Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-17-2017 2:13 PM
265 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), ringo, Tangle, xongsmith (8 members, 257 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,472 Year: 29,078/21,208 Month: 1,144/1,847 Week: 67/452 Day: 67/115 Hour: 5/23

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   Is A Materialist View Less Parsimonious?
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1858
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 16 of 42 (789059)
08-10-2016 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
08-09-2016 7:55 AM


Your whole thing doesn't make any sense.

If I left a plastic bucket of seawater, the water taken out of the Indian Ocean and left in the sun to evaporate, until only a lot of dry salts are left, does that count as 'materialism'?

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 08-09-2016 7:55 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 4001
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 17 of 42 (789060)
08-10-2016 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Phat
08-10-2016 7:32 AM


Re: Mind Over Matter
e) dunno
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Phat, posted 08-10-2016 7:32 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1858
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 18 of 42 (789061)
08-10-2016 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Phat
08-10-2016 7:32 AM


Re: Mind Over Matter
Oh, I'll be happy to answer this one.

You left out one of the answers. No Spooks involved.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Phat, posted 08-10-2016 7:32 AM Phat has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1858
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 19 of 42 (789063)
08-10-2016 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
08-09-2016 7:55 AM


mtw writes:

Obviously I can appreciate that, "supernature" is assumed...

That starts off very bad. What the heck is "supernature"? Are you making things up?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 08-09-2016 7:55 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29815
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 20 of 42 (789066)
08-10-2016 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Phat
08-10-2016 7:32 AM


Re: Mind Over Matter
I say the wag was being silly.

I have no idea what "in the beginning" even means.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Phat, posted 08-10-2016 7:32 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Pressie, posted 08-10-2016 9:17 AM jar has not yet responded
 Message 40 by Phat, posted 08-11-2016 9:07 PM jar has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1858
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 21 of 42 (789067)
08-10-2016 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by jar
08-10-2016 9:10 AM


Re: Mind Over Matter
Yes, Mike doesn't seem to be very bright. All those logical fallacies all in one.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 08-10-2016 9:10 AM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by mike the wiz, posted 08-11-2016 2:42 PM Pressie has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13995
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 22 of 42 (789082)
08-10-2016 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Phat
08-10-2016 7:32 AM


Re: Mind Over Matter
Phat writes:

One wag said it succinctly: In the beginning there was either God or Dirt.


Dirt is more plausible. At least it doesn't hide from us or expect us to have faith in it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Phat, posted 08-10-2016 7:32 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 313 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


(1)
Message 23 of 42 (789110)
08-10-2016 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
08-09-2016 7:55 AM


Every atom an assumption
mike the wiz writes:

I am saying for one part of the materialistic explanation (life's diversity), we would have to invoke millions of transitionals but if an animal kind was created then as creationists we don't have to assume millions of ancestors, so there are far more assumptions to that one part of the story.

Two things about that:

1. If you are going to count every transitional as a separate assumption then by the same token we ‘materialists’ can easily trump you by saying that in your creation story God put every atom in the universe in its place. I’ll let you figure out for yourself the number of assumptions this would entail if we allow the use of this, frankly, silly kind of reasoning. Which we won’t, so you’re off the hook.

2. Although the fossil record is necessarily incomplete, many - indeed very many - transitionals have been found. They are not assumptions, they are actual facts of reality. And by induction, a technique you seem to be so fond of, we can conclude that transitionals must have existed for every pair of closely related species we care to think of, especially so if we consider the logical implications of the principle of evolution: imperfect replication under natural selection.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 08-09-2016 7:55 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by mike the wiz, posted 08-11-2016 2:28 PM Parasomnium has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15987
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


(4)
Message 24 of 42 (789113)
08-10-2016 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Phat
08-10-2016 7:32 AM


Re: Mind Over Matter
One wag said it succinctly: In the beginning there was either God or Dirt.

What say you?

Here's a photograph of dirt.

Your turn.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Phat, posted 08-10-2016 7:32 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Phat, posted 08-11-2016 11:37 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 27 by mike the wiz, posted 08-11-2016 2:32 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10247
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


(1)
Message 25 of 42 (789164)
08-11-2016 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Adequate
08-10-2016 6:48 PM


Re: Mind Over Matter

We have a picture of the dirt---expanded. We cannot photograph God, however. He is more elusive than Greta Garbo!


