Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Timothy Standish PhD Bio., "Reading The Blind Watch...

Page 3 of 4 [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Jul 2010, 10:24 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Oh, I see, that must be the "actual" argument utilized, how could I ever be so wrong.

That's what we keep asking ourselves!

Keep asking then, until the secular argument relies less on decrees and bullying over conclusions and more on scientific empiricism.


See statements like this makes we wonder if you are just a little confused. Just to simplify things for you religion decrees, science challenges, now I suggest you write that down on a card stick it into your wallet and whenever you get confused get it out and remind yourself which is which.


Oh yay, something to memorize. That's education right there....



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Jul 2010, 10:28 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Oh, I see, that must be the "actual" argument utilized, how could I ever be so wrong.

That's what we keep asking ourselves!

Keep asking then, until the secular argument relies less on decrees and bullying over conclusions and more on scientific empiricism.

Orwell already made an empirically based challenge to you, personally, 'keet. For you to say this seems kind of ridiculous, given the facts about the matter that everyone on this forum got to see. So, saying "you evolutionists lack scientific empiricism", is kind of bogus. Mainstream science has both more empirical and theoretical scholars than your pack of creationists, period.


He can go through with his challenge if he likes, but the way such a search is set up determines type of the results. As such, then the results he's seeking are probably based on something predefined that he knows would not be there in terms of the search criteria. But if Orwell wishes to go ahead and demonstrate what he considers to be a scientific procedure, then may he go ahead with it and show his methodology along with his results.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Jul 2010, 10:33 pm

skafather84 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Oh, I see, that must be the "actual" argument utilized, how could I ever be so wrong.

That's what we keep asking ourselves!

Keep asking then, until the secular argument relies less on decrees and bullying over conclusions and more on scientific empiricism.


I don't think there is a secular argument so much as it is entirely worthless to concern oneself's evolutionary studies with the existence of god. It provides no extra information nor does it provide any useful methodology for figuring out lineages or reasonings. "It just happened because of god" isn't an acceptable answer for anything because there are real causes for everything. The arguments you have posted have offered no reason of worth why god should be included in any scientific discussion other than that one's faith demands it for themselves; it serves no purpose in the actual research and, as displayed in your articles, hinders research and leads to conclusions without explanations.


Actually, the theological assumption that God is orderly and that He would impart order upon His Creation gave more justification to seek the "Laws of Nature" during the 1500's through the mid 1800's, so whether or not a particular methodology is implied by such or not, the notion of order originating from Omniscient God provided incentive to seek it out and, "to know something of His attributes of wisdom, power, and goodness as evidenced by His handiwork." as James Prescott Joule had said.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

02 Jul 2010, 10:42 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Oh, I see, that must be the "actual" argument utilized, how could I ever be so wrong.

That's what we keep asking ourselves!

Keep asking then, until the secular argument relies less on decrees and bullying over conclusions and more on scientific empiricism.


I don't think there is a secular argument so much as it is entirely worthless to concern oneself's evolutionary studies with the existence of god. It provides no extra information nor does it provide any useful methodology for figuring out lineages or reasonings. "It just happened because of god" isn't an acceptable answer for anything because there are real causes for everything. The arguments you have posted have offered no reason of worth why god should be included in any scientific discussion other than that one's faith demands it for themselves; it serves no purpose in the actual research and, as displayed in your articles, hinders research and leads to conclusions without explanations.


Actually, the theological assumption that God is orderly and that He would impart order upon His Creation gave more justification to seek the "Laws of Nature" during the 1500's through the mid 1800's, so whether or not a particular methodology is implied by such or not, the notion of order originating from Omniscient God provided incentive to seek it out and, "to know something of His attributes of wisdom, power, and goodness as evidenced by His handiwork." as James Prescott Joule had said.


Okay but that doesn't contribute anything. Science already works under the assumption that the universe is mostly orderly*. It's why the scientific process is set up how it is, it assumes that results should be reproducible under controlled conditions, or, in other words, things should be orderly.

Also, who says that the bible is right? There are many other religions claiming their god is real and yours is fake and there's no way to verify anyone's claims other than vague bits of history included in stories which do nothing to specifically verify any deification of the individuals involved or their messages.


*There are some lingering doubts in the theoretical physics area but that's not relevant to evolution.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 Jul 2010, 10:42 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
He can go through with his challenge if he likes, but the way such a search is set up determines type of the results. As such, then the results he's seeking are probably based on something predefined that he knows would not be there in terms of the search criteria. But if Orwell wishes to go ahead and demonstrate what he considers to be a scientific procedure, then may he go ahead with it and show his methodology along with his results.

