require before you considered the Big bang impossible? Can you think of any?

I still don't see how this means the big bang is not possible.

I'm not trying to show you how the big bang is not possible. I'm pointing out that we don't know if it is possible or impossible, since our knowledge is too limited. We know that splitting the atom is possible. But the big bang?

All good ones do. I can't think of a single modern astrophysicst who doesn't consider the big bang likely. (a credible modern astrophysicist at least...)

If you define 'a credible modern astrophysicist' as someone who considers the big bang likely, then anyone who does not consider it likely is not a credible modern astrophysicist. Your definition of 'credible' might be reserved for those who are 'believers' in the theory.

Having studied it is what makes it seem quite likely to me.

What do you mean by 'likely'? Do you mean that as unlikely as a big bang is, it is the most likely explanation for how the universe came to be? Or do you mean that given the pre-big band conditions, the chances of the big bang was likely to happen, would happen again if we could somehow reproduce those exact conditions?

My world view? How on earth do you propose I tell you my world view? Is this some extremely poor attempt at psychoanalysis?

*chuckles* My point is that I suspect a high correlation (but not exclusive)between atheisitc or agnostic world views, and support for the big bang.

Jocabia

05-06-2006, 00:45

Personal insults are not necessary. Personal criticism might be.

Well, that's all I'm doing. Offering personal criticisms.

I have used my position as a scientist to support my arguments, but I think that my position in this debate does not depend on my position as a scientist.

Some of your positions have. You've called up your expertise as evidence. If not, we wouldn't even know if you were or were not a scientist. I am going to attack all supports for an argument I disagree with.

It seemed that Dem was actually dragging up my statements from other threads too. And in the one case where she was going to a statement that I made early in this thread, I demonstrated that she had misread my post--something that she admitted.

However, again, she put your statements in context. The other threads exist. You expressed where you are coming from. Gave no indication you were chaning where you were coming from. She reacted to what you ACTUALLY SAID in context. You suggested she had comprehension problems.

I have admitted to a poor presentation of my position, but I have never admitted to lying. Simply because I have not.

I have explained every single post of mine that you have provided as evidence for lying. And I challenge you to either to demonstrate my lying, or to admit your error. I hate this sort of debate, but you won't let go.

Did you or did you not know that NO currently accepted part evolutionary theory states that we evolved from apes?

Like I said. I need to see evidence of my lying, Jocabia. Good hard evidence. Otherwise, I think you are just sticking to your old tactic of character assassination, and all your wonderful words about just commenting on whatever I post will be just that--words.

So, lay it out clearly, and provide good reasons why it must be lying. There seems to be no other way forward here.

You said something you knew was not true. That evolutionary theory says humans evolved from apes. We assumed you didn't know better and told you so. You said you knew it was not true but didn't care. Where I come from stating something you know is not true qualifies as lying.

I can't know that you intended to deceive anyone but the fact that you continually repeated something you knew was not true is more than a little suggestive.

I get upset when people assume lying without checking first for a simple misunderstanding. Like I said before, I don't care if you think I am a poor debator (I already think that of myself), if I am inconsistent (same goes), if I have poorly presented my position, or if there are previous statements in my posts that I would now disagree with. But the moment you accuse someone of lying, I think that is a killer of any future beneficial discussions that you and I might have. So I want to get to the bottom of this before we go any further.

Make your case for my dishonesty, or take it back.

You made the case. You said you knew your statement was not true in the other thread. You said you didn't care that it was not true when we treated it like you were just mistaken. You then repeated it. That's lying in my book. I'm weird about saying people who make repeatedly untrue statements knowingly are lying. Call me crazy.

I find the case compelling. I will not take it back. Repeated untrue statements by a person who know it's not true = lying.

My first case of 'accusing her of problems with comprehension' amounted to this

Um, no. I quoted you several times -
So you think I fail to see that the methods of science are limited to nature? I don't think you have understood my position very much. Which is fine. You don't have to. But what both debating with me if you aren't going to at least try to understand me, sister? I don't think my position is really that hard to understand.

Were you wrong this time or was this a deception? I'll let you tell me this time.

Is this your idea of my attacking Dem? Would you consider this an insult? I thought I was being quite patient with her. There was no insult intended.
After this post, your comment on me was:

If you were talking about the post that I've quoted to you throughout the thread, then you might have a point.

I consider this as basically accusing me of pretense, of deceit. It seemed to form the basis of your argument for the next 20 pages. You made the comment that my posts were more objective, but instead of commending me for what you thought was a change in the right direction, you assumed that I was only pretending to be more objective. In other words, if I was really more objective, I would end up agreeing with you. I couldn't possible be more objective and yet still hold my general views. You don't see any possible flaw in your thinking?

Wow, you read a lot into that. That certainly was not a personal insult. It was my assessment of your argument. I was taking your posts in context. In the end, it turned out that I was correct and it was all pretense. It turned out you were arguing that science needs to incorporate religion.

OK, so you apologise for giving me a hard time over my defense of my position. And I accept it. No hard feelings. And I didn't realize that you expected me to begin my posts on this thread by mentioning that my position was now altered from posts I made half a year ago.

You don't have to. However, if people don't just expect that you are making a completely seperate argument, you might have some misunderstandings. You suggested they were a problem of comprehension rather than simply saying that the landscape had changed.

Amusingly, though, your position by the end of the thread was completely consistant with half a year ago. Could be coincidence, but the far more likely scenario is that you assumed we hadn't remembered your past arguments.

But we still have to clear up this point of lying, because I have never admitted to lying on NS, and I can't do so without being dishonest.

You admitted to stating something that you knew was untrue. I call that lying. What do you call it?

Your mistake was to run back to previous threads for ammunition, rather than just confining the debate to the points on this thread. I suggest that you contributed to your own frustration, since I didn't refer you back to my previous posts on other threads.

My mistake? It turned out your position today is COMPLETELY CONSISTENT with your position in those threads. You are offended by the lack of God in science. This is just silly. It appears YOUR mistake was believing we wouldn't remember. Dem nailed your position almost immediately in this thread. So did I. You think God belongs in science and every time someone pushes you on it, you equivoacte.

You can get as passionate as you like. I've no problem with that. The personal insults are not from your passion. Neither is this accusation of lying.

They aren't personal insults. They are criticisms. If you claim something untrue and someone points out it's untrue and you say, "I know". That's lying. Keep claiming otherwise. I don't really care.

Saying you're misrepresenting your position or your expertise is not an insult. It's an assessment of your argument. I don't think everything you say is a lie. I DO find your credibiltiy suspect. I find your expertise suspect. I find that you seem to argue things that you don't believe and all evidence supports that belief. I think all of these things are germaine to an argument where you use your expertise as an argument and when accuse people of comprehension problems when you contradict yourself. Your argument is full of contradictions and all evidence suggests they are not accidental.

You can claim all you like that I am not a scientist, but the truth is that I am. I choose not to provide you any evidence. But for me, it just goes to show how wrong you are when you say that you believe that I am not a scientist. I got my PhD degree in 2004 and currently hold a position as a post-doc. That is the truth as I know it, and it would be dishonest of me to say otherwise.

I don't believe you and I've given evidence for why I don't believe you. You can be upset about that as you like, but it's germaine because I do not consider you a credible source and I believe others should not consider you credible as well. I've offered them the evidence for my assessment. It doesn't change the value of a source you present, but it does change the value of the things you claim to have experienced when you base on arguments on them.

I hold unorthodox views, and my knowledge of science is limited (whose isn't?), and I make lots of mistakes (who doesn't?). But I think it would be wrong of me to change my view simply to gain more acceptance or recognition. I would change my views only when I can see error in them, which is part of my reason for coming here on NS.

Good on ya. That's an admirable goal. I see no evidence of that actually occurring. I've seen you equivocate and claim things have changed, but I don't really see a change.

I have admitted to making mistakes, but not to deceit, therefore my honesty has not been compromised. If you think otherwise, present your evidence, mister.

You didn't mistakingly refer to our evolution from apes. You said you knew it was untrue when you said it. Where you lying when you said you knew it was untrue when you said or where you lying when you said it in the first place.

If you can provide evidence of deceit, do so.
I've done it. Repeatedly.

Jocabia

05-06-2006, 00:47

You know what amuses me about this whole thing. You accuse me of being rude, but you constantly accuse scientists who continue to look for evidence for or against current theories of being naturalists and dismissing their science because of it. It's amusing. It appears, Mr. Bruarong, likes to address the person making the argument as much as I do.

*chuckles* My point is that I suspect a high correlation (but not exclusive)between atheisitc or agnostic world views, and support for the big bang.

Why address the person at all? Could it be that JUST LIKE ME, you think the views from which the arguments sprung are relevant.

Dakini

05-06-2006, 01:20

Then you should have said that we don't even know if it is possible or impossible, based on empirical science. But you said that it was not impossible. If it isn't impossible, then it must be possible.
Well, it is possible.

Define what you mean by 'science', since you insist that your conclusion does not contain any belief. And may I point out yet again that we don't even know if the big bang is possible, based on empirical evidence. So whatever your understanding of science is, you cannot say that your conclusion is free from belief.
Yes, we do know that the big bang is possible because it is not impossible.
Something does not have to be certainly true in order for it to be possible... Is english your first language?

At some point, we all need to recognise our limited understanding of the material world. Even the experts cannot agree over the various models of the big bang. So at which point does someone suddenly become qualified to criticise the theory? When they know at least as much as you?
Haven't most experts settled on one of the inflationary models?

I suggest that you don't see how much belief is a part of science. Would you look for alien intelligence (SETi) if you did not *believe* it might be possible? Would you look for 'missing links' if you believed that they could not be found? Neither would you believe in the big bang unless you thought it was possible. Rather, as you have demonstrated, you don't only believe that it might be possible, but that it is possible.
Seriously, do you know what the word possible means? You're treating possible as probable or even "the only possible explanation" instead of "it could have happened".

We can't prove that the big bang is not impossible. Or what sort of experiment have we done to show that it isn't?
What kind of experiment would prove that the big bang is impossible? Well, if the redshift was shown to come from something other than cosmological expansion.

If you define 'a credible modern astrophysicist' as someone who considers the big bang likely, then anyone who does not consider it likely is not a credible modern astrophysicist. Your definition of 'credible' might be reserved for those who are 'believers' in the theory.
Credible = has a PhD in astrophysics from a credible institution. They don't have to "believe" in the big bang.

What do you mean by 'likely'? Do you mean that as unlikely as a big bang is, it is the most likely explanation for how the universe came to be? Or do you mean that given the pre-big band conditions, the chances of the big bang was likely to happen, would happen again if we could somehow reproduce those exact conditions?
The big bang isn't unlikely. Whoever told you that?

