Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8739 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-30-2017 10:28 PM
414 online now:
Chiroptera, CRR, Dr Adequate, jar, ThinAirDesigns (5 members, 409 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,899 Year: 10,505/21,208 Month: 3,592/2,674 Week: 135/873 Day: 135/76 Hour: 4/7

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   The Mud Theory (SocialEvolution and lyx2no only)
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2102 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 16 of 29 (547875)
02-23-2010 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by SocialEvolution
02-23-2010 12:30 AM


Shipping Channels*
But parsimony is not an arbiter of truth.

Agreed, no methodology or doctrine or principle can be an arbiter of truth but are merely buoys marking the reef of wishful thinking. And overly cautious buoy setters can place the buoys farther from the reef then need be, or overly parsimonious setters can place them too far apart, warding sailors away from a navigable breach. Nor can we be certain a setter didn’t simply misread a chart.

Furthermore, the buoys are not set to determine our destination, but to help us get there safely. And the destination of the good ship Science is not truth. It is the best port we can arrive at with the rigging we have.

But more often then not the setting of the buoys has no part in a floundering. Many an inexperienced sailor regard buoys not in accord with the hazards of the sea but to the design of their vessel. The buoys do not apply due to the shallowness of their draught while failing to recognize that the craft is entirely unsuitable for the deeps. Yet when the weekend comes they don the skipper’s cap and imagine the bow rider commands the same respect as a barque. (If you’ve not had the pleasure let me recommend to you Buzsaw in his skiff, ICANT in his fan boat, Peg in her hovercraft and Smooth Operator without a paddle.)

It is not just the number of assumptions that determine whether one thing is more likely than another. It matters how much of a stretch the assumption is.

This is not without its downsides though and so we must be careful when we do this.

This method of comparison can lead one to be biased towards theories that appear to have more things that can be observed and repeated (especially in strict laboratory conditions). This is called scientistic prejudice.

… the point here is that there are factors which determine the weight that this kind of comparison should get and ignoring those factors will lead to scientistic prejudice.

It doesn't mean it's of no use but it means that it's of less value.

So in comparing origination theories, I think we should keep these things in mind.

You’re tacking. You’ve got somewhere to go sailing against the wind. Permission to come aboard, Cap’n.

OK, I think I’ve run this metaphor aground.

As unbelievable as it may sound, I actually do not know what our origin is and do not pretend to.

Regardless, I get the sense that you’re trying to make room in the scientific paradigm to fit a pet theory, and am dying to know what cryptobiological treat you wait to unfurl — dang! another noughtical gnostic.

*Please indulge me. As an evil robot clown I get little opportunity to hone my metaphorical skills.


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-23-2010 12:30 AM SocialEvolution has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-24-2010 1:28 AM lyx2no has responded

  
SocialEvolution
Junior Member (Idle past 2530 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 02-19-2010


Message 17 of 29 (547938)
02-24-2010 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by lyx2no
02-23-2010 3:23 PM


Re: Shipping Channels*
No, no hidden pet theory for this, I'm afraid. Give me some time though and maybe I'll come up with something ;-)

The key thing to establish here is how we compare theories and how much weight we give to each.

But let's be clear here. I am talking about the likelihood of the theory being true rather than establishing what should be researched next. Those are very different things. The argument that far more weight should be given to MtM for research could perhaps be won. But in the other context, the MtM theory is only slightly more likely than the alien theory if it is more likely at all. This is because we are only talking in possibilities here. The most we can say about MtM is that it may be a possibility. That's a lot different than being overwhelmingly more likely than any other theory we have come up with or will ever come up with. It is not overwhelmingly more likely, it is only a possibility at best at this point in time.

Edited by SocialEvolution, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by lyx2no, posted 02-23-2010 3:23 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by lyx2no, posted 02-24-2010 3:32 PM SocialEvolution has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2102 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 18 of 29 (547988)
02-24-2010 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by SocialEvolution
02-24-2010 1:28 AM


To the Bottom
No, no hidden pet theory for this, I'm afraid. Give me some time though and maybe I'll come up with something

Dang! I was hoping I could stab it up or cap it in the hat.

But let's be clear here. I am talking about the likelihood of the theory being true rather than establishing what should be researched next. Those are very different things. The argument that far more weight should be given to MtM for research could perhaps be won.

That’s good, because I wouldn’t know where to start.

