or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Worse than creationism: Dualism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Worse than creationism: Dualism - Page 5

post #161 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
What's that bit in Life of Pi? "Atheists are just my brothers of a different faith? They go as far as their reason will take them and then...they leap" or something like it.



Beam and Coke, Austen's Mansfield Park, and Beethoven's 4th & 7th. Believe it or not, I tried the Requiem earlier today, but it's just too, requiem-y. You know, it weirds me out how often we seem to converge like this.

As for MM...you should try Evan Williams Single Barrel. About the same price and WAAAAAY better taste.

I may have to break down and get that book.

I know what you mean, the last time I listened to Requiem all the way through was after a funeral. Bla. It blows me away that he literally was working on it within hours of his death. I'll check that Evan Williams, I usually have to wait for the MM to go on sale. Talk about a guilty pleasure.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #162 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla

No. Just because you insist doesn't make it so. [/B]

Of course not. It's the entire structure of science that makes it so.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #163 of 195
addabox -- Dr. Midwinter has a prescription that you really must try.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #164 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
You're missing the crux of the argument, this simply has nothing to do with evolution. AAAS has resorted to legal maneuvering not because ID has a problem with Evolution, but because ID calls Materialism into question.

If Kansas decided to start teaching that "another theory" of sub-atomic interaction was that tiny angels had various affinities, I dare say the reaction of the AAAS would be much the same.

I suppose from your perspective that would another case of "calling materialism into question", but it's hardly "the crux of the argument".

I will give you this--"materialism" is mercifully briefer than that laundry list of "po-mo, tail eating, self-referential, deconstructionist, prideful, existential, etc. etc." you were working with previously.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #165 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
addabox -- Dr. Midwinter has a prescription that you really must try.

Addabox's pupils are fixed and dilated. He is far beyond the ministrations of even Dr. Midwinter.

See? I knew I should of stayed out of this.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #166 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
If Kansas decided to start teaching that "another theory" of sub-atomic interaction was that tiny angels had various affinities, I dare say the reaction of the AAAS would be much the same.

I suppose from your perspective that would another case of "calling materialism into question", but it's hardly "the crux of the argument".

I will give you this--"materialism" is mercifully briefer than that laundry list of "po-mo, tail eating, self-referential, deconstructionist, prideful, existential, etc. etc." you were working with previously.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no.......and no. If Kansas were to do that, I'd imagine the ID people would show up with a substantial supply of Attorneys and kindling of their own, they may even beat you there.

This is about the limits of what we are able to 'know' in a materialistic way, you can only go so far, and then you leave the facts at hand and start projecting based on no tangible evidence. Think about this, the IDers will even give you information increase through mutation. They've already gone so far as to allow for something that we have never observed, all they are saying is that the mutation was planned.

Now, be a cooperative little bunny, and let me have your brain!

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #167 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Addabox's pupils are fixed and dilated. He is far beyond the ministrations of even Dr. Midwinter.

See? I knew I should of stayed out of this.

I prefer Herr Doktor Professor Midwinter.

Man, I oughta move to Germany....
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #168 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
I prefer Herr Doktor Professor Midwinter.

Yes, but every Herr Professor must have a Dog-ma-teek.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #169 of 195
dmz:

Quote:
Science ends when a Materialist conclusively presumes that evolution is "uncaused", because he denies all notions of transcendence to do so.

Why did you put quotation marks around "uncaused"?
Are you assuming that this is what people think or are you quoting someone?

Quote:
This is about the limits of what we are able to 'know' in a materialistic way, you can only go so far, and then you leave the facts at hand and start projecting based on no tangible evidence.

What are the limits of what we are able to 'know' in a materialistic way and how did you find these limits?

(I realize my intrusion in this conversation is uncouth in writing, but I only like one kind of masturbation.)
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #170 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
(I realize my intrusion in this conversation is uncouth in writing, but I only like one kind of masturbation.)

Insertion, not intrusion.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #171 of 195
Groverat! Thank god you're here!

Shoot him! Shoot him now!

Sorry, I've been watching the FX horror movie marathon....
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #172 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
If I provided you evidence that speciation has been observed, would you change your mind about biological evolution?

Don't bother, i did that several months ago the last time we had this same discussion.

May I suggest: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dBoard.cgi
post #173 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
dmz:



Why did you put quotation marks around "uncaused"?
Are you assuming that this is what people think or are you quoting someone?



What are the limits of what we are able to 'know' in a materialistic way and how did you find these limits?

(I realize my intrusion in this conversation is uncouth in writing, but I only like one kind of masturbation.)

I didn't really want (I'm not going) to try to shoehorn this into a epistemological argument -- I think it's safe to say it would confuse things to no end.