*chuckles* My point is that I suspect a high correlation (but not exclusive)between atheisitc or agnostic world views, and support for the big bang.
Oh yes, which is why there are christians who consider the big bang a good theory. :rolleyes: This is basically your entire point isn't it? You just want to dismiss science on the basis of religious prejudice.

Jocabia

05-06-2006, 01:25

Well, it is possible.

Yes, we do know that the big bang is possible because it is not impossible.
Something does not have to be certainly true in order for it to be possible... Is english your first language?

Haven't most experts settled on one of the inflationary models?

Seriously, do you know what the word possible means? You're treating possible as probable or even "the only possible explanation" instead of "it could have happened".

What kind of experiment would prove that the big bang is impossible? Well, if the redshift was shown to come from something other than cosmological expansion.

Credible = has a PhD in astrophysics from a credible institution. They don't have to "believe" in the big bang.

The big bang isn't unlikely. Whoever told you that?

Oh yes, which is why there are christians who consider the big bang a good theory. :rolleyes: This is basically your entire point isn't it? You just want to dismiss science on the basis of religious prejudice.

He's equivocating again. You said possible meaning it might be true, and he is trying to make what you said mean whether or not it's true, it is not in violation of natural law (physics, biology, etc.) Thus by how he's saying it it could turn out to be impossible. The problem is that you've clearly demonstrated that you are referring to the fact that it might be true, not the other meaning. It's the fallacy of equivocation.

Bruarong

05-06-2006, 15:06

Did you or did you not know that NO currently accepted part evolutionary theory states that we evolved from apes?

So this is what this whole claim of my lying is based on? That I once mentioned that evolutionary theory has it that humans evolved from apes? That was not even in this thread. And I have then and since explained myself several times to show how it was not lying. But you have persisted in using this as evidence that I am a liar.

I'm not convinced that there are not some proponents of evolutionary theory that would also call such creatures apes. There are many different explanations and view point within evolutionary theory, not all of which are compatible with each other. So that it is sometimes hard to know which part of evolutionary theory is accepted and which isn't. I suspect that the reason why people have stopped referring to such animals as apes is because of those 'annoying creationists'.

If I clearly state that I am a creationist, when I comment on evolutionary theory, I would be perfectly honest in concluding that the hypothesis of evolutionary theory is that humans have evolved from apes, since I find it unlikely that there are any pre-ape-like humans, and I am simply being consistent with my point of view. Ancient ape-like creatures are apes, according to creationism.

Of course it is possible that evolutionary theory does not call the pre-human animals apes, and that there has never been any apes among the supposed ancestors of humans (according to the theory). But I never said that evolutionary theory does. I was obviously speacking from my point of view, so there was no deception intended.

But since my position as a creationist was clear in that thread, it was perfectly honest to speak of the evolutionary conclusion from my point of view. From a creationist point of view, there are simply no such thing (or very unlikely) as a pre-human ape-like creature.

Thus, I conclude that your accusations of my lying have been dealt with, and I have demonstrated that I was not lying.

You said something you knew was not true. That evolutionary theory says humans evolved from apes. We assumed you didn't know better and told you so. You said you knew it was not true but didn't care. Where I come from stating something you know is not true qualifies as lying.

From a creationist view point, evolutionary theory does conclude that humans evolved from apes, since all ancient ape-like creatures are apes.

I find the case compelling. I will not take it back. Repeated untrue statements by a person who know it's not true = lying.

Then I suppose we cannot have any more useful debate.

Grave_n_idle

05-06-2006, 16:26

So this is what this whole claim of my lying is based on? That I once mentioned that evolutionary theory has it that humans evolved from apes? That was not even in this thread. And I have then and since explained myself several times to show how it was not lying. But you have persisted in using this as evidence that I am a liar.

I'm not convinced that there are not some proponents of evolutionary theory that would also call such creatures apes. There are many different explanations and view point within evolutionary theory, not all of which are compatible with each other. So that it is sometimes hard to know which part of evolutionary theory is accepted and which isn't. I suspect that the reason why people have stopped referring to such animals as apes is because of those 'annoying creationists'.

If I clearly state that I am a creationist, when I comment on evolutionary theory, I would be perfectly honest in concluding that the hypothesis of evolutionary theory is that humans have evolved from apes, since I find it unlikely that there are any pre-ape-like humans, and I am simply being consistent with my point of view. Ancient ape-like creatures are apes, according to creationism.

Of course it is possible that evolutionary theory does not call the pre-human animals apes, and that there has never been any apes among the supposed ancestors of humans (according to the theory). But I never said that evolutionary theory does. I was obviously speacking from my point of view, so there was no deception intended.

But since my position as a creationist was clear in that thread, it was perfectly honest to speak of the evolutionary conclusion from my point of view. From a creationist point of view, there are simply no such thing (or very unlikely) as a pre-human ape-like creature.

Thus, I conclude that your accusations of my lying have been dealt with, and I have demonstrated that I was not lying.

From a creationist view point, evolutionary theory does conclude that humans evolved from apes, since all ancient ape-like creatures are apes.

Then I suppose we cannot have any more useful debate.

I thought you previously identified yourself as ID-ist, rather than an actual 'creationist'?

Regardless: "That I once mentioned that evolutionary theory has it that humans evolved from apes?" would be untrue - evolutionary theory says no such thing.

You can equivocate all you like - but YOUR position as a creationist, does not excuse your statement being wrong... any more than my position as an Atheist would excuse me making a statement like: "Most Christians think Jesus was a big lizard".

What is your opinion, is your opinion - but you misrepresented the 'opinion' of someone else - the evolution crowd.

And rather than admit you were wrong (wrong is easily forgiven), you try to 'prove' your claim: "I'm not convinced that there are not some proponents of evolutionary theory that would also call such creatures apes..."

Thus - you compound the error, you refuse to admit it as wrong, and you seek to justify.

It is not surprising that might be viewed as a deliberate act of deception.

Ny Nordland

05-06-2006, 16:41

<snip>

Imagine an exaggerated example, Nordland shows up arguing for equal rights for all.
<snip>

Are you this obsessed with me that you have to utter my nick even in threads I havent written anything?

Grave_n_idle

05-06-2006, 16:43

Are you this obsessed with me that you have to utter my nick even in threads I havent written anything?

Are you that obsessed that you review ALL of his posts in hope you get mentioned?

Ny Nordland

05-06-2006, 16:48

Are you that obsessed that you review ALL of his posts in hope you get mentioned?

Whats with you and your silly assumptions? What indicates that I read ALL of his posts? Is it simple a delusion or are you this desperate to come up with a reply to me?
I discovered it while reading this thread.

Grave_n_idle

05-06-2006, 16:51

Whats with you and your silly assumptions? What indicates that I read ALL of his posts? Is it simple a delusion or are you this desperate to come up with a reply to me?
I discovered it while reading this thread.

It's a feasible story, I guess.

You have, after all, a reputation for your interest in the god/science debate, and the specific applications of the laws of thermodynamics.

No - wait... you have a reputation for getting miffed at Jocabia...

I wonder which scenario fosters the greatest likelihood of finding an explanation...

Ny Nordland

05-06-2006, 16:53

It's a feasible story, I guess.

You have, after all, a reputation for your interest in the god/science debate, and the specific applications of the laws of thermodynamics.

No - wait... you have a reputation for getting miffed at Jocabia...

I wonder which scenario fosters the greatest likelihood of finding an explanation...

Maybe you should read my posts in Does God Have Faith in You and Do you Have Faith in God threads and reconsider my reputation for my interest in the god/science debate.
But then you might be even more ashamed by your silly little assumptions...

Grave_n_idle

05-06-2006, 17:07

Maybe you should read my posts in Does God Have Faith in You and Do you Have Faith in God threads and reconsider my reputation for my interest in the god/science debate.
But then you might be even more ashamed by your silly little assumptions...

Why would I be ashamed? Your ONLY contribution in THIS thread has been to attack Jocabia, no?

Ny Nordland

05-06-2006, 17:15

Why would I be ashamed? Your ONLY contribution in THIS thread has been to attack Jocabia, no?

Is this the only thread with God/science debate??

Grave_n_idle

05-06-2006, 17:28

Is this the only thread with God/science debate??

Have you actually contributed to this thread at all, except to argue with, or about your feelings for, Jocabia?

Snow Eaters

05-06-2006, 22:10

Are you that obsessed that you review ALL of his posts in hope you get mentioned?

Have you actually contributed to this thread at all, except to argue with, or about your feelings for, Jocabia?

I'm not sure, because I don't usually play with goalposts, but did they just move?

Dinaverg

05-06-2006, 22:14

I'm not sure, because I don't usually play with goalposts, but did they just move?

Maybe. Then again, the first question was answered, may or may not have been truthfully.

Snow Eaters

05-06-2006, 22:15

Maybe. Then again, the first question was answered, may or may not have been truthfully.

I'm not sure if you're telling the truth.

Dinaverg

05-06-2006, 22:16

I'm not sure if you're telling the truth.

About what?

Snow Eaters

05-06-2006, 22:17

About what?

Umm...

About whether anything was answered?
Ya, let's go with that.

Dinaverg

05-06-2006, 22:20

Umm...

About whether anything was answered?
Ya, let's go with that.

I discovered it while reading this thread.

In other words, his answer was no to the first question. Then the topic changed to whether or not he was telling the truth, by reviewing past and present actions.

Ceysil

05-06-2006, 22:21

I don't know if it's been pointed out yet, but the second law of thermodynamics does not predict the breakdown of ordered systems. This is a misconception.

"The entropy of an isolated system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.

The Second Law is a statistical law and thus applicable only to macroscopic systems. When one part of an isolated system interacts with another part, energy tends to distribute equally among the accessible energy states of the system. As a result, the system tends to approach thermal equilibrium, at which point the entropy is at a maximum and the free energy is zero."

Basically, this means that a system not in equilibrium will tend to lend it's energy to other systems over time, until it's energy has been disappated. What this means is that if a system is not in balance, it's unbalanced energies will be given over to other systems over time. Simplicity => Complexity. The second law of thermodynamics claims that things get more complex over time, not that everything decays.

Snow Eaters

05-06-2006, 22:31

In other words, his answer was no to the first question. Then the topic changed to whether or not he was telling the truth, by reviewing past and present actions.

Oh, play time is over?

OK, so of course he answered no.
He describes his typical reading habits and why it would be consistent that he would be readin this thread.

The honesty of his assertion is questioned.

Then suddenly the contributions to the thread are the issue.

We really seem to question people's ability to tell the truth here, maybe you aren't REALLY Dinaverg, maybe that name is a lie.

Dinaverg

05-06-2006, 22:42

Oh, play time is over?

OK, so of course he answered no.
He describes his typical reading habits and why it would be consistent that he would be readin this thread.

The honesty of his assertion is questioned.

Then suddenly the contributions to the thread are the issue.

We really seem to question people's ability to tell the truth here, maybe you aren't REALLY Dinaverg, maybe that name is a lie.