The key thing to establish here is how we compare theories and how much weight we give to each. [snip] …the MtM theory is only slightly more likely than the alien theory if it is more likely at all. This is because we are only talking in possibilities here. The most we can say about MtM is that it may be a possibility. That's a lot different than being overwhelmingly more likely than any other theory we have come up with or will ever come up with. It is not overwhelmingly more likely, it is only a possibility at best at this point in time.

Do you believe that it is possible to discover knowledge of past events? If there is as trail of muddy boot prints leading across my garden, a muddy boot print on my shattered back door; more muddy boot prints leading across my living room to an empty TV stand; similar prints leading again to the back door, through the garden and over the back fence into the alley; am I able to deduce any thing from this? Could we speculate a teenage punk a more likely culprit then an aging King of Rock n’ Roll? Is it safe to assume a culprit?

If so we can surely sort out MtM and LGM (Little Green Men). We have more conclusive evidence of MtM then of my TV having been stolen. It is more likely my father conspired in a cover-up with my mum to hide their having played ball in the house then the MtM be seriously in error.

Where in the narrative of MtM do you think the weakness lies? The weakness in the LGM lies squarely in having absolutely no evidence of any kind for it. It’s barely a possibility. So to equate the two is beyond my comprehension. You’re going to have to convince me you’re not just pulling my leg before I could even contemplate a reasoned response. Please demonstrate your contention that “the MtM theory is only slightly more likely than the alien theory if it is more likely at all.” is anywhere close to justifiable.


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-24-2010 1:28 AM SocialEvolution has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-24-2010 10:33 PM lyx2no has responded

  
SocialEvolution
Junior Member (Idle past 2530 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 02-19-2010


Message 19 of 29 (548019)
02-24-2010 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by lyx2no
02-24-2010 3:32 PM


Re: To the Bottom
With your analogy, you are looking at evidence from the actual event itself. It's also a common event that we have statistical information about plus we know about human nature. There is actually a lot to go off of. Plus, no one is claiming we can't discover knowledge about past events.

There is a type of conspiracy theorist that strings together different facts and assumes connections between them and then says any other explanation is so unlikely that no other possibility should even be considered. If the conspiracy theorist instead presented it as a possibility and didn't go overboard with it, then there wouldn't be much to criticize.

I've already explained the weakness I see in MtM. It has the same weakness as everything else. There is no evidence that MtM is anything more than a possibility. LGM is a logical consideration. We exist and so it is a possibility that others may also exist. There is not much evidence to get, it is more of a logical consideration. It is a social interaction, not a chance physical process. So LGM too, is nothing more than a possibility. They are both just possibilities and as much as you want it to be more than that, it's not.

In anything else, if we had no evidence of something being the case and only some evidence that it may be a possibility, we would not be so confident that we have it all figured out. Yet in this area people are. Perhaps people cannot tolerate an unknown of this magnitude.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by lyx2no, posted 02-24-2010 3:32 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by lyx2no, posted 02-24-2010 11:00 PM SocialEvolution has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2102 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 20 of 29 (548021)
02-24-2010 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by SocialEvolution
02-24-2010 10:33 PM


Re: To the Bottom
So you've got nothing?


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-24-2010 10:33 PM SocialEvolution has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-25-2010 11:24 AM lyx2no has responded

  
SocialEvolution
Junior Member (Idle past 2530 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 02-19-2010


Message 21 of 29 (548075)
02-25-2010 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by lyx2no
02-24-2010 11:00 PM


Re: To the Bottom
The assertion I made is that LGM is a possibility. This is not unsupported. This is derived from making logical considerations about facts that we have. The fact is that we exist. The logical consideration about that fact is that it may be possible that others exist. That is plenty to establish this as a logical possibility. Challenging the assertion that LGM is a logical possibility will not get you anywhere here.

You cannot deny that LGM is a logical possibility and that is all that I claim. Ask for whatever evidence you want but unless you are challenging the assertion that LGM is a logical possibility, it does nothing for your argument. The question is what evidence do you have that makes MtM more likely than LGM?

A theory can gain some evidence and then become more likely than it was before but that is in relation to itself. That same evidence is not necessarily evidence that the theory is more likely than another theory. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. So let's look specifically at what facts and accompanying logical considerations you have that makes MtM more likely than LGM. You should have something in order to support the bold assertion that MtM is overwhelmingly more likely than LGM. Show me. My assertion has already been established, yours has not.