Dude, don't play this game. You blamed us for not being empirical, then you dismiss Orwell actually offering to do some empiricism. 'keet, you're a 'tard.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 Jul 2010, 10:43 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Actually, the theological assumption that God is orderly and that He would impart order upon His Creation gave more justification to seek the "Laws of Nature" during the 1500's through the mid 1800's, so whether or not a particular methodology is implied by such or not, the notion of order originating from Omniscient God provided incentive to seek it out and, "to know something of His attributes of wisdom, power, and goodness as evidenced by His handiwork." as James Prescott Joule had said.

So, you mean that a theological guess became fruitful? Well, good for theology, but it is still a guess, and the rest of the guesses seem as if they could smother science with ease.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Jul 2010, 10:52 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
He can go through with his challenge if he likes, but the way such a search is set up determines type of the results. As such, then the results he's seeking are probably based on something predefined that he knows would not be there in terms of the search criteria. But if Orwell wishes to go ahead and demonstrate what he considers to be a scientific procedure, then may he go ahead with it and show his methodology along with his results.

Dude, don't play this game. You blamed us for not being empirical, then you dismiss Orwell actually offering to do some empiricism. 'keet, you're a 'tard.


Let him do it.



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

02 Jul 2010, 10:54 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Dude, don't play this game. You blamed us for not being empirical, then you dismiss Orwell actually offering to do some empiricism. 'keet, you're a 'tard.

well, you know, empiricism that doesn't favor Creationism, is not really empiricism. :roll:


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Jul 2010, 11:00 pm

skafather84 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Oh, I see, that must be the "actual" argument utilized, how could I ever be so wrong.

That's what we keep asking ourselves!

Keep asking then, until the secular argument relies less on decrees and bullying over conclusions and more on scientific empiricism.


I don't think there is a secular argument so much as it is entirely worthless to concern oneself's evolutionary studies with the existence of god. It provides no extra information nor does it provide any useful methodology for figuring out lineages or reasonings. "It just happened because of god" isn't an acceptable answer for anything because there are real causes for everything. The arguments you have posted have offered no reason of worth why god should be included in any scientific discussion other than that one's faith demands it for themselves; it serves no purpose in the actual research and, as displayed in your articles, hinders research and leads to conclusions without explanations.


Actually, the theological assumption that God is orderly and that He would impart order upon His Creation gave more justification to seek the "Laws of Nature" during the 1500's through the mid 1800's, so whether or not a particular methodology is implied by such or not, the notion of order originating from Omniscient God provided incentive to seek it out and, "to know something of His attributes of wisdom, power, and goodness as evidenced by His handiwork." as James Prescott Joule had said.


Okay but that doesn't contribute anything. Science already works under the assumption that the universe is mostly orderly*. It's why the scientific process is set up how it is, it assumes that results should be reproducible under controlled conditions, or, in other words, things should be orderly.

Also, who says that the bible is right? There are many other religions claiming their god is real and yours is fake and there's no way to verify anyone's claims other than vague bits of history included in stories which do nothing to specifically verify any deification of the individuals involved or their messages.


*There are some lingering doubts in the theoretical physics area but that's not relevant to evolution.


In regard to genetics, which is what Orwell's offer is about, the creationist side has been oppositional to the relegation non protein coding DNA as "Junk" and has continued this stance in the same way that creationists have opposed the notion of 'vestigial' organs since the beginning. Vestigial organs and "Junk DNA" are suppose to speak in favor of evolutionary ancestry, and to often have organs been relegated to this status when the function of them was unknown. Only in 2007 was the definition of "vestigial" changed to accommodate the presence of function in anatomical unit which they previously did not understand. However, the same concept of vestigial organs, although perhaps not consciously done, has nevertheless been applied to the study of DNA again allowing whatever is unknown to be counted among "evidence" rather than seeking out the design imparted to it.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 Jul 2010, 11:02 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
In regard to genetics, which is what Orwell's offer is about, the creationist side has been oppositional to the relegation non protein coding DNA as "Junk" and has continued this stance in the same way that creationists have opposed the notion of 'vestigial' organs since the beginning. Vestigial organs and "Junk DNA" are suppose to speak in favor of evolutionary ancestry, and to often have organs been relegated to this status when the function of them was unknown. Only in 2007 was the definition of "vestigial" changed to accommodate the presence of function in anatomical unit which they previously did not understand. However, the same concept of vestigial organs, although perhaps not consciously done, has nevertheless been applied to the study of DNA again allowing whatever is unknown to be counted among "evidence" rather than seeking out the design imparted to it.