Awww...Recess is always too short.

Technically, it was his past actions, which lend credence to him only being there because of Jocabia's posts. Ny responded with evidence that it wouldn't be uncommon for him to just be reading it. GnI then went on to something to the effect of ''if you're here for the debate, and not Jocabia, why has your only contribution been about Jocabia?'' Ny then refered to his non-Jocabia related contribution in other similar threads, while GnI stuck to he contributions here.

And duh. Who names their kid Dinaverg?

Langwell

05-06-2006, 22:47

If you want to see flawed creationist reasoning, search for Kent Hovind on google video. He's a "creationist scientist" who gives anti-evolution lectures.

Snow Eaters

06-06-2006, 00:16

Awww...Recess is always too short.

I was almost up to bat too, darn.

Technically, it was his past actions, which lend credence to him only being there because of Jocabia's posts.

Don't know him, but someone coming here FOR Jocabia's posts leaves me somewhat incredulous.
Really though, not only do we seem to accuse everyone of lying here, but it seems we have to keep a catalog of who has said what before since that appears to be what matters here rather than what they are posting.

Ny responded with evidence that it wouldn't be uncommon for him to just be reading it. GnI then went on to something to the effect of ''if you're here for the debate, and not Jocabia, why has your only contribution been about Jocabia?'' Ny then refered to his non-Jocabia related contribution in other similar threads, while GnI stuck to he contributions here.

Perhaps he was only interested in reading this thread?
Doesn't strike me as odd that a lurker would be prodded into posting by coming across his name used as a negative example.

Or maybe he is a liar and a stalker too?

And duh. Who names their kid Dinaverg?

Ah ha, you deliberately chose a name to lie about who you are! You make conterfeit money don't you?? I knew it.

The Black Forrest

06-06-2006, 00:25

If you want to see flawed creationist reasoning, search for Kent Hovind on google video. He's a "creationist scientist" who gives anti-evolution lectures.

I expect you to wash your mouth out with soap for mentioning that lying cranks name.

Dinaverg

06-06-2006, 00:58

I was almost up to bat too, darn.

...but we were playing kickball...You play kickball with a bat?

Don't know him, but someone coming here FOR Jocabia's posts leaves me somewhat incredulous.

Eh, I'm just the messenger.

Really though, not only do we seem to accuse everyone of lying here, but it seems we have to keep a catalog of who has said what before since that appears to be what matters here rather than what they are posting.

*husten* (http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/archivist.htm)

Perhaps he was only interested in reading this thread?
Doesn't strike me as odd that a lurker would be prodded into posting by coming across his name used as a negative example.

Perhaps. Course, he's not much of a lurker, but still.

Or maybe he is a liar and a stalker too?

Distinct possibility. Ask most anyone here and they'll tell you he's a nazi.

Ah ha, you deliberately chose a name to lie about who you are! You make conterfeit money don't you?? I knew it.

No, silly. I conspire against the goverments of the world in my secret antartic base. And now you know too much. The last thing you see will be the flipper of a penguin.

Jocabia

06-06-2006, 02:47

Are you this obsessed with me that you have to utter my nick even in threads I havent written anything?

Yes, I'm obsessed. I sought you out in a thread I wasn't interested in and had no contribution but to insult you. Oh, wait that was you. Perhaps I simply used an example of a known and contraversial poster whose position is well-knowng. Either way, here's a big wet kiss. Don't worry, I'm white so it's not gross.

Jocabia

06-06-2006, 02:52

Don't know him, but someone coming here FOR Jocabia's posts leaves me somewhat incredulous.

You did. I seem to remember your entire contribution to this thread being about me and whether or not people support me for like 10 pages. I was quite flattered. It's amusing to be envied. If you learn the handshake you're allowed into our club.

Bruarong

06-06-2006, 12:39

I thought you previously identified yourself as ID-ist, rather than an actual 'creationist'?

I would only be an IDer if I was using the ID approach. I don't. So while I admire the ID approach, I cannot claim to be an IDer. Rather, my position is more of a creationist, although perhaps not an orthodox creationist.

Regardless: "That I once mentioned that evolutionary theory has it that humans evolved from apes?" would be untrue - evolutionary theory says no such thing.

It's like an atheist claiming that Christians are 'speaking to the air' when praying aloud. Christianity says that no prayer goes unheard, but we generally don't think that an atheist is lying when he makes such a comment, but simply speaking from his point of view.

You can equivocate all you like - but YOUR position as a creationist, does not excuse your statement being wrong... any more than my position as an Atheist would excuse me making a statement like: "Most Christians think Jesus was a big lizard".

I didn't say that most evolutionists think that humans evolved from apes. I was saying that this was the implications of evolutionary theory.

What is your opinion, is your opinion - but you misrepresented the 'opinion' of someone else - the evolution crowd.

I was presenting my opinion, and my opinion is that evolution theory has apes evolving into humans.

And rather than admit you were wrong (wrong is easily forgiven), you try to 'prove' your claim: "I'm not convinced that there are not some proponents of evolutionary theory that would also call such creatures apes..."

On the contrary, I have admitted that I could have done better to present my point of view. I have simply pointed out that whatever I did wrong, lying was not one of them.
And unless you can prove that there are no proponents (I mean the experts) of evolutionary theory who specifically avoid calling those ape-like creatures apes, then my point is justified.

Thus - you compound the error, you refuse to admit it as wrong, and you seek to justify.

Or I am explaining why there is no deception intended, hence no lying.

It is not surprising that might be viewed as a deliberate act of deception.

Indeed, I am not surprised at all. Some people will try to win by any means, and the repetitive claims of lying and deception in your opponents posts, despite lack of evidence, or even evidence to the contrary, seems to be a popular one.

Bruarong

06-06-2006, 12:46

Regardless: "That I once mentioned that evolutionary theory has it that humans evolved from apes?" would be untrue - evolutionary theory says no such thing.

Interestingly enough, if you type in 'ape ancestors' in google, you will find several references to the ape ancestors of humans. It looks like plenty of people have no trouble calling them apes, not just creationists.

The opening statement from http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/ancient/AncientRepublish_1247021.htm says:

''An ape that lived 13 million years ago in what is now Spain may have been the last common ancestor of all apes, including chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and humans, Spanish researchers say.''

Bruarong

06-06-2006, 13:41

Regardless: "That I once mentioned that evolutionary theory has it that humans evolved from apes?" would be untrue - evolutionary theory says no such thing.

Read around a bit, Grave, and you might find that evolutionary theory does indeed imply that humans evolved from apes. Australopithecus even means 'southern ape'. Some scientists even consider modern humans a type of great ape.

Damor

06-06-2006, 13:47

Read around a bit, Grave, and you might find that evolutionary theory does indeed imply that humans evolved from apes.Only in the sense that we are primates. But not in the sense we evolved from anything like contemporary apes (which is what most people would think of. "Ooh, you mean your great grandfather was a chimpansee?").

Snow Eaters

06-06-2006, 17:13

...but we were playing kickball...You play kickball with a bat?

How else do I guard 1st base???

*husten* (http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/archivist.htm)

LOL, one of a few appropriate choices.
Filibuster also comes to mind.
Then there's also the self-admitted (http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/jerk.htm)

Ask most anyone here and they'll tell you he's a nazi.

Ewww, really?
I don't like Nazis. Never could stand the goose step.

No, silly. I conspire against the goverments of the world in my secret antartic base. And now you know too much. The last thing you see will be the flipper of a penguin.

Ah ha, you lie again, EVERYONE knows that penguins smack you from the BACK of the head!! (and then you fall into a hole in the ice, it's been all over the Internets)

Grave_n_idle

06-06-2006, 17:35

Perhaps he was only interested in reading this thread?
Doesn't strike me as odd that a lurker would be prodded into posting by coming across his name used as a negative example.

Or maybe he is a liar and a stalker too?

Dinaverg mentions that it is commonly thought that Ny is a racist agitator. Maybe do a search on Ny's recent posts... see the sort of debate he usually enter, the sort of techniques he usually uses.

Then look at this thread. He made no contribution until he suddenly appears attacking Jocabia (a long-term foe, from a number of Ny's 'race' threads).

Perhaps Ny WAS genuinely here for this topic. But his first post on the topic was an attack on Jocabia, and he has posted nothing on-topic since.

I could be jumping to conclusions - but it just looks like Ny saw Jocabia's name as the last poster in the thread, and jumped in for a quick snipe.

Grave_n_idle

06-06-2006, 17:39

I would only be an IDer if I was using the ID approach. I don't. So while I admire the ID approach, I cannot claim to be an IDer. Rather, my position is more of a creationist, although perhaps not an orthodox creationist.

It's like an atheist claiming that Christians are 'speaking to the air' when praying aloud. Christianity says that no prayer goes unheard, but we generally don't think that an atheist is lying when he makes such a comment, but simply speaking from his point of view.

I didn't say that most evolutionists think that humans evolved from apes. I was saying that this was the implications of evolutionary theory.

I was presenting my opinion, and my opinion is that evolution theory has apes evolving into humans.

On the contrary, I have admitted that I could have done better to present my point of view. I have simply pointed out that whatever I did wrong, lying was not one of them.
And unless you can prove that there are no proponents (I mean the experts) of evolutionary theory who specifically avoid calling those ape-like creatures apes, then my point is justified.

Or I am explaining why there is no deception intended, hence no lying.

Indeed, I am not surprised at all. Some people will try to win by any means, and the repetitive claims of lying and deception in your opponents posts, despite lack of evidence, or even evidence to the contrary, seems to be a popular one.

You misrepresent.

You didn't say your opinion was.... anything. You said that 'evolutionary theory says' something that evolutionary theory does NOT say.

You - therefore - state a platform which is a strawman. You claim that evolution makes an argument... which it doesn't.

Is this parallel to the Atheist saying 'christians pray to the air'? No - because the Atheist isn't representing the claims OF the Christian.

That's why I used the parallel about Christians thinking Jesus was a lizard - it would be a misrepresentation of their 'platform'... which is what you did.

Do I need to prove there is no one that follows your ape idea? No - because you didn't say SOME evolutionist believe this or that - you claimed it as a PLATFORM FOR evolution.

Grave_n_idle

06-06-2006, 17:44

Read around a bit, Grave, and you might find that evolutionary theory does indeed imply that humans evolved from apes. Australopithecus even means 'southern ape'. Some scientists even consider modern humans a type of great ape.

Which is irrelevent to the matter of you declaring the PLATFORM of evolution.

As to the etymology of the name australopithecus.... that is probably not the BEST avenue.

The Giant Panda (or Panda Bear), for example - is still hotly debated as to whether or not it even IS a bear... or is it a raccoon. Currently, science things the Panda is closest to a bear, but divergent from the more 'true' bears.

And - of course - the genus name for the Giant Panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) means, literally, 'black-and-white cat-foot'... while the Giant Panda is CLEARLY not a cat.