If you don't have anything or come up with something minimal, then you cannot say that MtM is overwhelmingly more likely than LGM. Admit this and I promise I will leave you an out and attack my own theory before the end of this thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by lyx2no, posted 02-24-2010 11:00 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by lyx2no, posted 02-25-2010 4:09 PM SocialEvolution has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2102 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 22 of 29 (548111)
02-25-2010 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by SocialEvolution
02-25-2010 11:24 AM


Onus
The assertion I made is that LGM is a possibility. This is not unsupported.

No, the assertion you made was:

quote:
…the MtM theory is only slightly more likely than the alien theory if it is more likely at all.

And that is not supported. It is support for this that I am asking.

This is derived from making logical considerations about facts that we have. The fact is that we exist. The logical consideration about that fact is that it may be possible that others exist. That is plenty to establish this as a logical possibility. Challenging the assertion that will not get you anywhere here.

I do not challenge that LGM is a possibility. But it is not a logical one.

That Henry VIII exists is not enough to establish the possibility that he jumped rope from Ipswich to Braintree. His having traveled from Ipswich to Braintree is not enough to establish the possibility that he jumped rope from Ipswich to Braintree. That Kings of England are so frequently the object of gossip eliminates the possibility that Henry VIII jumped rope from Ipswich to Braintree.

There are two reason one might claim that LGM is a logical possibility. The first is because it is a possibility that we are all brains in jars. That we cannot know the nature of reality with absolute certainly is undeniable. If this is the basis of your argument I must agree. I must also agree to any hypothesis no matter how bizarre it may seem to me because I have no certain way to judge what is and is not bizarre to reality.

The second is because we know nothing about what LGM wouldn’t do. In other word: because of a total lack of evidence about LGM. We do not have a total lack of evidence for chemistry. We do not have a total lack of evidence for people being chemistry writ large. We do not have a total lack of evidence for pathways from chemistry to chemistry writ large. A hand (M2) full of mud (M1) is far and away more evidence for MtM than are syllogisms for LGM.

You cannot deny that LGM is a logical possibility and that is all that I claim. Ask for whatever evidence you want but unless you are challenging the assertion that LGM is a logical possibility, it does nothing for your argument.

Wiki: Straw man: an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

The question is what evidence do you have that makes MtM more likely than LGM? [snip] So let's look specifically at what facts and accompanying logical considerations you have that makes MtM more likely than LGM. You should have something in order to support the bold assertion that MtM is overwhelmingly more likely than LGM. Show me. My assertion has already been established, yours has not.

Wiki: The burden of proof is often asymmetrical, and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes an ontologically positive claim, or a claim that greatly departs from conventional knowledge.

I’m hiding behind the skirts of philosophy.

If you don't have anything or come up with something minimal, then you cannot say that MtM is overwhelmingly more likely than LGM. Admit this and I promise I will leave you an out and attack my own theory before the end of this thread.

I can watch chemicals self-replicate. I can watch self-replicating molecules compete for diminishing resources. I can watch the percentage of some self-replicating molecules increase at the the expense of others. I can observe that DNA is a self-replicating molecule. I can observe that DNA contains sub units named alleles. I can watch genes replicate. I can watch genes mutate forming alleles. I can watch alleles being sorted. I can arrange fossils in chronological order. I can recognize morphological kinship. I can construct consistent trees of nested hierarchies through multiple, unrelated pathways. I can reasonably claim MtM is overwhelmingly more likely than LGM.

By the bye, if you’ve been reading a few of the other threads over the course of the last week you’ll see that there are half a dozen that seem to be hand feeding me enough evidence for MtM to bury this thread five times over.

Until such time that you have come up with… some… any… demonstrable cause to assume LGM you’ve got nothing.


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-25-2010 11:24 AM SocialEvolution has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-26-2010 11:45 AM lyx2no has responded

  
SocialEvolution
Junior Member (Idle past 2530 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 02-19-2010


Message 23 of 29 (548247)
02-26-2010 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by lyx2no
02-25-2010 4:09 PM


Re: Onus
The assertion that LGM is only slightly more likely than MtM if at all could be supported by the fact that so far in this thread there is a nearly equal amount of evidence for the following two assertions:
1) MtM is more likely than LGM
2) LGM is more likely than MtM

My main drive throughout this thread has been the contention that confidence in MtM is so exageratted as to become a belief. That is the OP. That is the focus. The assertion that I must challenge in order to establish that is that "MtM is overwhelmingly more likely than LGM". If little evidence can be shown for that and yet people still have extreme confidence in it, then my perception will have shown to be accurate. It's very simple. I sit back and watch as evidence is not provided, therefore verifying my perception and so far, my perception is shown to be accurate. BUT, you have in this last post attempted to show evidence for that assertion! Have my dreams come true? Well, not exactly...

