|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..11~12~13~14~15~16 [Next] | ||||||||||
Carrie Sue Veteran user Auburn, MI 332 Posts 
|
Quote:
On 2008-09-30 14:02, Magnus Eisengrim wrote: Jumping into the thread here because this kind of talk fascinates me. Evolution is one of the least specific terms out there. To one person it can mean pests becoming resistant to pesticides (which no Creationist worth his salt would disbelieve), and to another it can mean an amoeba (or something similar) becoming a man over billions of supposed years of time. Intelligent Design is really an inference from the available data -- that you don't get complex machines by accident. They have to be designed. Life itself is a complex mechanical process, and all we're saying is that a scientist should not be ridiculed if he follows the data to the conclusion that there had to be an Ultimate Designer for everything we see here. Carrie |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-10-01 13:33, Carrie Sue wrote: Hello Carrie. Evolution is not vague at all in the scientific literature. Please note that the phrase "an amoeba becoming a man" is clearly in contradiction to evolutionary theory. Precision is much more important in science than it is in day-to-day discourse. As for intelligent design, we are nowhere near the point of having evidence that a creator is necessary. Do note, though, that if we were, the creator would also require explanation. If it were impossible for complex life to form without a creator, then it would also be impossible for the creator to exist without a creator, and so on. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
Tom Bartlett Special user Our southern border could use 763 Posts
|
This is where science is fallible; they put hypothetical perimeters up to work within: “If it were impossible for complex life to form without a creator, then it would also be impossible for the creator to exist without a creator, and so on."
Try this sentence instead: "If it is impossible for complex life to form as we know it to form without a creator, it does not mean that other forms of life that we know nothing about did not exists without a beginning or an end for eternity.” I think the thought of eternity is the one thing man has the hardest time comprehending. In fact it my not even be possible for us to understand, after all everything in our short life here has a beginning and an end.
Our friends don't have to agree with me about everything and some that I hold very dear don't have to agree about anything, except where we are going to meet them for dinner.
|
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts
|
If you are a gambler look up Pascal's Wager.
I always said I was hedging a bet with religion. What do I lose if I am wrong in the end? Nothing. What do I gain if I am right? Wow lots. And if I am right about religion what happens? Again a lot, but if those without it are wrong what happens? Eternity is a LONG time. Funny how those who claim they live life by LOGIC and SCIENCE have not figured this out LOL.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-10-01 18:23, Dannydoyle wrote: Actually, the many flaws in the logic behind Pascal's Wager were figured out a long time ago.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
|
Thetruthteller New user 93 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-10-01 18:23, Dannydoyle wrote: So what are you going to tell Odin when he asks you why you spent your whole life worshipping the wrong God? |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-10-01 18:23, Dannydoyle wrote:... Yes, very funny if you actually apply that reasoning and look at what follows from that wager. Here's a start for those who want to look down that path... what if you are betting on the wrong god? What have you already bet on that one? Or to continue: what if what you've been pretending to have faith in for all those years was just a test to see how much evil you are willing to perform and condone by inaction while under the impression that your "good" works (actions) are noticed much less interpreted the way you want them to be? Come on - you know you lie to others (ever told a child there's a santa?) so why can't "the creator" be lying to you just a little? You step on bugs and eat lower life forms - and so who's going to wager there can't be life of a different sort that feeds upon pain and despair? Now wager away as to just what gamble you want to take and what actions you wish to condone or perform... 