Chaselands

06-06-2006, 17:50

I do not obey the second law of thermodynamics. Therefore I evolve.:)

Im not sure cuz I havent read the ID literature but I would assume they mean that the first viable single celled lifeform with DNA did not magickly and spontaneously exist from the hypothesized chemical soup that pre-life Earth was.

But think of the time involved! The Earth is around 4.5 billion years old (give or take 100 million years). We can't comprehend that. Live evolves over 100s of millions of years, not seconds. IDers would like to think that evolutionary theory states that one day a chimp gave birth to a human, or a fish gave birth to a thing with legs. We didn't go from a random assortment of chemicals to a DNA based lifeform in a few hours! Think!

Snow Eaters

06-06-2006, 18:08

As to the etymology of the name australopithecus.... that is probably not the BEST avenue.

The Giant Panda (or Panda Bear), for example - is still hotly debated as to whether or not it even IS a bear... or is it a raccoon. Currently, science things the Panda is closest to a bear, but divergent from the more 'true' bears.

And - of course - the genus name for the Giant Panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) means, literally, 'black-and-white cat-foot'... while the Giant Panda is CLEARLY not a cat.

Given how loosely names are applied and how much they are debated, why then are you so bothered that he used the term ape in the first place???
Humans can be considered apes now even.
I don't understand the ape obsession.

Farra

06-06-2006, 18:38

The second law of thermodynamic doesn't apply to all Earth functions because we are not a closed circut.
We continually recieve energy from the sun and loose it through the atmosphere.
Thus:

:headbang: < Creationist

Ny Nordland

06-06-2006, 21:51

Yes, I'm obsessed. I sought you out in a thread I wasn't interested in and had no contribution but to insult you. Oh, wait that was you. Perhaps I simply used an example of a known and contraversial poster whose position is well-knowng. Either way, here's a big wet kiss. Don't worry, I'm white so it's not gross.

LOL...Now that I got my kiss I guess I can stop 'stalking' you....:rolleyes:
Meanwhile, find yourself better examples please...

Jocabia

06-06-2006, 23:28

Interestingly enough, if you type in 'ape ancestors' in google, you will find several references to the ape ancestors of humans. It looks like plenty of people have no trouble calling them apes, not just creationists.

The opening statement from http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/ancient/AncientRepublish_1247021.htm says:

''An ape that lived 13 million years ago in what is now Spain may have been the last common ancestor of all apes, including chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and humans, Spanish researchers say.''

So your point is that if some people are wrong, then you should be permitted to be? I asked you and you said you knew it was wrong. You knew it was not true. You repeated it. A bunch of times. Don't we have a word for what people are doing when they say things that are untrue on purpose?

Jocabia

06-06-2006, 23:29

LOL...Now that I got my kiss I guess I can stop 'stalking' you....:rolleyes:
Meanwhile, find yourself better examples please...

It was a brilliant example. Everyone understood exactly what I meant. That was the point. I got it across. And it was accurate. I'm satisfied. Here's another big kiss *smooch*

Dinaverg

07-06-2006, 00:19

How else do I guard 1st base???

Claymores?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18A1_Claymore_Antipersonnel_Mine)

Ewww, really?
I don't like Nazis. Never could stand the goose step.

I just don't like the geese...

Ah ha, you lie again, EVERYONE knows that penguins smack you from the BACK of the head!! (and then you fall into a hole in the ice, it's been all over the Internets)

Why would we release our true methods to the public? That was just for funding.

The Black Forrest

07-06-2006, 00:21

Interestingly enough, if you type in 'ape ancestors' in google, you will find several references to the ape ancestors of humans. It looks like plenty of people have no trouble calling them apes, not just creationists.

The opening statement from http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/ancient/AncientRepublish_1247021.htm says:

''An ape that lived 13 million years ago in what is now Spain may have been the last common ancestor of all apes, including chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and humans, Spanish researchers say.''

Ok what is the point here. I am back tracking and it's not making sense to previous posts.

Are you saying Grave is saying we are not related to the Great Apes?

Ny Nordland

07-06-2006, 00:42

It was a brilliant example. Everyone understood exactly what I meant. That was the point. I got it across. And it was accurate. I'm satisfied. Here's another big kiss *smooch*

Meh...You hippi...Stop harrassing me
And I advocate equal rights....

Europa Maxima

07-06-2006, 00:49

Meh...You hippi...Stop harrassing me
And I advocate equal rights....
I pity you...being harassed like this. :(

The Most High Bob Dole

07-06-2006, 01:02

Intelligent designers don't care that their arguement is completely illogical. All that they need to do is use words big enough that your average yokel on the street will be impressed and listen.
Their argument is grounded in denial of reality; a premise that is incompatable with science. Inteligent Design is not a scientific theory but rather a political tool. That fact is evident in the arguements, the use, and the presentation of ID. If it is a scientific theory why not publish in peer reviewed journals? Because it is a load of crap and they know it.
The science of intelligent design is a contradiction in terms.

Ny Nordland

07-06-2006, 01:05

I pity you...being harassed like this. :(

LOL...I do the kissing after 2000 posts...

Europa Maxima

07-06-2006, 01:07

LOL...I do the kissing after 2000 posts...
Still though...it must be hard.

Jocabia

07-06-2006, 01:14

Meh...You hippi...Stop harrassing me
And I advocate equal rights....

Uh-huh. So given the chance you wouldn't remove minorities from Norway?

Dinaverg

07-06-2006, 01:37

Uh-huh. So given the chance you wouldn't remove minorities from Norway?

Ackbar: IT'S A TRAP!!

What are you doing, eh? Don't start that here...

Europa Maxima

07-06-2006, 01:39

Ackbar: IT'S A TRAP!!

What are you doing, eh? Don't start that here...
Agreed. You don't have to do this in every thread.

Bruarong

07-06-2006, 09:12

You misrepresent.

You didn't say your opinion was.... anything. You said that 'evolutionary theory says' something that evolutionary theory does NOT say.

Since when do I have to preface anything I post with 'Well, in my opinion.....'? That's a ridiculous argument. I don't demand that you explain each of your posts as 'just your opinion', since this is already obvious.

You - therefore - state a platform which is a strawman. You claim that evolution makes an argument... which it doesn't.

Apparently, some people think it does, not only me. If you want to state your opinion and claim they are wrong, do so, but it would be silly of you to think that they are lying.

Is this parallel to the Atheist saying 'christians pray to the air'? No - because the Atheist isn't representing the claims OF the Christian.

I was not representing the claims of evolutionary theory, just my own.

That's why I used the parallel about Christians thinking Jesus was a lizard - it would be a misrepresentation of their 'platform'... which is what you did.

Go back to that thread and provide the evidence for my misrepresentation. Because if you cannot (or will not), your claims here point questions to your own character. It could be that you are the dishonest one.

Do I need to prove there is no one that follows your ape idea? No - because you didn't say SOME evolutionist believe this or that - you claimed it as a PLATFORM FOR evolution.

Some people believe it is one of the platforms of evolution.

Bruarong

07-06-2006, 09:31

Which is irrelevent to the matter of you declaring the PLATFORM of evolution.

I never mentioned the word 'platform', neither can you provide any evidence that I was implying that ancestry from apes was *the platform* of evolution.

As to the etymology of the name australopithecus.... that is probably not the BEST avenue.

The Giant Panda (or Panda Bear), for example - is still hotly debated as to whether or not it even IS a bear... or is it a raccoon. Currently, science things the Panda is closest to a bear, but divergent from the more 'true' bears.

And - of course - the genus name for the Giant Panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) means, literally, 'black-and-white cat-foot'... while the Giant Panda is CLEARLY not a cat.

The difference here is that Australopithecus is a relatively recent discovery, and thus named by the discovers, the scientists, to reflect what they thought it was, an ape. The giant panda name (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) means black and white panda. Panda simply means a raccoon-like or bear-like mammal, according to the dictionary. And the Latin name reflects the impressions that the name-givers had of the giant panda.

No mention of cats (Felis catus or Felidae) in the giant panda name . Where did you get that idea from?

Bruarong

07-06-2006, 10:19

So your point is that if some people are wrong, then you should be permitted to be?

Are you saying that those scientists are wrong?

And no, that is not my point. My point is that humans are not apes and never had any ape ancestors, but that evolutionary theory has it that humans evolved from apes.

I asked you and you said you knew it was wrong. You knew it was not true. You repeated it. A bunch of times. Don't we have a word for what people are doing when they say things that are untrue on purpose?

I did not say that I was wrong about the implications of evolutionary theory or that anything I said I knew to be untrue. Provide evidence, or stop making false claims. Does a lack of evidence suggest that you are the liar here?

Did you or did you not know that NO currently accepted part evolutionary theory states that we evolved from apes?

It seems that you are wrong. Are you going to admit your mistake?

Tropical Sands

07-06-2006, 10:30

And no, that is not my point. My point is that humans are not apes and never had any ape ancestors, but that evolutionary theory has it that humans evolved from apes.

Acording to modern biology, humans are apes. This much is just common knowledge, you can find it in Wikipedia (Ape) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape) for example:

"Until a handful of decades ago, humans were thought to be distinctly set apart from the other apes (even from the other great apes), so much so that many people still don't think of the term "apes" to include humans at all. However, it is not considered accurate by many biologists to think of apes in a biological sense without considering humans to be included. The terms "non-human apes" or "non-human great apes" is used with increasing frequency to show the relationship of humans to the other apes while yet talking only about the non-human species."

But if you reject established scientific fact, I'm not sure why people are even arguing with you on these forums. People who reject evolution today are identical to the people who reject a round Eath today.

And to go back to the topic, what Jocaiba stated was correct. Human beings are part of the ape families, and the ape families did not evolve from other apes. Again, common knowledge. A FAQ for children (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat03.html) on the PBS website confirms this much:

"6. If humans evolved from apes then why are there still apes?

Humans did not evolve from present-day apes. Rather, humans and apes share a common ancestor that gave rise to both. This common ancestor, although not identical to modern apes, was almost certainly more apelike than humanlike in appearance and behavior. At some point -- scientists estimate that between 5 and 8 million years ago -- this species diverged into two distinct lineages, one of which were the hominids, or humanlike species, and the other ultimately evolved into the African great ape species living today."

The Alma Mater

07-06-2006, 10:48

"6. If humans evolved from apes then why are there still apes?

Humans did not evolve from present-day apes. Rather, humans and apes share a common ancestor that gave rise to both. This common ancestor, although not identical to modern apes, was almost certainly more apelike than humanlike in appearance and behavior. At some point -- scientists estimate that between 5 and 8 million years ago -- this species diverged into two distinct lineages, one of which were the hominids, or humanlike species, and the other ultimately evolved into the African great ape species living today."

