|
Author
|
Topic: Ignorant Creationists vs. Knowledgeable Evolutionists
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 76 of 196 (158244)
11-11-2004 12:31 AM
|
Reply to: Message 55 by nator
11-10-2004 9:17 AM
|
|
Re: Where is the conflict?
How do you tell the difference between them? Jar, to whom I asked the question seemed to understand the difference. What's your problem? Read and think.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 55 by nator, posted 11-10-2004 9:17 AM | | nator has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 99 by nator, posted 11-11-2004 3:22 PM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 77 of 196 (158247)
11-11-2004 12:41 AM
|
Reply to: Message 56 by nator
11-10-2004 9:20 AM
|
|
Re: Where is the conflict?
What are the odds, Buz? Please show your math. The odds are great, imo, and I'm not doing the math.
What do you mean by "precisely" and "complete"? Look the words up. That's specifically what I mean.
Please show your work. Please move on. I stated an opinion and have no time nor desire to be drawn into a side trip science debate with you on every little thing I say.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 56 by nator, posted 11-10-2004 9:20 AM | | nator has replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 78 of 196 (158248)
11-11-2004 12:49 AM
|
Reply to: Message 77 by Buzsaw
11-11-2004 12:41 AM
|
|
Re: Where is the conflict?
Buz, would you like me to either dig up a thread on this or create a new thread for you to show us the math behind the odds?
Hate world. Revenge soon!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 77 by Buzsaw, posted 11-11-2004 12:41 AM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 79 of 196 (158249)
11-11-2004 12:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 59 by nator
11-10-2004 9:26 AM
|
|
Re: Who's Diddling The System?
Hi Buz! Even though I know that you will either 1) Ignore this message completely, or 2) reply but not give any specific, useful, substantive answers to my very specific questions, OK, Ms Knowitall. I won't disappoint you and make you look stupid by contradicting what you know concerning my responses. G'nite.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 59 by nator, posted 11-10-2004 9:26 AM | | nator has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 101 by nator, posted 11-11-2004 3:35 PM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 80 of 196 (158262)
11-11-2004 2:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 77 by Buzsaw
11-11-2004 12:41 AM
|
|
Unsupported
I stated an opinion and have no time nor desire to be drawn into a side trip science debate with you on every little thing I say. And again, no support. And again, moving on, running for cover.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 77 by Buzsaw, posted 11-11-2004 12:41 AM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
Parasomnium
Member Posts: 2224 Joined: 07-15-2003
|
|
|
Message 81 of 196 (158272)
11-11-2004 4:07 AM
|
Reply to: Message 77 by Buzsaw
11-11-2004 12:41 AM
|
|
Re: Where is the conflict?
buzsaw writes: What are the odds, Buz? Please show your math.
The odds are great, imo, [...]
Your opinion is based on your incredulity, it seems.
buzsaw writes: [...] and I'm not doing the math.
You disqualify yourself by making statements about the odds and not substantiating them with mathematical evidence.
buzsaw writes: What do you mean by "precisely" and "complete"?
Look the words up. That's specifically what I mean.
No problem:
Merriam-Webster writes: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary Main Entry: precise Pronunciation: pri-'sIs Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French precis, from Latin praecisus, past participle of praecidere to cut off, from prae- + caedere to cut 1 : exactly or sharply defined or stated 2 : minutely exact 3 : strictly conforming to a pattern, standard, or convention 4 : distinguished from every other synonym see CORRECT - preciseness noun
Which of these four is it, Buz?
Merriam-Webster writes: 3 entries found for complete. [...] complete[1,adjective] complete[2,transitive verb] complete fertilizer Main Entry: 1 complete Pronunciation: k&m-'plEt Function: adjective Inflected Form(s): completer; -est Etymology: Middle English complet, from Middle French, from Latin completus, from past participle of complEre 1 a : having all necessary parts, elements, or steps b : having all four sets of floral organs c of a subject or predicate : including modifiers, complements , or objects 2 : brought to an end : CONCLUDED
3 : highly proficient
4 a : fully carried out : THOROUGH b : TOTAL, ABSOLUTE
5 of insect metamorphosis : characterized by the occurrence of a pupal stage between the motile immature stages and the adult -- compare INCOMPLETE 1b
6 of a metric space : having the property that every Cauchy sequence of elements converges to a limit in the space
synonym see FULL
- completely adverb
- completeness noun
- completive /-'plE-tiv/ adjective
- complete with : made complete by the inclusion of
Which of these six is it, Buz? Or did you mean one of the other two entries? Let me try another approach. In what sense is "it all" precise? Is there a blueprint somewhere that precisely describes the chaos that nature is? In what sense is it complete? Are humans complete? Some animals can fly. Some animals can live under water. Human can't do either of those. It could be argued that humans are not complete. What do you mean?
buzsaw writes: schrafinator writes: Please show your work. Please move on. I stated an opinion and have no time nor desire to be drawn into a side trip science debate with you on every little thing I say.