That said, if you ask the various apologists from each side -- neo evolution/chemical evolution vs. ID, how they define 'cause' or 'random', then you'll get to a place where they both would have to agree that, in the case of information-adding mutations they disagree -- but only in terms of things that can't be dealt with in a laboratory.

There's a pretty good article in First Things this month, that touches on this. Touchstone had a column by Philip Johnson, but they don't have it on their site, but he used the phrase "conclusively presumed" to convey this idea.


addabox: he doesn't have to shoot you now -- groverat, would you like to shoot him now or wait until you get home?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #174 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I didn't really want (I'm not going) to try to shoehorn this into a epistemological argument -- I think it's safe to say it would confuse things to no end. [/B]

I think it's a bit late for that. The ID folks have made this an epistemological discussion.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #175 of 195
I can't shoot anyone, the evolutionists took away my gun.

Quote:
That said, if you ask the various apologists from each side -- neo evolution/chemical evolution vs. ID, how they define 'cause' or 'random', then you'll get to a place where they both would have to agree that, in the case of information-adding mutations they disagree -- but only in terms of things that can't be dealt with in a laboratory.

Information-adding mutations can't be "dealt with" in a laboratory? What do you mean?

Quote:
There's a pretty good article in First Things this month, that touches on this.

Nice article, it definitely shows some great conflict between different factions of Christendom.

I especially like this part:
When scientists are actually doing science, however, they do not use the words "unguided" and "unplanned."

There is nothing theological about evolution at all, that's brought in by the religious emotionalists.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #176 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
I can't shoot anyone, the evolutionists took away my gun.



Information-adding mutations can't be "dealt with" in a laboratory? What do you mean?



Nice article, it definitely shows some great conflict between different factions of Christendom.

I especially like this part:
When scientists are actually doing science, however, they do not use the words "unguided" and "unplanned."

There is nothing theological about evolution at all, that's brought in by the religious emotionalists.

No, there's no emotion -- at least not in the article; it's the difference between 'absolutely unplanned' and 'uncorrelated'. I can't really put any better than the article, re-read this quote:
Quote:
It is not neo-Darwinists as such that are being criticized here, but only the invalid inference drawn by many of them (along with some of their critics) that the putative randomness of genetic variation necessarily implies an absolutely unguided process. It is clearly the intention of this passage to distinguish sharply the actual hypotheses of legitimate science from the philosophical errors often mistakenly thought to follow from them.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #177 of 195
Quote:
To re-quote the quote used by dmz...
It is not neo-Darwinists as such that are being criticized here, but only the invalid inference drawn by "many" of them (along with "some of their critics") that the putative "randomness" of genetic variation necessarily implies an "absolutely unguided" process. It is clearly the intention of this passage to distinguish sharply the actual hypotheses of legitimate science from the philosophical errors often mistakenly thought to follow from them.

Geez, how many times have I said essentially the same thing already?

If someone wishes to believe that a God, Who likes to be subtle and cover His tracks, is manifesting His will through what come off looking like random mutations, so be it.

Imagining such a God, however, adds no explanatory value to a scientific account of the origin of species. It's a unnecessary multiplication of entities -- unless, of course, you consider what for some might be emotionally "necessary".
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #178 of 195
dmz:

That is nothing more than a straw man.

Some Christians say Jews should be eaten in sandwiches. THOSE MEAN CHRISTIANS!

"I'm not arguing against Darwinists, just the stereotype that Christians get together and talk about, fabricated from whole cloth!"
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #179 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Geez, how many times have I said essentially the same thing already?

If someone wishes to believe that a God, Who likes to be subtle and cover His tracks, is manifesting His will through what come off looking like random mutations, so be it.

Imagining such a God, however, adds no explanatory value to a scientific account of the origin of species. It's a unnecessary multiplication of entities -- unless, of course, you consider what for some might be emotionally "necessary".

Another way to frame this is to just look at the word "random".

When scientists use the word they mean "unpredictable, in the sense that we can discern no underlying pattern".

That doesn't mean there isn't a pattern; the history of science is full of formally "random" processes that have yielded their systems to careful scrutiny.

So ID fans are free to claim to have discerned just that, a pattern to mutation the reveals previously unknown structures within the evolutionary process.

But of course they don't do that, they simply point to the whole of the biosphere and say "that's too complicated to be the result of coincidence".

Which is the statement that, as Shetline points out, adds no explanatory value, beyond an emotional connection.

And, as it seems can never be pointed out often enough, is a stance that everyone is free to adopt. Anyone can walk around all the time thinking "I believe that the universe is here for a reason, that I am here for a reason, that that reason undergirds and animates all of creation and accounts for its manifest wonders".