In addition one could ask the question "why shouldn't there be" ? Depending on where you live the capacity to rip a tigers head of might be a better suvival trait than rudimentary intelligence.

Jocabia

07-06-2006, 12:54

Are you saying that those scientists are wrong?

And no, that is not my point. My point is that humans are not apes and never had any ape ancestors, but that evolutionary theory has it that humans evolved from apes.

No. I'm saying the article is. You're equivocating.

I did not say that I was wrong about the implications of evolutionary theory or that anything I said I knew to be untrue. Provide evidence, or stop making false claims. Does a lack of evidence suggest that you are the liar here?

I did. I'm really tired of the lies. Will you ask for the same evidence every five pages or are you capable of searching the thread as easily as I? When you said evolutionary theory says we evolved from apes were you aware that this is untrue? Because when we corrected you, you clearly said you knew.

It seems that you are wrong. Are you going to admit your mistake?
It doesn't say that. At all. The article you posted called us apes. We are not. It's undoubtedly wrong.

Bruarong

07-06-2006, 12:59

Acording to modern biology, humans are apes. This much is just common knowledge, you can find it in Wikipedia (Ape) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape) for example:

"Until a handful of decades ago, humans were thought to be distinctly set apart from the other apes (even from the other great apes), so much so that many people still don't think of the term "apes" to include humans at all. However, it is not considered accurate by many biologists to think of apes in a biological sense without considering humans to be included. The terms "non-human apes" or "non-human great apes" is used with increasing frequency to show the relationship of humans to the other apes while yet talking only about the non-human species."

That's interesting. You post seems to agree that Jocabia has it all wrong. Read back a little and you will find me making exactly the same point. Evolutionary theory has it that humans descended from apes.

But if you reject established scientific fact, I'm not sure why people are even arguing with you on these forums. People who reject evolution today are identical to the people who reject a round Eath today.

I have spend many of the last 30 pages of posts pointing out that this isn't scientific fact, but only that it is believed to be a fact. Empirical science doesn't say that humans descended from apes, but many *believe* that the data can be interpreted to mean this, hence evolution theory. What we are debating is why we believe what we believe. Debate is necessary in order to demonstrate which beliefs are the most reasonable. Unfortunately, the discussion has somewhat digressed with the attempts of my opponents to label me as a liar, since they claim that I was trying to represent evolutionary theory as implying that humans evolved from apes--not even a post from this thread. Firstly, it does indeed appear that evolutionary theory has it that humans evolved from apes, as you have pointed out above. Secondly, I have been showing that I was not trying to represent evolutionary theory, but commenting on it from my point of view. Thus there was no deceit or pretense--something they have yet to demonstrate, but are unwilling, apparently, to take back.

So long as they insist that I am a liar, and so long as they are unwilling to provide evidence of this, they implicate themselves as frauds.

And to go back to the topic, what Jocaiba stated was correct. Human beings are part of the ape families, and the ape families did not evolve from other apes. Again, common knowledge. A FAQ for children (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat03.html) on the PBS website confirms this much:

What contradictions are you trying to say now? Humans are not descended from apes because they are apes? Does that mean the modern apes are not descended from ancient apes?

"6. If humans evolved from apes then why are there still apes?

That's irrelevant to this discussion, or at least I have not attempted to address this question, nor have I raised it on this thread.

Humans did not evolve from present-day apes. Rather, humans and apes share a common ancestor that gave rise to both. This common ancestor, although not identical to modern apes, was almost certainly more apelike than humanlike in appearance and behavior. At some point -- scientists estimate that between 5 and 8 million years ago -- this species diverged into two distinct lineages, one of which were the hominids, or humanlike species, and the other ultimately evolved into the African great ape species living today."

So, one would conclude that it is correct to state that evolutionary theory has it that humans evolved from apes. I never mentioned whether the ancestral apes were modern or ancient, because I didn't think it was necessary. Apparently it was.

Tropical Sands

07-06-2006, 13:02

It doesn't say that. At all. The article you posted called us apes. We are not. It's undoubtedly wrong.

According to modern biology, we are apes. We are of the family Hominidae, which is one of the two families of the Ape superfamily Hominoidea.

There used to be an arbitrary distinction in biology between human beings (who were only classified as Hominodiea at the time) and all other Great Apes, or Pongidae. Modern taxonomy has mostly gotten rid of the Pongidae family and classified all Great Apes, along with humans, as Hominodiea. In either case, under both systems, humans still resided within the superfamily Hominodiea which is in lay terms - apes.

Bruarong

07-06-2006, 13:03

It doesn't say that. At all. The article you posted called us apes. We are not. It's undoubtedly wrong.

Interesting. Tropical Sands reckons that this is such common knowledge that one can easily find it in Wikipedia.

But whether we are apes or not is irrelevant to my point. My point is that you accused me of deliberately posting something that I knew was wrong. Now it turns out I was not misrepresenting evolutionary theory (if it really is in Wikipedia, for heaven's sake). You are wrong, Jocabia, plain wrong.

Tropical Sands

07-06-2006, 13:07

That's interesting. You post seems to agree that Jocabia has it all wrong. Read back a little and you will find me making exactly the same point. Evolutionary theory has it that humans descended from apes.

Well, not exactly. Modern non-human apes and humans are descended from a common ancestor. This common ancestor, however, is not of the family Hominoidea and therefore can't be properly called an 'ape.'

I have spend many of the last 30 pages of posts pointing out that this isn't scientific fact, but only that it is believed to be a fact. Empirical science doesn't say that humans descended from apes, but many *believe* that the data can be interpreted to mean this, hence evolution theory.

In modern biology and anthropology, evolution is an established fact. What people confuse is the scientific usage of the word 'theory' vis that of the lay usage. Looking up theory in Webster's, half of the definitions refer to it being a set of facts, (see: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another), and this is how we use the term. The fact that we evolved is an established fact in biology, the entire process of the set of facts is what makes it the 'theory' of evolution. Keep in mind how 'theory' is used in other scientific senses regarding facts as well, such as atomic theory. Or heliocentric theory (the fact that the earth revovles around the sun).

What contradictions are you trying to say now? Humans are not descended from apes because they are apes? Does that mean the modern apes are not descended from ancient apes?

I'm saying that the common ancestor of modern apes, Hominoidea, was not of the family Hominoidea and therefore not technically an ape.

Bruarong

07-06-2006, 13:40

Well, not exactly. Modern non-human apes and humans are descended from a common ancestor. This common ancestor, however, is not of the family Hominoidea and therefore can't be properly called an 'ape.'

http://www.primates.com/pierolapithecus/index.html

''Scientists in Spain have discovered fossils of an ape species from about 13 million years ago that they think may have been the last common ancestor of all living great apes, including humans.
The new ape species and its possible place in prehuman evolution are described in today's issue of the journal Science by a research team led by Dr. Salvador Moyà-Solà of the Miquel Crusafont Institute of Paleontology in Barcelona. The fossil remains were found near Barcelona and named Pierolapithecus catalaunicus.''

It seems as if the ancestor is still called an ape, however.

In modern biology and anthropology, evolution is an established fact. What people confuse is the scientific usage of the word 'theory' vis that of the lay usage. Looking up theory in Webster's, half of the definitions refer to it being a set of facts, (see: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another), and this is how we use the term. The fact that we evolved is an established fact in biology, the entire process of the set of facts is what makes it the 'theory' of evolution. Keep in mind how 'theory' is used in other scientific senses regarding facts as well, such as atomic theory. Or heliocentric theory (the fact that the earth revovles around the sun).

I understand your point about the use of the word 'theory', but I have spent part of my time here arguing why I believe that evolutionary theory isn't necessarily fact. It's not that I simply disagree with some parts of the theory without reason. My reasons have been presented.

Challenges to theories often precede break-throughs.

I'm saying that the common ancestor of modern apes, Hominoidea, was not of the family Hominoidea and therefore not technically an ape.
[/QUOTE]

A technicality which appears to be lost on quite a number of scientists, it seems.

Tropical Sands

07-06-2006, 13:45

A technicality which appears to be lost on quite a number of scientists, it seems.

Well yes, the term 'ape' is often used this way, especially by the media (like in the NY Times article on the primates.com site). I wont dispute that.

Ny Nordland

07-06-2006, 14:05

Uh-huh. So given the chance you wouldn't remove minorities from Norway?

Awww...Removing is such a bad word. I'll "give them a new life" in Canada. Canada is hugely underpopulated so it would be good for it. Again, Canada is wealthy and progressive, so it'd be good for the immigrants. Canada ranks lower in UN HDI than Norway, but their hockey league would make up for it. And I guess the weather is nicer there and they got lower taxes on cars and alcohol. So the immigrants will be much more happy there. And it'd be good for us too, returning the utlendingene. So it's win win win. Everyone's happy and hence equal :cool:

Grave_n_idle

07-06-2006, 14:12

Given how loosely names are applied and how much they are debated, why then are you so bothered that he used the term ape in the first place???
Humans can be considered apes now even.
I don't understand the ape obsession.

It's just principle.

When one states the platform of another (especially when the 'other' is not tangibly able to represent itself - as in the case with 'evolution'), one has a responsibility to state that platform accurately.

If one does NOT - any argument they base on that platform must, logically, be fallacious (strawman)... but good form would be to make sure you are stating an accurate rendition ANYWAY.

Now - if Braurong HAD prefaced it: 'I think..." I'd have less of a problem. As it is - it looks like he is stating a fact.

Dempublicents1

07-06-2006, 14:45

It also depends on your definition of 'scientific theory'. Since you think that creation theory is not scientific, you consider that it isn't a scientific alternative to evolutionary theory. I don't agree with your definition, since I consider that the discovery of the material world is possible without your definitions.

"Discovery of the material world" is possible without science. Science, however, is not possible without the scientific method, complete with all of its limitations.

I don't think the concept of irreducible complexity is necessarily an illogical leap.

Of course you don't. Of course, you don't address any of the reasons I give to demonstrate that it is such.

It is possible that we can understand life processes well enough not to have to make assumptions about what is or isn't possible.

Within science, we can never assume that we know enough to claim that something is "irreducibly complex." To do so is to stop questioning - to stop investigating - something the process does not allow for.

Rather, it could be based on what we know about the limitations of life, and the requirements of complex organs (as opposed to what we don't know). Thus, it doesn't have to be based on ignorance, but scientific knowledge, what we know about life. As we discover more about the natural world, the potential for defining irreducible complexity becomes greater.

So you are saying that we can "know" that which we have not investigated. That we can "know" a negative based on what we have studied. This is exactly the same type of logic used in the "God of the gaps" idea.

Yeah, ok, but perhaps that is because of the redundant pathways. Not comparable to the theoretical primitive life.

Not completely it isn't. There are all sorts of genes we can knock out that are never compensated for, but the creature still survives.