Schrafinator follows you around because you are constantly being imprecise and incomplete. When you off-handedly dismiss her in your usual derogatory way, you're just showing more of that imprecision and incompleteness that so characterises your posts on this forum. And it doesn't work anyway.
"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 77 by Buzsaw, posted 11-11-2004 12:41 AM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
contracycle
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 82 of 196 (158274)
11-11-2004 4:35 AM
|
Reply to: Message 64 by NosyNed
11-10-2004 9:41 AM
|
|
Re: Why attack?
Because christianity kills. Becuase christinaity justifies war. Just on Monday night we got to see a US marine chaplain explain that America was the vehicle of the just wrath of god being exercised against the sinners of Fallujah. And thats quite apart from my own direct experience of the christian hate-factory, which served as the primary ideological justification for apartheid. Thats why. This message has been edited by contracycle, 11-11-2004 04:48 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 64 by NosyNed, posted 11-10-2004 9:41 AM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
contracycle
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Besides - people already claim sin doesn't exist and that the biblie is baloney - so why do you think I care?
Because you claim to.
quote:
I just don't believe Jesus is literally a lamb.
No no - Jesus is just a methaphor for your inner peace. There was not actual person called Jesus. There was no death on the cross. IT's JUST A METAPHOR.
|
contracycle
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 84 of 196 (158277)
11-11-2004 4:44 AM
|
Reply to: Message 70 by NosyNed
11-10-2004 10:27 AM
|
|
Re: Literalism
quote:
There is room for a lot of latitude. It seems to me, as an outsider, that a reasonable Christian position is on taking the existance of God and Christ as true. After that the details of the stories don't really count. The message is what counts.
I find this position utterly mind-boggling and always have. It should be abundantly clear that iof the stories are not true, then the message cannot be true either. What is a "message"? A vague feeling? A nebulous sentiment? No its INFORMATION. You cannot simultanouesly choose to ignore the errors of transmission in the medium AND claim the "message" is inviolable. The "message" of christinaity is not supposed to be a feel-good factor, a personal satsifaction. It is supposed to be the herald of the truth, the good news that man is saved by the glory and grace of god. The details of the stories are absolutely critical to the legtimicay of these claims. If the stories are not true, we have not the slightest reason for thinking ANY of it is true.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 70 by NosyNed, posted 11-10-2004 10:27 AM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
Parasomnium
Member Posts: 2224 Joined: 07-15-2003
|
Re: Literalism
contracycle writes: It should be abundantly clear that iof the stories are not true, then the message cannot be true either.
Suppose someone says: "All people are selfish bastards". Someone else, wanting to counter this opinion, starts telling a true story about a hero who rescues a helpless victim from a perilous situation, putting himself in grave danger. The message of that example is of course: "No, you're wrong. Not all people are selfish bastards". If the story can be verified, the message is obviously true. Now suppose that the person telling the story gets some of the details mixed-up and inadvertently makes it into something that obviously cannot have happened the way it is told. It is no longer a true story. Does that mean that the message is no longer true?
"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.
|
contracycle
Inactive Member
|
Re: Literalism
quote:
Now suppose that the person telling the story gets some of the details mixed-up and inadvertently makes it into something that obviously cannot have happened the way it is told. It is no longer a true story. Does that mean that the message is no longer true?
But the problem you are describing is only a technical transmission problem - the signal repeater that is the speakers brain corrupted some of the original signal data and was unable to rebroadcast it accurately. Therefore we resort to: independant verification, not hearsay. It certainly is the case that making an incoherent, impossible argument destroys the credibility of that argument. Further your use of "true" is a bit suspect. Is what true, the intended claim or the actually articulated claim? The actually articulated claim is clearly not true - and because it is not true it cannot convey the message it intends to convey. The "message" itself might remain true in some external way, but this is irrelevant to the local conversation actually occuring in real space becuase that message was never expressed.
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17828 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.5
|
|
|
Message 87 of 196 (158282)
11-11-2004 5:26 AM
|
Reply to: Message 77 by Buzsaw
11-11-2004 12:41 AM
|
|
Re: Where is the conflict?