Once you see where Pascal's wager leads you - let's call it Pascal's Casino... you might just find you have one more addiction to face. Instead I stand by my suggestion of treating the sentimental as its own place and encourage you to believe whatever it is that helps you get along with others and find some joy in the world. If I want horror stories I can always turn on the news or contemplate entropy. What do you want to bet that "The Screwtape Letters" are not a work of fiction?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-10-01 17:35, Tom Bartlett wrote: My argument on this point has nothing to do with science; it's pure philosophy. Quote:
Try this sentence instead: "If it is impossible for complex life to form as we know it to form without a creator, it does not mean that other forms of life that we know nothing about did not exists without a beginning or an end for eternity.” I can go along with you on this provided that the original claim is modified to constrain itself to "complex life as we know it". This is probably an even more difficult argument to make than the other because it would have to catalog the relevant features of all known complex life. The argument is usually given that all complex life could not exist without a creator. The arguments given for this (so far as I have seen) are hopelessly weak. Certainly, though, we can safely grant each other the possibility that someone may some day show that only some kinds of complex existence are contingent upon a creator. Do you think that this has been shown? Quote:
I think the thought of eternity is the one thing man has the hardest time comprehending. In fact it my not even be possible for us to understand, after all everything in our short life here has a beginning and an end. Maybe. There are many deep and difficult thoughts to be thought.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
Ah... but if you add time travel into the equation we could have Dennis the Menace as "the creator". How's that Mr. Wilson?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
Tom Bartlett Special user Our southern border could use 763 Posts
|
The wheel has always existed in nature, here are examples: a tree, by natural events falls on the side of a steep mountain and rolls down, a boulder shook lose by an earthquake rolls down the side of a mountain. These things happened for millions of years but no usable wheels naturally develop.
Up pops man, although primitive, he does not lack intelligence or the ability to reason. Now the tree and rock rolling down the side of the mountain is observed by man and he realizes this could be of great benefit to him, but progress does not happen quickly. Usable round logs and rocks are a matter of luck at first because the necessary tools to shape the wheel are not available. Man invents out of necessity, tha acquisition of food and protection from the elements are on the short list along with self-defense. Stones, sticks, bones and fire are mans first tools but I believe the thought of a wheel existed even then. Time goes by slowly generations come and go without any great strides in making a usable wheel but with each new invention man is closer to creating it. One invention leading to the next, but without the man to creator the wheel, a log or a stone rolling down the side of a mountain are just a log or a stone rolling down the side of a mountain. Even in its simplest man made form the wheel is still more complex than what could naturally occur in nature. The building blocks may be there but with out a creator the things we take for granted today would not exist.
Our friends don't have to agree with me about everything and some that I hold very dear don't have to agree about anything, except where we are going to meet them for dinner.
|
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
Why are some of us confusing ideas and things?
'The wheel' the name of an idea and one of the simple machines discovered and named by the ancient Greeks along with the inclined plane and lever. Things which roll ... just are. Many animals react to fire. We seem to be the only one that goes around starting fires.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts
|
[quote]On 2008-10-01 19:16, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On 2008-10-01 17:35, Tom Bartlett wrote: My argument on this point has nothing to do with science; it's pure philosophy. [quote] I think this is where most of your posts confuse me at least. You tend to mix pure philosophy with science and never make the distinction. Also you make claims like science has spacific meanings for words, then never go on to define what those are. So for my slow witted brain (and it is believe me) what is the "scientific definition" of reasonable, and infer? Also please explain how science manages to make those definite quantities. (Please try to use as small of words as you can manage for me at least) How do those definitions differ from what just "people" ue them as?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts
|
[quote]On 2008-10-02 09:17, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On 2008-10-01 19:16, Magnus Eisengrim wrote: Quote:
On 2008-10-01 17:35, Tom Bartlett wrote: My argument on this point has nothing to do with science; it's pure philosophy. Quote:
If I am ever unclear about a particular point, just ask. I'm here for honest, intelligent conversation. Quote:
Also you make claims like science has spacific meanings for words, then never go on to define what those are. I will do my best, if you like. Keep in mind that any serious academic activity requires years of training; quick glosses never quite get to the heart of the matter. There is no substitute for plain hard work when it comes to understanding. Quote:
So for my slow witted brain (and it is believe me) what is the "scientific definition" of reasonable, and infer? Also please explain how science manages to make those definite quantities. (Please try to use as small of words as you can manage for me at least) I'll do my best in a short space; no doubt someone will pick at every possible nit; I can't be as comprehensive as a science education in a few paragraphs. There are two basic families of inference: deductive and inductive. Valid deductive inferences take some propositions about states of affairs and make logically irrefutable conclusions from them. e.g. 1. All mammals have hearts. 2. Danny Doyle is a mammal. 3. Therefore, Danny Doyle has a heart. If the premisses (1 and 2) are true, then it follows by the form of the argument that the conclusion (3) must also be true. The basic rules of deductive logic have been well understood since Aristotle. The theory underwent significant expansion and development in the early 20th century, and work still continues. For most purposes, though, our deductive inferences in science are fairly easy to understand. The second type of inference crucial to science is the inductive inference. Here the situation is less clear. To make inductive inferences we look at the world and take note of regularities, then try our best to make sense of them. e.g. I boil water at my home and discover that it boils at 98 degrees C. I repeat this experiment every day for a month and discover that it always boils at 98 degrees C. I make the inductive inference that water boils at 98 degrees in Edmonton. Clearly this is less satisfying than a deductive inference. There are so many ways I could be falsely generalizing. Maybe it was an odd month. Maybe my thermometer was malfunctioning. Maybe malign genies were messing with my mind, making me only think that the water was boiling when it was not. There is no end to the list of possible objections, even if most of them are simply silly. This is where reasonableness comes in. My induction about the temperature of boiling water is only as strong as the reasons I can give for it. If I say, "it just seems so to me" this is not scientifically convincing. I may or may not be correct, but I am not adequately justifying my inference. If, however, I can produce relevant evidence to provide deductive support for my claim, then my claim becomes scientifically respectable (even though it might still be incorrect). To support my inference that water boils at 98C in Edmonton, I can appeal to the purity of my water samples, to the Ideal Gas Law, to the altitude of my city, to historical measurements, and other principles. Note that inductive inferences are always open to challenge. The better they withstand scrutiny, the more reliable they are. New evidence, or new understandings can always be invoked to challenge established inductive inferences, no matter how cherished they may be. Thank you for asking. I hope that my little summary helps us to continue talking. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
|
abc Inner circle South African in Taiwan 1081 Posts
|
Not that I am taking Danny's side here but,
We have determined that Chimps and Humans share retrovirus consistencies therefore we can deduce that they are related to the same ancestor yet we only recently discovered that Aids (A retro virus) actually dates back to the late 19th century or early 20th century and we only discovered that AFTER we conclusively dedused that we are related to other primates based on evidence from retor viruses that we obviously still don't understand. So please excuse us for questioning your inductive reasoning and inductive inferences. PS. John, please do not take this as a stab at you. You are actually one of the few people whom I would get involved in an argument with on this board because you don't post rubbish. |
|||||||||
|
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts
|
Tom has PMed me indicating that I have misinterpreted his meaning here. I apologize for that. I now believe that Tom did not wish to champion the bit starting with "Try this sentence instead..." but rather to raise it for criticism.
Again, I apologize to Tom for misreading his post and for posting a response that make him appear to hold a position that he does not. John Quote: On 2008-10-01 19:16, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
|
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts
|
Quote: On 2008-10-02 13:28, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts
|
[quote]On 2008-10-02 12:01, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On 2008-10-02 09:17, Dannydoyle wrote: Quote:
On 2008-10-01 19:16, Magnus Eisengrim wrote: It is said that you should never ask 2 questions in a letter, because the recipient will invariably answer the question you would need explained less LOL. Not a scientific principal, more of a joke email. But you have indeed made this come true, in a fantastically condecending manner thank you very much. So now how is it you can "quantify" inference, and more importantly, and really at the heart of the matter "reasonably". The word reasonably is one of great debate is it not? Oh and try to be a bit more condecending if you can, I can never get enough of that from you. So let me see if I get this. 1) God is love 2) love is blind 3) Ray Charles is blind 4) Ray Charles is God. Clear as mud.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-10-02 13:39, Dannydoyle wrote: I took you seriously. Apparently that isn't what you wanted. Good bye Mr. Doyle.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts
|
For the record, I was not attempting to "infer" "deduct" or PROVE in any way that Ray Charles was is or ever will be God.
We all know Spiderman is.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Josh Riel Inner circle of hell 1995 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-10-01 13:21, Tom Bartlett wrote: I laughed when I read that. My post was merely an extension of the current topic of conversation. Albeit a unlikeable point considering the polarized discussion of people with their thumbs in their ears and finger a-going. You brought up tithing. When a point that shadowed the tradition of tithing poorly, you called me the hijacker... If there are two points of view that conflict, and the proponents insist only one is right, then one must be right... or both may be wrong. I'm just sayin'. I don't bet any one's listnin'
Magic is doing improbable things with odd items that, under normal circumstances, would be unnessecary and quite often undesirable.
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Ben Stein interviewed on BNN (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..11~12~13~14~15~16 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Oct 1, 2008 05:33 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.11 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|