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2016 6:48 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 70 days)
Posts: 4600
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 26 of 42 (789177)
08-11-2016 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Parasomnium
08-10-2016 5:25 PM


Re: Every atom an assumption
Good to hear from you again.

Point 1. Atoms aren't assumptions, they exist already. I don't see why the atoms need to be placed.

Point 2. "- indeed very many - transitionals have been found"

This is a weak point because it is slothful induction fallacy. Need I show you on a chart of species, the missing transitionals for each lineage on the branches? The missing transitionals outnumber the "found" ones by what, a thousand to one? I think I am being generous.

Then there is the issue of what a transitional actually is. Technically speaking, there is no way to actually know if it was a transitional or simply a creature that had some homoplasies. For example there are some lizards with the plastron which seems to be hero-in-a-half-shell for evo, but then, platypi have beaks!

When you look at the total evidence, the more parsimonious explanation seem to be that the relatively few "transitionals", or things you call, "transitionals" are actually examples of chimeras, which I define as species that had SOME shared characteristics, but are an example of tremendous diversity, not evolution.

These features are usually shared because they are the best design for the job. Take bats, oil birds and whales, they all have echolocation. It's simply the best design.

Now think of the transitionals missing, have you ever sat down and just asked yourself what would have to be missing? Start with trees, then ask yourself, generally speaking, are there transitionals for the cambrian critters?

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Parasomnium, posted 08-10-2016 5:25 PM Parasomnium has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-11-2016 2:39 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 42 by Parasomnium, posted 08-12-2016 4:02 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 70 days)
Posts: 4600
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 27 of 42 (789179)
08-11-2016 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Adequate
08-10-2016 6:48 PM


Re: Mind Over Matter
Here's a photograph of dirt.

Now can you just show us how that dirt could create itself into a sand castle on it's own? Oh I forget, a sand-castle is the very lowest rung of intelligent design, YET IT NEEDS A DESIGNER.

Good luck finding critters make themselves from that dirt. And by the way, your claim is primordial sludge not dirt, so please show me some primordial sludge that came from earth, with the fictional abiogenesised sci-fi animals being put together by the mud over millions of fictional evo-years.

Until then, go and get a photograph of your own dirt, instead of using God's.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2016 6:48 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-11-2016 2:40 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 32 by ringo, posted 08-11-2016 2:57 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15987
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 28 of 42 (789181)
08-11-2016 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by mike the wiz
08-11-2016 2:28 PM


Re: Every atom an assumption
Perhaps we could discuss your gross ignorance of evolution, anatomy, and the difference between homology and analogy on another thread.

All that aside, we can observe lots of intermediate forms, whereas we have never observed God make an organism by magic, or indeed anyone doing anything by magic. Creationists imagine a whole class of events of which we have never observed a single instance, having a cause of a kind which we have never ever seen operate. And this, according to you, is parsimonious?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by mike the wiz, posted 08-11-2016 2:28 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by mike the wiz, posted 08-11-2016 2:46 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15987
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 29 of 42 (789182)
08-11-2016 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by mike the wiz
08-11-2016 2:32 PM


Re: Mind Over Matter
Now can you just show us how that dirt could create itself into a sand castle on it's own?

No, which is why I never claimed that such a thing has happened.

Now can you show me a talking snake?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by mike the wiz, posted 08-11-2016 2:32 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 70 days)
Posts: 4600
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 30 of 42 (789183)
08-11-2016 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Pressie
08-10-2016 9:17 AM


Re: Mind Over Matter
Yep, I'm, a very stupid person, which is why I have the all time high score on this logic-game, since I am as thick as cold custard. (the original score is a hacked one, meaning I am top of the tree, which means I must have trouble figuring out logic, I guess, and am prone to fallacies.
.
http://www.mindgames.com/game/Zoobiedoku

Then when you've finished showing how stupid I am, you can check my score on this mathematics game, which I guess is proof I can't add 2 and 2, being a creationist called Bubba, y'all.

http://www.mindgames.com/game/Chalkboard+Sums

OR, shall we just agree that a bare-assertion that I am stupid, is actually and ironically, a sign you can't provide an argument to defeat me, and is one of the fallacies of diversion called argumentum ad hominem.

"Khan, I'm LAUGHING at the superior intellect." - Captain Kirk, - The wrath of Khan.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Pressie, posted 08-10-2016 9:17 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017