And you took that to mean that I was saying that the SLT is about how the processes of abiogenesis is unlikely, despite my clarifying my statement by saying that the SLT actually contains no mention of abiogenesis, but that it is reasonable for someone to predict that abiogenesis is unlikely, based on what we know about the SLT.

No, I didn't take it to mean any such thing - nor did I ever suggest such a thing.

You clearly stated that you think the SLT2 predicts against evolutionary theory and abiogenesis. This doesn't mean that the SLT2 is about either theory but it would mean two things:

(1) The SLT2 is directly applicable to abiogenesis and evolutionary theory.
(2) The SLT2 would make direct predictions against either of these occurring.

The first is true. The second is not. Therefore, your original statement is not true.

You seem to have a problem understanding the direct implications of your own statements. You cannot say, "This theory predicts against X, but at the same time has nothing whatsoever to do with X."

One implication of the SLT is that everything tends towards disorder.

Wrong. And once again you demonstrate your lack of understanding. Disorder is not the same thing as entropy. Try again.

Futhermore, I suggest that if you hold abiogenesis to be possible (without science being currently able to tell us if it is possible), you are allowing a postulation, which is hardly 'scientific' of you.

As a scientist, I must hold that anything that has not been disproven is "possible", although it may be unlikely.

You, however, are clearly arguing that a consideration of God as part of an explanation for the material world is unscientific because 1) science can only focus on the material world and 2) cannot allow any more than one assumption.

Why are you making things up that I never said? I never said that science cannot allow any more than one assumption. I said that the scientific process does not allow UNFALSIFIABLE assumptions - and it does not. The process itself is based in a single axiomatic (and therefore unfalsifiable) assumption - that the universe is deterministic. Beyond that, the assumptions we make must be falsifiable.

I am saying that the search for truth in the material world is not exclusive of the assumption that God may have created. And I have evidence to support my position. Do you?

You have provided no such evidence. You just keep saying over and over again, "I know I can't include God in my science but you can include God in science."

That isn't the point. It is the concept that God may have interacted with the world that is the point under consideration, and whether that should be allowed as an assumption.

God may have interacted with the world, but we cannot investigate that interaction with science. As such, science must commit itself to neither position. God may have interacted. God may not have interacted. God may exist. God may not exist. In its investigation of the natural world, science is stronger in that it takes no position on these matters.

And I am arguing that allowing for a supernatural act in an explanation does not mean that a supernatural act is assumed, nor that an exploration which allows for divine acts is any way dimished because of that allowance, nor that it inhibits the search for truth.

Allowing for a supernatural act to have occurred is not an assumption. However, the only logical way to include it in an explanation is to assume that it occurred - as it is empirically impossible to gain evidence for it (something you have already admitted). If science cannot investigate the supernatural, this means that science cannot obtain evidence for the supernatural. Thus, any inclusion of the supernatural is, by definition, an assumption.

I have never admitted to your definition of 'injecting God into science'. I see a clear difference between allowing a divine act in an explanation, and thinking that science is capable of investigating a divine act.

You may see a clear difference, but there isn't one. Science doesn't include things in explanations that cannot be investigated. To do so is to stunt the process - to add something that cannot be questioned.

Why not?

Because it is an untestable and unfalsifiable limit placed upon science - stopping you from questioning much of your explanation - stunting the very process of science.

The point is that we differ over our definitions of science,

It's more that I am talking about science, and you are talking about a meshing of religion and science.

Haven't I just explained to you that the concept that every effect has a cause is something that science assumes and yet cannot falsify?

You are confusing assumptions and axioms (and I admit that I have used the words somewhat interchangeably - an error on my part). Assumptions are statements made within the process - within use of the scientific method. These statements simplify the process, but must be backed up logically and must be testable, as any conclusion reached under such an assumption is only valid if that assumption is true. Thus, we must be able to demonstrate it if that assumption is not true.

Axioms are "assumptions" on which a logical process is based. These cannot be tested - by definition. There are axioms in which the scientific method is based. Obviously, science does not question these axioms, because it is entirely based in them. It would be like mathematics testing the axioms on which it is based - something it cannot do.

If we could show that a particular effect had no cause, we might be looking at true randomness, something that we don't know exists, and don't even know if we could detect it if it did.[/qutoe]

How exactly could we show that?

[quote]The first statement is fair enough. The second is silly.

Exactly my point - and it is exactly the type of logical leap you are making.

And I'm an trying to explain why I am not contradicting myself, but it seems that you don't want to hear that part. You are just happy to assume that I must have been contradicting myself (or even lying), despite my showing that you have misunderstood my posts.

You haven't shown any misunderstanding. You have simply restated exactly what you said before, then contradicted it, then restated it again.

It does not follow that we cannot assume God exists simply because we cannot investigate Him.

Yes, it does. Making an untestable assumption within the scientific method is going outside of the process of science - and injecting God into science.

What I have initially understood by your phrase 'injection of God into science' is the concept that science is forced to consider the possibility of measuring God. I don't think God can be measured by science, or even detected by science (science is far too small and limited).

And this is exactly why God cannot be assumed by science. If science cannot either disprove the existence of God or support it, then science cannot assume either position.

If one rejects the idea that God may have created life by a divine act, instead of through abiogenesis, then one has assumed that God did not create life through a divine act.

But science never rejects that idea. We just realize that it is one we cannot investigate. Thus, the idea is irrelevant to the process of science.

A hypothesis within the theory would have been disproven, but the theory itself cannot be disproven when it does not allow alternatives.

A theory is its hypotheses. When it comes right down to it, a theory is nothing more than a hypothesis with a great deal of support. If you disprove part of a theory, then you have disproven that theory. A new one, whether through modification or through complete revision, must be proposed.

I think you are confused between a hypothesis and a theory.

Well, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black.

I think this case is quite different, for in the case of the fossils, no one expects that we should have found a fossil for every possible life form, so it doesn't disturb evolutionary theory that much (although that is another story, and it also 'rocks the boat'.)

Actually, I hear people all the time who expect exactly that, or they will discount evolutionary theory. It is the very basis of a large part of the "Creation Theory" argument.

Dempublicents1

07-06-2006, 14:47

Ok, I've been on vacation and I can't go through 14 pages of commentary right now, so if I missed something major, let me know.

Dempublicents1

07-06-2006, 16:13

not matter can suddenly apear out of no where,if the the star that caused the big bang(supermasive star containing all of the universes atoms,neutrons,electron etc.)then it would have collapsed into itself and would have become a black hole.thus if the big bang is impossible all of ur evolutionary science is useless because without creation nothing would exist,do we not exist?ohh and incase u wer going to retort giving some argument about "how come(according to fossil records)life gradually became more complex?".its simple,in the bible it mentions that Jehova (God) first created the plant,then the animals,plant=less complex than animals therefore using this pattern we discover that Jehova created the less complex creatures first,then finally he gave life to man,who was eventually tricked by Satan.Evolution,just like the fruit that Adam an Eve ate(by the way it probably wasn't an apple) is a test of faith,I'm sure that once the end of this system of things comes and the new order is established people will ask why others could belive in such an unscientific and atheist(thats right,anyone who belives in evolution,no matter what religion you claim to be,you're spitting in the face of Jehova and when the time comes if you do not see the light you will be destroyed) and it will end up being like the story of Adam and Eve eating the fruit.

:confused:

Maybe I should have stuck with not reading through the whole thread.

Yeah, my mistakes are scattered all through this thread. But that's not surprising. I expect that anyone will make mistakes.

The problem is not that you make mistakes. It is that you are corrected on them, you say, "Oh yeah, gotcha," and then make the exact same mistakes in the next thread (sometimes even in the next post). It stops looking like a "mistake" and begins to look deliberate when it happens over and over and over and over again.

But my mistakes keep coming back.

Because you keep repeating them - in every thread and often within posts in the same thread, long after they have been pointed out. You enter every thread with the same misconceptions about evolutionary theory - and continue to try and use them in arguments, even though they are just that - misconceptions.

I wouldn't be surprised if Grave will admit to supporting the side that appears least Christian (or conservative Christian), regardless of who it is. The 'old boys club' which you mentioned includes anyone that is either against Christianity or like Jocabia and Dem who seem to be against conservative Christian view points. That doesn't mean they are not Christians, of course, but one wonders why they are so chumy with those who are obviously against Christianity.

I have no reason to believe that Grave, or anyone else I am "chummy" with are "obviously against Christianity." The closest person I can think of to being "obviously against Christianity" that I respect on this thread is Bottle - and she seems to be opposed to any and all religion. She and I have butted heads on this more than once, and I think we have, to a point, agreed to disagree on that issue.

Meanwhile, define "conservative Christian viewpoints."

Jocabia

07-06-2006, 16:33

I'll admit. The great apes thing was new to me. I was wrong about the apes part. They are using a different type of ape than you were. An ape that is in no way a monkey for certain.

However, it's the fallacy of equivocation. You weren't using it like they're using it.

Then perhaps you can agree that science cannot prove that we evolved from apes or monkeys. Then why do you accept it?

Bruarong

07-06-2006, 16:34

Welcome back, Dem.

"Discovery of the material world" is possible without science. Science, however, is not possible without the scientific method, complete with all of its limitations.

I suppose that's right, so long as you insist on using a strict definition of science.

Of course you don't. Of course, you don't address any of the reasons I give to demonstrate that it is such.

I thought I did.

Within science, we can never assume that we know enough to claim that something is "irreducibly complex." To do so is to stop questioning - to stop investigating - something the process does not allow for.

However, we might be able to define something as irreducibly complex based upon what we know of life thus far. This does not require perfect knowledge, but just a recognition of current knowledge and it's limitations.

I doubt that such an approach would prevent investigation in general. Currently, many people do not think we should investigate the possibility that there is irreducible complexity in life. Their idea of science prevents that question from being investigated.

So you are saying that we can "know" that which we have not investigated. That we can "know" a negative based on what we have studied. This is exactly the same type of logic used in the "God of the gaps" idea.

That's not what I am suggesting at all. We just need to know what we know.

Not completely it isn't. There are all sorts of genes we can knock out that are never compensated for, but the creature still survives.

I don't think you can assume redundant pathways in the first theoretical primitive life.

No, I didn't take it to mean any such thing - nor did I ever suggest such a thing.

You clearly stated that you think the SLT2 predicts against evolutionary theory and abiogenesis. This doesn't mean that the SLT2 is about either theory but it would mean two things:

(1) The SLT2 is directly applicable to abiogenesis and evolutionary theory.
(2) The SLT2 would make direct predictions against either of these occurring.

The first is true. The second is not. Therefore, your original statement is not true.

You seem to have a problem understanding the direct implications of your own statements. You cannot say, "This theory predicts against X, but at the same time has nothing whatsoever to do with X."

The SLT, as I understand it, does not directly refer to abiogenesis or evolutionary theory. However, it does have implications for both theories.