You believe that evidence for your assertion that MtM is overwhelmingly more likely than LGM is:

I can watch chemicals self-replicate.

Chemicals can also self replicate under the LGM theory so that is not evidence over LGM.

I can watch self-replicating molecules compete for diminishing resources.

This is no reason to think this also couldn't happen under LGM. Again, no evidence over LGM.

I can watch the percentage of some self-replicating molecules increase at the the expense of others.

This is actually something that makes sense under LGM. If nothing self-replicated, then the species may not last as long so why not have it self replicate. It fits LGM without a problem. This again is not evidence over LGM.

I can observe that DNA is a self-replicating molecule. I can observe that DNA contains sub units named alleles.

This is also something that fits fine with LGM. Additionally, just because an organism is not exactly the same from generation to generation does not mean that we evovle from species to species. My car has changed over the years due to the weather and rogue shopping carts on a mission to destroy my car but nevertheless it is still a Ford Taurus and it will die a Ford Taurus.

I can watch genes replicate.

This also makes sense under LGM. An organism that replicates ensures better survival. So this also is not evidence over LGM.

I can watch genes mutate forming alleles.

Again, there is no reason to think this couldn't happen under LGM. Not evidence over LGM.

I can watch alleles being sorted.

I do not know why you see this as evidence over LGM. You'd have to explain.

I can arrange fossils in chronological order. I can recognize morphological kinship. I can construct consistent trees of nested hierarchies through multiple, unrelated pathways.

You can and you will notice that you have to rely on wild guesses to get from humanoid to single celled organisms. This evidence actualls fits better with LGM since other life forms could have created humanoids and skipped all the earlier steps, explaining the lack of evidence. Also, to get from one species to another (like from erectus to sapian) this could be done gradually through genetic engineering or suddenly and so this also fits better with LGM than with MtM. This is the most obvious one that is NOT evidence over LGM.

I can reasonably claim MtM is overwhelmingly more likely than LGM.

No. But you can believe it. If we believe an assertion with extreme confidence (like the one above) even though we have little to no evidence to support it, explain to me how that is not belief?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by lyx2no, posted 02-25-2010 4:09 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by lyx2no, posted 02-26-2010 3:24 PM SocialEvolution has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2102 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 24 of 29 (548275)
02-26-2010 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by SocialEvolution
02-26-2010 11:45 AM


Bona Fides
My main drive throughout this thread has been the contention that confidence in MtM is so exageratted as to become a belief. That is the OP. That is the focus. The assertion that I must challenge in order to establish that is that "MtM is overwhelmingly more likely than LGM". If little evidence can be shown for that and yet people still have extreme confidence in it, then my perception will have shown to be accurate. It's very simple. I sit back and watch as evidence is not provided, therefore verifying my perception and so far, my perception is shown to be accurate. BUT, you have in this last post attempted to show evidence for that assertion! Have my dreams come true? Well, not exactly...

I’ll need verification that you are either the Pope or a divinely installed monarch before I can accept the proposition that a contention stands as Truth® until such time as the contendor allows for evidence to the contrary. So far the best you’ve managed to do is gain my admiration for the suppleness of your wrist as demonstrated by your supreme hand waving (waiving?).

lyx writes:

I can watch chemicals self-replicate.

SE writes:

Chemicals can also self replicate under the LGM theory so that is not evidence over LGM.

It is not enough that an observation not be contradictory to a model for it to be evidence for the model. The MtM model requires that there be self-replicating chemistry. This observation establishes that chemistry doesn’t required intervention to self-replicate. Certain LGM models may require SRC. But you are not putting forth a certain model. You need to supply positive, demonstrable evidence for alien intervention and the method of intervention before you have anything. Until then, self-replicating chemistry supports MtM and not LGM. Unless you’re also going to suggest self-replicating chemistry supports the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster) model.

Additionally, just because an organism is not exactly the same from generation to generation does not mean that we evovle from species to species. My car has changed over the years due to the weather and rogue shopping carts on a mission to destroy my car but nevertheless it is still a Ford Taurus and it will die a Ford Taurus.

And your Ford Taurus has produced how many off spring? Just a roundabout will do.

