Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-24-2017 9:57 PM
446 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,959 Year: 6,565/21,208 Month: 2,326/2,634 Week: 514/572 Day: 61/70 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Author Topic:   Evolution versus Creationism is a 'Red Herring' argument
PaulGL
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012


Message 76 of 136 (667617)
07-10-2012 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by 1.61803
07-10-2012 1:47 PM


Re: Red Herring? Where?
"You must be born anew". Obtain into your being Zoe. Not something Burroughs experienced, which explains the misery he was stuck with. BTW: both sides my family were in Texas before 1845.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by 1.61803, posted 07-10-2012 1:47 PM 1.61803 has acknowledged this reply

    
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2664
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 77 of 136 (667618)
07-10-2012 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by PaulGL
07-10-2012 1:44 PM


re: uniformitarinism
And obfuscation the first resort of the pseudo intellectual .

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by PaulGL, posted 07-10-2012 1:44 PM PaulGL has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by PaulGL, posted 07-10-2012 2:30 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
PaulGL
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012


Message 78 of 136 (667619)
07-10-2012 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by ringo
07-06-2012 2:14 PM


Re: Other relevant E v C empirically testable issues
It cannot in any way- directly. But my inference is that man would: 1; Have to be capable of being responsible before receiving a spirit. 2. Such responsibility requires a free will. 3. Such a free will requires a certain (evolved, genetically determined) level of intelligence. 4. THAT
(3. above) IS amenable to empirical processes.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by ringo, posted 07-06-2012 2:14 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 07-10-2012 2:37 PM PaulGL has responded

    
PaulGL
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012


Message 79 of 136 (667620)
07-10-2012 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by NoNukes
07-09-2012 10:25 PM


re: uniformitarinism
When faced with the fact of Venusian craters of recent- even potentially historic- origin, an astrophysicist refused to modify his belief in a uniformitarianism philosophy that excluded the possibility of such events. That is dogmatic, not logical or empirical. Uniformitarianism as a cosmological (pre-telescope) school of thought excluded the possibility of close interaction between planetary bodies.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by NoNukes, posted 07-09-2012 10:25 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
PaulGL
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012


Message 80 of 136 (667621)
07-10-2012 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by 1.61803
07-10-2012 2:13 PM


re: uniformitarinism
Whatever else, I hope that you do arrive at the Truth..
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by 1.61803, posted 07-10-2012 2:13 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 12820
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 81 of 136 (667622)
07-10-2012 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by PaulGL
07-10-2012 2:18 PM


Re: Other relevant E v C empirically testable issues
PaulGL writes:

But my inference is that man would: 1; Have to be capable of being responsible before receiving a spirit. 2. Such responsibility requires a free will. 3. Such a free will requires a certain (evolved, genetically determined) level of intelligence.


From what premises did you make those inferences? And how do you determine whether or not those premises are true?

PaulGL writes:

(3. above) IS amenable to empirical processes.


How, specifically?

Edited by ringo, : Spelings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by PaulGL, posted 07-10-2012 2:18 PM PaulGL has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by PaulGL, posted 07-10-2012 2:57 PM ringo has responded
 Message 87 by PaulGL, posted 07-10-2012 3:15 PM ringo has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6014
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


(2)
Message 82 of 136 (667624)
07-10-2012 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by PaulGL
07-10-2012 1:41 PM


Re: Red Herring? Where?
By 'red herring', I meant it as you found its definition to be. I meant, specifically, that the whole argument of Evolution vs. 'Creation' is a distraction from what is of genuine life and death validity. Namely, that it is NOT of primary importance to know HOW we got here. BUT it IS of crucial (both individually and as a species) importance to know WHY we are here. The answer to the first question will not in itself be of any value to answering the second, relevant issue. The answer to WHY we are here does not lie within the purview of knowledge

I completely disagree. If we are here due to the impersonal, non-teleological, stochastic workings of the laws of physics then the only purpose to life that there is is what we invent for ourselves. I think that is extremely important to understand, don't you?