Oh, whatever, you know that there are relevant intra-evolutionary disputes relevant to the issue, and frankly, we both know that poor designs no sense when the design hypothesis is really an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfect deity. The fact that you can't recognize this is just a personal failing.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Jul 2010, 11:19 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
In regard to genetics, which is what Orwell's offer is about, the creationist side has been oppositional to the relegation non protein coding DNA as "Junk" and has continued this stance in the same way that creationists have opposed the notion of 'vestigial' organs since the beginning. Vestigial organs and "Junk DNA" are suppose to speak in favor of evolutionary ancestry, and to often have organs been relegated to this status when the function of them was unknown. Only in 2007 was the definition of "vestigial" changed to accommodate the presence of function in anatomical unit which they previously did not understand. However, the same concept of vestigial organs, although perhaps not consciously done, has nevertheless been applied to the study of DNA again allowing whatever is unknown to be counted among "evidence" rather than seeking out the design imparted to it.

Oh, whatever, you know that there are relevant intra-evolutionary disputes relevant to the issue, and frankly, we both know that poor designs no sense when the design hypothesis is really an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfect deity. The fact that you can't recognize this is just a personal failing.


How is it possible for you to accuse me of oversimplifying a complex issue and then do the same in the same response?



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 Jul 2010, 11:20 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
How is it possible for you to accuse me of oversimplifying a complex issue and then do the same in the same response?

God is supposed to be perfect. There is no complexity that I am oversimplifying here, and I will go into a full-on debate with you on how optimization follows from the three omnis, but some thinkers consider this obvious.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Jul 2010, 11:23 pm

greenblue wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Dude, don't play this game. You blamed us for not being empirical, then you dismiss Orwell actually offering to do some empiricism. 'keet, you're a 'tard.

well, you know, empiricism that doesn't favor Creationism, is not really empiricism. :roll:


Jajaja, si esta exactamente que soy piensando. Como te sabes? Puedes saber los cogitationes de la gente? Estas de la planeta Betazed?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Jul 2010, 11:32 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
How is it possible for you to accuse me of oversimplifying a complex issue and then do the same in the same response?

God is supposed to be perfect. There is no complexity that I am oversimplifying here, and I will go into a full-on debate with you on how optimization follows from the three omnis, but some thinkers consider this obvious.


So, with just three omnis? None of the other characteristics of God other than His Omniscience, Omnipresence, and His Omnipotence? Or did you wish to substitute out one of those omnis with your classic "Omnibenevolence"? How about more of His characteristics then "just" those three or four?

As for optimization of created life, I think such was initially the case. Disease and death would have entered the world after sin entered though, such being the common punishment of humankind, and the world given for us to be stewards of, for our initial ancestor's disobedience in knowledge of the single commandment given as well as our own personal rebellions against our consciences and any of the law revealed to us.

If you want to get into a full on debate about this from a theological point, I'd be willing to as I have more knowledge in that subject than in Orwell's begging-of-question-type-sounding challenge.

Start if you like, but I don't think I fully disagree with you.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 Jul 2010, 11:36 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
How is it possible for you to accuse me of oversimplifying a complex issue and then do the same in the same response?

God is supposed to be perfect. There is no complexity that I am oversimplifying here, and I will go into a full-on debate with you on how optimization follows from the three omnis, but some thinkers consider this obvious.


So, with just three omnis? None of the other characteristics of God other than His Omniscience, Omnipresence, and His Omnipotence? Or did you wish to substitute out one of those omnis with your classic "Omnibenevolence"? How about more of His characteristics then "just" those three or four?

As for optimization of created life, I think such was initially the case. Disease and death would have entered the world after sin entered though, such being the common punishment of humankind for our initial ancestor's disobedience in knowledge of the single commandment given as well as our own personal rebellions against our consciences and any of the law revealed to us.

If you want to get into a full on debate about this from a theological point, I'd be willing to as I have more knowledge in that subject than in Orwell's begging-of-question-type-sounding challenge.

Start if you like, but I don't think I fully disagree with you.

I went with omnibenevolence. Omnipresence is usually not considered as philosophically important, and frankly, you have to recognize that people of religion tend to attribute more omnis as they can, so really, I merely used the three that are often used.

'keet, the problem with saying that it is originally the case is that the imperfections in human design are such that they couldn't have just *sprung* into being by an accident. However, "common punishment of mankind for an ancestor's sin" is stupid, one could actually make a case that this goes against other scriptures.

Do you first want me to show optimization, or do you want me to attack the issue of how the issue was supposedly altered by sin?



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

03 Jul 2010, 12:08 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
greenblue wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Dude, don't play this game. You blamed us for not being empirical, then you dismiss Orwell actually offering to do some empiricism. 'keet, you're a 'tard.

well, you know, empiricism that doesn't favor Creationism, is not really empiricism. :roll:


Jajaja, si esta exactamente que soy piensando. Como te sabes? Puedes saber los cogitationes de la gente? Estas de la planeta Betazed?

well, technically that actually seems to be the case, creation "scientists" reject evidence that favors Evolution, the Geology and the Cosmology which undermine their Creationism, so yeah, that leads to conclude that they question the empiricism used on these fields.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?