I have not said that the SLT makes direct predictions against either theory. I'm not sure why you insist on presenting my argument as consisting of this point, because I have already pointed out that this is not my argument. It is the implications of the SLT (plus other considerations) that allows me to predict that abiogenesis is unlikely.

And, as I have already told you, the laws of nature do not necessarily make predictions (other than the generally accepted description of the law), but they allow humans to make predictions based on their descriptions.

Wrong. And once again you demonstrate your lack of understanding. Disorder is not the same thing as entropy. Try again.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=entropy
Entropy is a measure of disorder in a closed system, a measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work, or the tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity. However you describe entropy, it generally implies a tendency towards disorder.

As a scientist, I must hold that anything that has not been disproven is "possible", although it may be unlikely.

So is it possible to discover truth about the material world using my approach to the investigation of the physical world?

Why are you making things up that I never said? I never said that science cannot allow any more than one assumption. I said that the scientific process does not allow UNFALSIFIABLE assumptions - and it does not. The process itself is based in a single axiomatic (and therefore unfalsifiable) assumption - that the universe is deterministic. Beyond that, the assumptions we make must be falsifiable.

So, if I understand you right, you are saying that assumptions are ok, so long as they are falsifiable, with the exception of a single unfalsifiable assumption upon which all of science is based, called an axiom.

But that only works if we know that our assumptions are falsifiable. For example, do we know if we can falsify the assumption that all of life developed from a single ancestor? Theoretically, it may be possible, if we could discover a life form that was obviously not related to any other modern life form. But we don't know if we will discover such a life form, since we don't know if one exists. Therefore, we don't know if this assumption is falsifiable.

As for my assumption of God, currently it appears that the existence of God cannot be falsified using current scientific methods. But we don't know if it will always be that way. Personally, I am not attracted to the idea of being able to falsify God's existence, however, I don't know enough about God to assume that it will always be this way.

You have provided no such evidence. You just keep saying over and over again, "I know I can't include God in my science but you can include God in science."

My evidence is that this had been done before. Just look at history. There are plenty of people who have held something similar to my position, and have been successful in science.

God may have interacted with the world, but we cannot investigate that interaction with science.

Why not? If he did interact with the material world, why can't we allow that such an interaction may be detectable? We don't have to assume that it is detectable, but we can say that it might be. I reckon its worth a look.

As such, science must commit itself to neither position. God may have interacted. God may not have interacted. God may exist. God may not exist. In its investigation of the natural world, science is stronger in that it takes no position on these matters.

I think it weaker if it cannot consider the possibilities. Respect the limitations, yes, but consider the possibilities within those limitations.

Allowing for a supernatural act to have occurred is not an assumption. However, the only logical way to include it in an explanation is to assume that it occurred - as it is empirically impossible to gain evidence for it (something you have already admitted). If science cannot investigate the supernatural, this means that science cannot obtain evidence for the supernatural. Thus, any inclusion of the supernatural is, by definition, an assumption.

I think you are taking what I said out of context. I said that we cannot directly investigate God. But I think we can investigate nature with the possibility that nature has evidence for a divine interaction--the ID position. I also think we can investigate nature based on the assumption that God created it and it therefore contains order which allows an orderly investigation--my position. In neither of these cases is anyone required to investigate God. Evidence for the supernatural does not require a direct investigation of the supernatural.

You may see a clear difference, but there isn't one. Science doesn't include things in explanations that cannot be investigated. To do so is to stunt the process - to add something that cannot be questioned.

The explanation that God created the world certainly can be investigated. If God created man as man, it is possible to investigate this. We cannot investigate history, but we can investigate the current world to see if it is consistent with such a history.

Because it is an untestable and unfalsifiable limit placed upon science - stopping you from questioning much of your explanation - stunting the very process of science.

A rather large claim. Care to provide an example of this?

It's more that I am talking about science, and you are talking about a meshing of religion and science.

That's the sort of comment one would expect from someone in your position. Perhaps I ought to leave you to your version of science, and I will get on with my investigation of truth in the material world.

You are confusing assumptions and axioms (and I admit that I have used the words somewhat interchangeably - an error on my part).

Yeah, errors and confusion will happen in debates, it seems. Note that I don't assume that you were lying.

Assumptions are statements made within the process - within use of the scientific method. These statements simplify the process, but must be backed up logically and must be testable, as any conclusion reached under such an assumption is only valid if that assumption is true. Thus, we must be able to demonstrate it if that assumption is not true.

Can you demonstrate that the assumption of a single common ancestor is true or false?

Axioms are "assumptions" on which a logical process is based. These cannot be tested - by definition. There are axioms in which the scientific method is based. Obviously, science does not question these axioms, because it is entirely based in them. It would be like mathematics testing the axioms on which it is based - something it cannot do.

So axioms are untestable concepts. I suppose I could say, then, that I consider God to be somewhat of an axiom. I don't believe science would be possible without Him.

If we could show that a particular effect had no cause, we might be looking at true randomness, something that we don't know exists, and don't even know if we could detect it if it did.

How exactly could we show that?

I don't know. Probably no one else knows it either. Possibly related to the problem of detecting randomness, which was my point.

Exactly my point - and it is exactly the type of logical leap you are making.

My point was that I am not making any such illogical leap, despite your silly examples.

You haven't shown any misunderstanding. You have simply restated exactly what you said before, then contradicted it, then restated it again.

Provide evidence of this, and then explain why it must have been due to my lying, rather than any confusion on either your or my part.

Yes, it does. Making an untestable assumption within the scientific method is going outside of the process of science - and injecting God into science.

Or a recognition of an axiom.

And this is exactly why God cannot be assumed by science. If science cannot either disprove the existence of God or support it, then science cannot assume either position.

I have never argued that science should be able to prove or disprove the existence of God. But I have argued that if he has interacted with the material world, such an interaction theoretically could be detectable using scientific methods.

But science never rejects that idea. We just realize that it is one we cannot investigate. Thus, the idea is irrelevant to the process of science.

What do you think? Did God create life through abiogenesis or through a divine act? And don't you think that there might be a detectable difference in modern life between these two scenarios? I reckon it's worth a look.

A theory is its hypotheses. When it comes right down to it, a theory is nothing more than a hypothesis with a great deal of support. If you disprove part of a theory, then you have disproven that theory. A new one, whether through modification or through complete revision, must be proposed.

Are you suggesting that evolution theory gets discarded and a new one made up every time it comes up against something that it cannot explain (without modification)? Wouldn't it be more sensible to suggest that rather than modifying the whole theory, the part that conflicts with the evidence (i.e. that is disproven) is simply modified? And wouldn't that mean that there is a danger that the whole theory is never really called into question?

Actually, I hear people all the time who expect exactly that, or they will discount evolutionary theory. It is the very basis of a large part of the "Creation Theory" argument.

On the contrary, my impression is that it does not form a large part of the creation theory arguments, from what I have read. Of course one can always find people who will say such things.

Bruarong

07-06-2006, 16:35

Ok, I've been on vacation and I can't go through 14 pages of commentary right now, so if I missed something major, let me know.

It's not that exciting. The science content dropped dramatically when you left.

Bruarong

07-06-2006, 16:39

I'll admit. The great apes thing was new to me. I was wrong about the apes part.

Fair enough.

They are using a different type of ape than you were. An ape that is in no way a monkey for certain.

What type of ape was I using, then? And what has that got to do with monkeys?

However, it's the fallacy of equivocation. You weren't using it like they're using it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=equivocation.%20%20
equivocation n 1: a statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth [syn: evasion] 2: intentionally vague or ambiguous [syn: prevarication, evasiveness] 3: falsification by means of vague or ambiguous language

Explain how I was using it differently, and then explain how I was intentionally equivocating.

Dempublicents1

07-06-2006, 16:39

Basically, this means that a system not in equilibrium will tend to lend it's energy to other systems over time, until it's energy has been disappated. What this means is that if a system is not in balance, it's unbalanced energies will be given over to other systems over time. Simplicity => Complexity. The second law of thermodynamics claims that things get more complex over time, not that everything decays.

This isn't any more true than those who state that the 2nd law predicts a breadown of order.

First of all, thermodynamics deals with energy, which sometimes correlates to complexity and order, but does not always do so. Thus, it is important to make the distinction between the two.

Second of all, what is predicted is that spontaneous processes will either increase or fail to change the overall entropy of a closed system, but will never decrease the overall entropy. Localized entropy can and often will be decreased, but the overall entropy will always be increased.

Bruarong

07-06-2006, 16:56

The problem is not that you make mistakes. It is that you are corrected on them, you say, "Oh yeah, gotcha," and then make the exact same mistakes in the next thread (sometimes even in the next post). It stops looking like a "mistake" and begins to look deliberate when it happens over and over and over and over again.

Since you are taking such great pains to reply to my posts, why don't you look to see if it is simply that you are not understanding my position, rather than assuming that I am deliberately trying to weave confusion? It has been rather difficult to find anyone who appears to be neutral on this topic -- neutral and educated enough to provide helpful comments.
Thus, I have tried various ways to make my position clear. Perhaps that looks like alternating my position, but I can say that I have not tried to mislead anyone.

Because you keep repeating them - in every thread and often within posts in the same thread, long after they have been pointed out. You enter every thread with the same misconceptions about evolutionary theory - and continue to try and use them in arguments, even though they are just that - misconceptions.

Provide some examples of my misconceptions, and let us discuss whether I really do have a misconception, or if I am simply misunderstood (or something else).

I have no reason to believe that Grave, or anyone else I am "chummy" with are "obviously against Christianity." The closest person I can think of to being "obviously against Christianity" that I respect on this thread is Bottle - and she seems to be opposed to any and all religion. She and I have butted heads on this more than once, and I think we have, to a point, agreed to disagree on that issue.

Meanwhile, define "conservative Christian viewpoints."

You don't think that Grave is anti-Christian? If he isn't, I certainly get that impression. I don't think I have ever seen a single post where he has supported Christianity. (Feel free to point one out to me, though.) On the other hand, he is often taking the anti-Christian position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Christianity
''Conservative Christianity is often characterized by the following features:
A belief in the authority of the Bible and a belief that it is an incontrovertible source of God's revelation to humankind. Bible prophecy and Bible inerrancy are typically affirmed. These often includes a willingness to believe that the Bible is to be believed over science or any other source. [1] [2] [3] [4]. In short, some conservative Christians stress the provisional nature of science rather than any current science community consensus. Biblical creationist interpretations of scientific data regarding origins are sometimes adhered to.[5]
The resurrection of Christ is seen as a historical event. A central focus on Christ's redeeming work on the cross as the means for salvation and the forgiveness of sins.
Encouragement of evangelism - the act of sharing one's beliefs in salvation through Jesus Christ with others - through both organized missionary work and personal evangelism.
Traditional views on a literal heaven and hell.
A high level of involvement in charitable, medical, educational, and relief work, such as adoption agencies, crisis pregnancy centers, food banks, medical clinics, and schools at all levels. For example, the Rev. Billy Graham and his son Franklin working together, with the former emphasizing evangelism while the latter does disaster relief. In many areas of The Third World the only medical care available is through mission clinics, mostly run by evangelical Mennonite or fundamentalist ministries.''