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by PaulGL, posted 07-10-2012 1:41 PM PaulGL has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by PaulGL, posted 07-10-2012 3:10 PM Taq has responded
 Message 105 by Stile, posted 07-12-2012 12:07 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
PaulGL
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012


Message 83 of 136 (667625)
07-10-2012 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by ringo
07-10-2012 2:37 PM


Re: Other relevant E v C empirically testable issues
The ability to choose (or reject) freely is intrinsic and unique to humanity. God is NOT capricious (all misunderstandings and misrepresentations to the contrary). Because man was made in God's image, we can thus extrapolate that God is a God of purpose, and is not arbitrary. He would NOT entrust man with any purpose unless man is capable of being responsible. and if man's decisions (will) are solely the result of either instinct or logic, then he cannot be responsible. A will that is a free will is necessary. And that has been shown to be resultant to a requisite level of intelligence, which is genetically determined.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 07-10-2012 2:37 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by ringo, posted 07-10-2012 3:05 PM PaulGL has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 12820
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 84 of 136 (667627)
07-10-2012 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by PaulGL
07-10-2012 2:57 PM


Re: Other relevant E v C empirically testable issues
PaulGL writes:

The ability to choose (or reject) freely is intrinsic and unique to humanity. God is NOT capricious (all misunderstandings and misrepresentations to the contrary). Because man was made in God's image, we can thus extrapolate that God is a God of purpose, and is not arbitrary.


I'm asking how you determine whether or not those premises are true. Anybody can rattle off empty claims - "God likes tofu." Show us the thinking behind your claims, one step at a time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by PaulGL, posted 07-10-2012 2:57 PM PaulGL has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by PaulGL, posted 07-10-2012 3:12 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
PaulGL
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012


Message 85 of 136 (667629)
07-10-2012 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Taq
07-10-2012 2:48 PM


Re: Red Herring? Where?
Can you prove or disprove the Bible? If you think so, then you rate yourself more highly than Rousseau- which is not very likely except in your self-evaluation- which is always (for all of us) never 100% accurate. Will the validity of evolution answer the question 'What is the purpose of man?'. "Coming to a full knowledge of the Truth is a subjective experience of a living Person. NOT an objective philosophy based merely on logical proofs. If truth was obtainable through mental effort, there would be no room for faith, grace, mercy, or Love.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Taq, posted 07-10-2012 2:48 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Taq, posted 07-10-2012 4:34 PM PaulGL has responded
 Message 92 by jar, posted 07-10-2012 4:44 PM PaulGL has responded

    
PaulGL
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012


Message 86 of 136 (667630)
07-10-2012 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by ringo
07-10-2012 3:05 PM


Re: Other relevant E v C empirically testable issues
Read post #81. Again.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by ringo, posted 07-10-2012 3:05 PM ringo has not yet responded

    
PaulGL
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012


Message 87 of 136 (667631)
07-10-2012 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by ringo
07-10-2012 2:37 PM


Re: Other relevant E v C empirically testable issues
You make logical inferences. Then you draw logical extrapolations from them. Then you test those with the known, relevant facts.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 07-10-2012 2:37 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by ringo, posted 07-10-2012 3:22 PM PaulGL has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 12820
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 88 of 136 (667633)
07-10-2012 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by PaulGL
07-10-2012 3:15 PM


Re: Other relevant E v C empirically testable issues
PaulGL writes:

You make logical inferences.


You can't make useful inferences unless your premises are true. How do you determine whether your premises are true? For example, how do you know that man would have to be capable of being responsible before receiving a spirit?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by PaulGL, posted 07-10-2012 3:15 PM PaulGL has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by PaulGL, posted 07-10-2012 3:36 PM ringo has responded

  
PaulGL
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012


Message 89 of 136 (667634)
07-10-2012 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by ringo
07-10-2012 3:22 PM


Re: Other relevant E v C empirically testable issues
All knowledge (except for axiomatic truths) begins with making premises, which are then tested to see whether or not they are viable theorems. I 100% (to reiterate what I have previously stated) that YES! evolution is the only viable explanation for life as we know it. Why? Was it an axiomatic truth? No. But its premises logically led to inferences, which were empirically testable. Some failed. What we have today is the explanation of the process indicated by the mechanisms which passed the tests.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by ringo, posted 07-10-2012 3:22 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by ringo, posted 07-10-2012 3:49 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 12820
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 90 of 136 (667637)
07-10-2012 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by PaulGL
07-10-2012 3:36 PM


Re: Other relevant E v C empirically testable issues
PaulGL writes:

All knowledge (except for axiomatic truths) begins with making premises, which are then tested to see whether or not they are viable theorems.


And I'm asking you how you test your premises. You keep talking about man receiving a spirit. How do you know that your premises about that spirit are true?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by PaulGL, posted 07-10-2012 3:36 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017