Were we, however, to randomly mix the elements of your Ford Taurus and my Lamborghini Diablo to create a next generation of Ford Diablos and Lamborghini Taurii, put them on the free market, remix the elements of the most popular 95% into a third generation of Forghini Tarlos and Lard Diii, and continue to do this for two score generation would we retain that mono-generational stasis?

I cannot but express my angst; you say carts on a mission: if they truely are in league all is for nought. We can only hope and pray that these attacks are individual acts of spite.

lyx writes:

I can arrange fossils in chronological order. I can recognize morphological kinship. I can construct consistent trees of nested hierarchies through multiple, unrelated pathways.

SE writes:

You can and you will notice that you have to rely on wild guesses to get from humanoid to single celled organisms.

No wild guess. Most of the conclusions are forced by the evidence. The entirety of the framework of MtM is of such a nature. The holes that do need to be filled in are the details wherein the plugs are well supported, tentatively stated or left out. Science exists quite happily with holes; indeed, because of holes.

This evidence actually fits better with LGM since other life forms could have created humanoids and skipped all the earlier steps, explaining the lack of evidence. Also, to get from one species to another (like from erectus to sapian) this could be done gradually through genetic engineering or suddenly and so this also fits better with LGM than with MtM. This is the most obvious one that is NOT evidence over LGM.

Again, until you commit yourself to the nature of LGM intervention you’ve no argument to make of what does or does not fit.

No. But you can believe it. If we believe an assertion with extreme confidence (like the one above) even though we have little to no evidence to support it, explain to me how that is not belief?

Because this is again a straw man. Science does not deal with Truth®. It is not a belief that MtM happened, but a belief that MtM is the current best explanation for what happened commensurate with all the evidence. The reason LGM is not in contention is because there is absolutely no reason to invoke intevention. The planets go round all by themselves and the chemistry shows every sign of being able to do it itself.

If your argument is that we could all be brains in jars you win. Throw up your hands and take your laps. If you have more it’s long past time to introduce it.


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-26-2010 11:45 AM SocialEvolution has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-26-2010 6:08 PM lyx2no has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2102 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 25 of 29 (548282)
02-26-2010 4:04 PM


Concerns
I have developed concerns that I am equivocating. In my last post I went on the science-doesn't-deal-with-Truth® spiel but in the post prior I asserted "MtM is overwhelmingly more likely than LGM." I am not sure the tentative phrase "more likely" adequately separates the two, but "MtM is an overwhelmingly more likely explanation than LGM" is strange, vague and wimpy. It might just be I'm not sorting it our well in my mind. I just wanted to let folks know I'm aware of it if anyone else is thing the same thing. I'll mull it over and get back to you.


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
  
SocialEvolution
Junior Member (Idle past 2530 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 02-19-2010


Message 26 of 29 (548308)
02-26-2010 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by lyx2no
02-26-2010 3:24 PM


Re: Bona Fides
The reason LGM is not in contention is because there is absolutely no reason to invoke intervention.

So you are saying it is proven 100% that no intervention is needed? That would have to be the case if there were absolutely no reason to invoke interventionism. Of course, if that's the case then MtM is a fact, not a theory. But of course we know this is not the case. Earlier you said people that act like it is a proven fact rather than a theory are delusional.

So since it is NOT proven that no intervention is needed and because I only see two options: intervention or non-intervention; then we would be wise to come up with (i.e. invoke) some intervention theory so we have all our bases covered. Do you know of a more logical intervention theory than LGM? If so, please share.

As per the random guessing: You have the earliest human skeleton and then you have theoretical quasi-life forms from abiogenesis models. What do you have to link these together? Let's see just how big this hole is.

Also, the Spaghetti Monster sounds delicious. Hopefully he self-replicates so we can have unlimited spaghetti!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by lyx2no, posted 02-26-2010 3:24 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by lyx2no, posted 02-26-2010 7:13 PM SocialEvolution has not yet responded
 Message 28 by lyx2no, posted 02-28-2010 11:28 PM SocialEvolution has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2102 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 27 of 29 (548313)
02-26-2010 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by SocialEvolution
02-26-2010 6:08 PM


Re: Bona Fides
So you are saying it is proven 100% that no intervention is needed?

Nothing is 100%. Nothing is proven. Your thinking some other art, law maybe. Best fit is the standard.

That would have to be the case if there were absolutely no reason to invoke interventionism.

I'll even give you intervention can come needed or not. One does not invoke something because one can.

Of course, if that's the case then MtM is a fact, not a theory.

MtM is not a theory. Too may parts are still too iffy. Parts — evolution for one — are theory. Others — RNA world — speculative.