I don't necessarily agree with everything in that description, but it does give a general idea of conservative Christianity.

Jocabia

07-06-2006, 17:00

Fair enough.

What type of ape was I using, then? And what has that got to do with monkeys?

You tell me. You said it. I quoted you. You used the two terms directly in conjunction several times.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=equivocation.%20%20
equivocation n 1: a statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth [syn: evasion] 2: intentionally vague or ambiguous [syn: prevarication, evasiveness] 3: falsification by means of vague or ambiguous language

Explain how I was using it differently, and then explain how I was intentionally equivocating.

The fallacy of equivocation is when you pretend you were using one meaning of a word when you were using another. You said apes and monkeys. You weren't using it in the great apes sense and to suggest otherwise is simply absurd.

Bruarong

07-06-2006, 17:12

You tell me. You said it. I quoted you. You used the two terms directly in conjunction several times.

The statement that I remember most was something along the lines of 'Evolutionary theory has it that humans evolved from apes.' If I came across this statement in someone else's post, I would assume that he was referring to the ancient apes. If you are referring to another of my posts, perhaps you ought to provide it.

The fallacy of equivocation is when you pretend you were using one meaning of a word when you were using another. You said apes and monkeys. You weren't using it in the great apes sense and to suggest otherwise is simply absurd.

If we are referring to the same post, I certainly was referring to the ancient ancestor apes.

I don't recall any mention of monkeys in that post.

Dempublicents1

07-06-2006, 17:14

Welcome back, Dem.

Thanks.

I suppose that's right, so long as you insist on using a strict definition of science.

I do. Otherwise, the language gets leaky and no one knows what you are talking about.

I thought I did.

But you didn't. You didn't address a single point. Go back and look at it. You just said, "I don't think its illogical" and went on with that, without discussing anything I had said.

However, we might be able to define something as irreducibly complex based upon what we know of life thus far.

Ah, exactly like the "God of the gaps" argument. What you are saying is, "Based on what we know so far, we can't get rid of this component. Therefore it is irreducibly complex." This is logically equivalent to, "Based on what we know so far, there is no explanation for this. Therefore, God did it."

I doubt that such an approach would prevent investigation in general.

The minute you make the statement, "This is irreducibly complex," you cut out all necessity to investigate it further. It cannot be broken down - it is irreducible, therefore, there is no reason to investigate any less complex system.

That's not what I am suggesting at all. We just need to know what we know.

Knowing only what we know, we can never make the statement that something is "irreducibly complex," as we always might find a reduction.

I don't think you can assume redundant pathways in the first theoretical primitive life.

Let me repeat what you were answering, and let you try again, since it didn't mention or assume redundancy.

Not completely it isn't. There are all sorts of genes we can knock out that are never compensated for, but the creature still survives.

The SLT, as I understand it, does not directly refer to abiogenesis or evolutionary theory. However, it does have implications for both theories.

Indeed (although abiogenesis is not yet a theory - and may never be). The laws of thermodynamics have implications for all natural processes. You claimed that the implication was a prediction against these processes ocurring - a statement logically equivalent to stating that the theories are inconsistent with the laws of thermodynamics. Yet, you have been unable to back this up. Instead, you have prattled on and on about how the law does not directly mention abiogenesis or evolutionary theory, as if that has anything at all to do with it.

Let's look at how this has gone:

You: The SLT2 predicts against abiogenesis.
Me: No, you must misunderstand the theory, the SLT2 does not predict against abiogenesis at all.
You: The SLT2 doesn't directly reference abiogenesis. Why are you taking my comment to mean that it does so?
Me: I'm not. But it does have direct implications on all processes, and there is nothing in the SLT2 to predict against abiogenesis if you understand the theory.
You: The SLT2 doesn't have anything in it about abiogenesis, but anyone who understands the SLT2 would know that it predicts against abiogenesis.
Me: No, it really doesn't.
You: Why do you keep saying that I think the SLT2 mentions abiogenesis?
Me: ::headslap::

I have not said that the SLT makes direct predictions against either theory.

If it makes predictions against it, then it makes direct predictions against it.

I'm not sure why you insist on presenting my argument as consisting of this point, because I have already pointed out that this is not my argument. It is the implications of the SLT (plus other considerations) that allows me to predict that abiogenesis is unlikely.

This is logically equivalent to saying that the SLT2 directly predicts against abiogenesis.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=entropy
Entropy is a measure of disorder in a closed system, a measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work, or the tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity. However you describe entropy, it generally implies a tendency towards disorder.

You really need to go to a physics dictionary if you want a physics definition of entropy, since we are discussing the laws of physics.

Meanwhile, "generally implying" something does not mean "always implying" something. I have pointed out, more than once, that an increase in entropy generally means a decrease in order. However, it is important to note that the two are not equivalent, and that an increase in entropy can and sometimes does mean an increase in order.

So, if I understand you right, you are saying that assumptions are ok, so long as they are falsifiable, with the exception of a single unfalsifiable assumption upon which all of science is based, called an axiom.

An axiom is not made as part of the use of the process - it is part of the process itself. Your questions are like saying, "So, within mathematics, I can assume that the angles of a triangle always add up to 180, but I cannot assume that apples are red?"

But that only works if we know that our assumptions are falsifiable. For example, do we know if we can falsify the assumption that all of life developed from a single ancestor? Theoretically, it may be possible, if we could discover a life form that was obviously not related to any other modern life form. But we don't know if we will discover such a life form, since we don't know if one exists. Therefore, we don't know if this assumption is falsifiable.[/qutoe]

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word falsifiable. It does not mean "Can be proven false," because even true theories in science are falsifiable - but they cannot logically be proven false. It means that, if it is false, it can be disproven. The fact that we could find a life form obviously n ot related to any other lifeform (if it exists) means that the idea is falsifiable.

Meanwhile, you are going back to your old habits again and mistaking a conclusion of a theory for an assumption of that theory. The idea that there is a single or a few ancestors of all lifeforms is a conclusion of the theory - one drawn from the evidence - it is not an assumption of the theory.

[quote]As for my assumption of God, currently it appears that the existence of God cannot be falsified using current scientific methods. But we don't know if it will always be that way.

Yes, we do. God is said to be outside the laws of nature - to have created them, in fact. As such, God is supernatural and is, by definition, outside the very realm of science. The supernatural cannot be investigated using scientific means, and thus cannot be falsified through those means.

My evidence is that this had been done before. Just look at history. There are plenty of people who have held something similar to my position, and have been successful in science.

Show me someone who successfully published, "God did it," in a scientific paper.

Why not? If he did interact with the material world, why can't we allow that such an interaction may be detectable? We don't have to assume that it is detectable, but we can say that it might be. I reckon its worth a look.

Logically, the methods of science cannot be used to detect the supernatural. Because of their empirical basis, any interference of the supernatural would appear to be natural.

I think you are taking what I said out of context. I said that we cannot directly investigate God. But I think we can investigate nature with the possibility that nature has evidence for a divine interaction--the ID position.

Finding evidence for divine interaction is the same thing as investigating God. There is no logical distinction.

Evidence for the supernatural does not require a direct investigation of the supernatural.

Yes, it does, just as evidence for homology requires a direct investigation of homology. Evidence for gravity requires a direct investigation of gravity. From an empirical standpoint, we cannot find evidence for something we cannot investigate.

The explanation that God created the world certainly can be investigated. If God created man as man, it is possible to investigate this.[/qutoe]

How? How can you empirically demonstrate God's involvement?

[quote]A rather large claim. Care to provide an example of this?

Of what?

Can you demonstrate that the assumption of a single common ancestor is true or false?

There is no such assumption. It is a conclusion, one that would be disproven by the theory being disproven.

Meanwhile, science cannot demonstrate that anything is true - only that it is either false, or not yet found to be false.

So axioms are untestable concepts.

To a point, yes. They are untestable within the framework of the logical system they are a base of.

I suppose I could say, then, that I consider God to be somewhat of an axiom.

Indeed it is. This is the reason that theists and atheists cannot really come to logical agreements in religious matters without moving to the axioms of the other. Because the base axioms are different, the conclusions are generally different - as the logical process is controlled by the axioms made.

Of course, the existence of God is not an axiom of the scientific method. Neither is the non-existence of God. Science is neutral on this point.

I don't know. Probably no one else knows it either. Possibly related to the problem of detecting randomness, which was my point.

The answer is that there isn't an answer. We cannot empirically show that something had no cause, as we can never state that we have examined *all* possibilities. Thus, the reason that an axiomatic statement within the scientific process is the deterministic nature of the universe.

My point was that I am not making any such illogical leap, despite your silly examples.

Ah, but you are. You are basically saying, "Science is based in an axiomatic statement that the universe is deterministic. I cannot use science to disprove this statement. Therefore I can assume that God exists within my science."

Or a recognition of an axiom.

But a recognition of an axiom that is not one on which the scientific method is based, and thus cannot be included without "injecting" it into science - injecting God into science.

I have never argued that science should be able to prove or disprove the existence of God. But I have argued that if he has interacted with the material world, such an interaction theoretically could be detectable using scientific methods.

If science cannot investigate God, then science cannot investigate actions of God. Your statment is like saying, "I know that science cannot investigate worms, but I can conclude from my empirical evidence that worms made these holes."

What do you think? Did God create life through abiogenesis or through a divine act? And don't you think that there might be a detectable difference in modern life between these two scenarios? I reckon it's worth a look.

What makes you think it is an either/or proposition?

Are you suggesting that evolution theory gets discarded and a new one made up every time it comes up against something that it cannot explain (without modification)? Wouldn't it be more sensible to suggest that rather than modifying the whole theory, the part that conflicts with the evidence (i.e. that is disproven) is simply modified?

The two are interchangeable. If the theory exists as a whole, then any modification of that theory is discarding the old theory and replacing it with the new.

And wouldn't that mean that there is a danger that the whole theory is never really called into question?[/qutoe]

Only if there were portions of the theory which no evidence ever contradicted and no other, equally supported, theory were found.

[quote]On the contrary, my impression is that it does not form a large part of the creation theory arguments, from what I have read. Of course one can always find people who will say such things.

Every time I am linked to any "Creation theory" argument, one of the biggest arguments (which doesn't support Creation theory, and is meant only to attack evolutionary theory) is "We haven't found transitionary forms for everything, therefore evolutionary theory is wrong." You show them transitionary forms, and the answer is, "But what about the forms between those?" And so on......

NationStates Jolt Archive

2nd Law of Thermodynamics - Page 2