And thinking that doesn't change the science in any way.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #180 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
that issue of the APS Observer[/B]

Try www.aps.org

Lesser scientists trying to steal our acronym, FUCK YOU.
post #181 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by soulcrusher
Lesser scientists trying to steal our acronym, FUCK YOU.

O'ohh, cat fight. Only one rule, don't hurt the brains.
post #182 of 195
I would argue that its much less likely that all my ancestors lived long enough to have children, in the end resulting in me, than humankind is the result of evolution. So God must have spend more attention to me than the human race. I must be the second coming of Jesus.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #183 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
I would argue that its much less likely that all my ancestors lived long enough to have children, in the end resulting in me, than humankind is the result of evolution. So God must have spend more attention to me than the human race. I must be the second coming of Jesus.

That would be an interesting probability to compute - the human dna includes 3 billion basepairs, 95% of which is common with chimps (was 98.5%, but that turned out to be wrong, http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2833).

So there cant be more than 4 to the 150,000,000 possible combinations of human. But I bet it is a lot less than that, since the basepairs are grouped into a set of 100,000 possible genes.

Anyone know how to calculate the maximum number of genetically unique humans?
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #184 of 195
Is that the right calculation? Its not the specific genes I am talking about but the chances of every single pair of ancestors having lived long enough to produce the next link leading up to me.

That must be staggering low especially if you accept the weak form of ID (life being many millions years old and evolved from more simple forms of life).
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #185 of 195
They just completed the hapmap for humans (basically an analysis of single nucleotide diffrences between peoples). http://www.hapmap.org/

"Any two unrelated people are 99.9 percent identical at the genetic level. However, it is important to understand the 0.1 percent difference because it can help explain why one person is more susceptible to a disease or responds differently to a drug or an environmental factor than another person." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1027084651.htm
post #186 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Is that the right calculation? Its not the specific genes I am talking about but the chances of every single pair of ancestors having lived long enough to produce the next link leading up to me.

That must be staggering low especially if you accept the weak form of ID (life being many millions years old and evolved from more simple forms of life).

I was going to divide 6 billion people by the maximum number of possible gene combinations, and get the probibility that you exist - which seemed an easier way to calculate the same thing.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #187 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
I was going to divide 6 billion people by the maximum number of possible gene combinations, and get the probibility that you exist - which seemed an easier way to calculate the same thing.

YOu mean the probability that Anders exists EXACTLY like he does.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #188 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
YOu mean the probability that Anders exists EXACTLY like he does.

minus the social factors...
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #189 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
minus the social factors...

Right. But they're not important.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #190 of 195
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
They just completed the hapmap for humans (basically an analysis of single nucleotide diffrences between peoples). http://www.hapmap.org/

"Any two unrelated people are 99.9 percent identical at the genetic level. However, it is important to understand the 0.1 percent difference because it can help explain why one person is more susceptible to a disease or responds differently to a drug or an environmental factor than another person." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1027084651.htm

Do you have any sources for the genetic relatedness of different species? I think I read that chimps and humans are genetically more similar than chimps and other primates like monkeys and gorillas. I wondered if that's true - I think it would be pretty cool if it was.
post #191 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Do you have any sources for the genetic relatedness of different species? I think I read that chimps and humans are genetically more similar than chimps and other primates like monkeys and gorillas. I wondered if that's true - I think it would be pretty cool if it was.

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/ApeDiversity.html

We are part of the great ape family tree, and the various kinds of chimps are our closest branch on that tree - we are a lot closer to chimps than gorillas for example.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...impanzees.html
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #192 of 195
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/ApeDiversity.html

We are part of the great ape family tree, and the various kinds of chimps are our closest branch on that tree - we are a lot closer to chimps than gorillas for example.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...impanzees.html

We are closer to chimps than gorillas, that I believe. But what I want to know is if we are closer to chimps than chimps are to gorillas. That would be fascinating, if true.
post #193 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
We are closer to chimps than gorillas, that I believe. But what I want to know is if we are closer to chimps than chimps are to gorillas. That would be fascinating, if true.

Thats what the second link indicates.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #194 of 195
"The explosive expansion of the DNA repeats and the resulting restructuring of our genetic code may be the clue to what makes us human," Dugaiczyk said. During the same amount of time, humans accumulated more genetic novelties than chimpanzees, making the human/chimpanzee genetic distance larger than that between the chimpanzee and gorilla.

http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=875

The article claims the research runs counter to Darwin's theory of evolutions, but to be honest I don't get their point. Somehting about non-random distribution of alu sequences.
post #195 of 195
i'm working on non-dualism and pure-non-dualism at the moment. i used to be heavy into dualism and guilt and all that but i think i've moved through that phase....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Worse than creationism: Dualism