So since it is NOT proven that no intervention is needed and because I only see two options:

I have a 60 faced die. Only one has a pip. The rest are blank. I only see two options.

Do you know of a more logical intervention theory than LGM?

No. LGM is about as good as one can get in the intervention scenario. Then paradoxical, time travelers followed by brains in jars. The pip on my die is probably black. Most pips are. That doesn't increase the odds of getting a pip.

we would be wise to come up with (i.e. invoke) some intervention theory so we have all our bases covered.

When the saucers land we'll have our base covered. Why rush evidence?

What do you have to link these together?

  • Biota
  • Cytota
  • Animalia/Metazoa
  • Eumetazoa
  • Bilateria
  • Deuterostomia
  • Chordata
  • Craniata
  • Vertebrata
  • Gnathostomata
  • Osteichthyes
  • Sarcopterygii
  • Tetrapodamorpha
  • Tetrapoda
  • Amniota
  • Synapsida
  • Therapsida
  • Theriodontia
  • Cynodontia
  • Epicynodontia
  • Eucynodontia
  • Probainognathia
  • Chiniquodontoidea
  • Mammaliaformes
  • Mammalia
  • Theriiformes
  • Holotheria
  • Trechnotheria
  • Cladotheria
  • Zatheria
  • Tribosphenida
  • Theria
  • Eutheria
  • Boreoeutheria
  • Euarchontoglires
  • Euarchonta
  • Primatomorpha
  • Primates
  • Haplorrhini
  • Simiiformes
  • Catarrhini
  • Hominoidea
  • Hominidae
  • Homininae
  • Hominini
  • Hominina
  • Homo

Also, the Spaghetti Monster sounds delicious. Hopefully he self-replicates so we can have unlimited spaghetti!!

He says the same of you.


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-26-2010 6:08 PM SocialEvolution has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2102 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 28 of 29 (548675)
02-28-2010 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by SocialEvolution
02-26-2010 6:08 PM


Re: Bona Fides
Earlier you said people that act like [MtM] is a proven fact rather than a theory are delusional.

I missed this bit earlier and want to get back to it. Following is your statement from the OP and my response from post 3:

SE writes:

Many people seem convinced that we came from mud and that nothing else is possible.

lyx writes:

Those would be called delusional people.

At that time "came from mud" was defined as "came from mud". Over the course of the next few posts we arrived at an agreement that the definition of "came from mud", MtM, was to cover any form of naturalistic abiogenesis*.

I do not regard folks who accept a naturalistic abiogenesis as delusional. I do regard folks who are convinced that we came from mud and (inclusive) that nothing else is possible as delusional. Delusional when they conclude any such thing, and delusional in that they are competent to conclude any such thing.


My earlier concern about equivocation came out of my failure to sort out "what really happened." and "what seems most likely to have happened." as different ideas in the conversation. I'll deal with that now.

As was introduced into the conversation back in post 7, science is a tentative art. I accept that so thoroughly that it does not occur to me that I have to preface my every statement with a disclaimer. There is not currently a method for comparing what did happen with what seems to have happened. Our judgement of what seems to have happened is based upon all of the evidence we have of what did happen. If there were evidence to the contrary our judgement would be other than it is. With the invention of the chronoporter, our ability to watch it happen in real time will give us a chance to do that. If we can trust our eyes, that is.

*At that time MtM was broadly enough defined to include mud on another world becoming aliens who seeded Earth with life that became man. MH was to cover Earth mud to Earth man. But the turn of the conversation made MtM irrelevant and the term came to replace MH.


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-26-2010 6:08 PM SocialEvolution has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2102 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 29 of 29 (549389)
03-06-2010 3:53 PM


So Much for Friendly
Perhaps I'm being impatient — it wouldn't be a first — but I'm rather of the opinion I've been left at the altar. And I'm not one to slink away gracefully hoping no one will notice. SE, If it was something I said…

Anyway, this discussion, having gone around in a few small circles, never really got too far along. SE's entire argument boiled down to "There are only two possibilities: A or Ā ∴ it's a flip of the coin which is truth®." SE moved the goal posts, constructed straw men, waxed incredulous and shifted the burden of proof. I suppose I could have pulled out substantial arguments as to why MtM is much more likely than LGM, but that would have me as a mad moth circling a dim bulb indeed.

Have I missed anything?

Admin: I'd like to see if anyone else has anything else to say on the topic. If SE has no objection, could you open it up to the masses, please?


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
  
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017