For reference we are talking about Message 32 quote:
...do try to comprehend all you can as to how wonderfully complex living things are and the extremely low the odds of it all coming about without an intelligent designer and creator to make it happen so precisely and so complete
Since the claim of "extremely low" odds is presented as a fact it is certainly reasonable to ask for support.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 77 by Buzsaw, posted 11-11-2004 12:41 AM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
Parasomnium
Member Posts: 2224 Joined: 07-15-2003
|
Re: Literalism
contracycle writes: It certainly is the case that making an incoherent, impossible argument destroys the credibility of that argument.
Though it may diminish (or "destroy", as you so vehemently put it) the credibility of the argument, its incoherence or impossibility does not alter the facts. In this case, the fact is that there is at least one person who is not a selfish bastard, and that's the basis for the crippled story. The message is about the fact. The message remains true.
contracycle writes: Further your use of "true" is a bit suspect.
I used 'true' in the exact same way you did.
contracycle writes: Is what true, the intended claim or the actually articulated claim? The actually articulated claim is clearly not true - and because it is not true it cannot convey the message it intends to convey.
If your mother told you that your nose grows longer if you lie, would you not get the message? (In case you don't, it is: "You should not lie")
contracycle writes: The "message" itself might remain true in some external way, but this is irrelevant to the local conversation actually occuring in real space becuase that message was never expressed.
That's why most of us have acquired the technique of "reading between the lines".
"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.
|
contracycle
Inactive Member
|
Re: Literalism
quote:
Though it may diminish (or "destroy", as you so vehemently put it) the credibility of the argument, its incoherence or impossibility does not alter the facts. In this case, the fact is that there is at least one person who is not a selfish bastard, and that's the basis for the crippled story. The message is about the fact. The message remains true.
It does not - becuase the only access I have to the "facts" is via this message. That is the very purpose of the message - to convey to me these "facts". If a speaker wished to demonstrate that there are unselfish people in the world, but their statement contains no comprehensible evidence in this regard, then it can and should be rejected. The only basis I would have for not rejecting it - seeing as it communicated no information - would have to be sympathy of some sort for the speaker. As I metioned, it may be true in some abstract sense, but the fact remains that in this argument the case has not been demonstrated, and must be rejected as contentless. Lots of noise, no signal.
quote:
If your mother told you that your nose grows longer if you lie, would you not get the message? (In case you don't, it is: "You should not lie")
Then my mother would likely be conducting a wholly different exercise, one in which her statements refers to information I already have - the story of Pinnochio. These are nothing alike; knowing that Pinocchio was cursed in this way means I am able to deduce the reference. And if I didn't know the story of Pinnochio, then the signal I receive would carry no information, mean nothing, and I would go "huh?". After all, I can test whether my nose will grow if I lie, and therefore decide whether my mother is bonkers.
quote:
That's why most of us have acquired the technique of "reading between the lines".
... resulting in many Americans believing that Saddam was sheltering the 9/11 hijackers.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 92 by Parasomnium, posted 11-11-2004 10:31 AM | | contracycle has not replied |
|
mike the wiz
Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: 05-24-2003
|
Jesus is just a methaphor for your inner peace. There was not actual person called Jesus. There was no death on the cross. IT's JUST A METAPHOR. No - this doesn't break the rule I made. Jesus being a human is highly probable, Jesus on the cross is highly probable....Infact - the four different texts demand that Christ did die and came to life again. However, the "Lamb of God" isn't literal, as it is post-Jesus, and we know that Christ is the SOn of God. You're under an illogical position; You are saying; If this here verse says that Jesus is a lamb - and in Genesis it says snakes talk - then the WHOLE bible is metaphorical. However - this is not accurate - we know the to are false because we know snakes don't talk and already know Jesus is human. It just means Jesus is human - not that the whole thing is metaphorical. It's like saying " This leaf has two red spots, therefore - it must all be red" while infact - most of it is green. It's like saying; If Mike says he's basically good - yet spits on the sidewalk and curses - THEN he is not basically good. I still think the bible is the inspired words of God - I am not afraid of people trying to say it is wrong if not taken literally - they are under the spell of one-way thought - they are focusing in on one miniscule part of the painting. There are many mysteries - purposefully in the bible - other things are clear - and can only be taken as true. It doesn't mean the whole bible is metaphor. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-11-2004 10:15 AM
|
™ Version 4.2