Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9057 total)
149 online now:
dwise1, Hangdawg13, PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Taq, xongsmith (7 members, 142 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,965 Year: 1,077/6,534 Month: 1,077/682 Week: 130/182 Day: 9/16 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17072
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 46 of 452 (875877)
05-08-2020 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Richard L. Wang
05-08-2020 4:16 PM


Re: The DN’s premise (continued 2)
Since you’ve already admitted that you are actually opposed to evolution and naturalism is just a red-herring can I ask why you are continuing on this line of argument ?

Surely you should be getting down to the real issue - that you object to methodological naturalism, since it leads to conclusions that you reject.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-08-2020 4:16 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19388
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 47 of 452 (875879)
05-08-2020 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Richard L. Wang
05-05-2020 4:07 PM


Richard L. Wang writes:

From now on, I’ll use (Neo-)Darwinian-Naturalism or DN to represent Naturalism in biology or the Naturalistic explanation of biology.


You really should drop the D altogether. Nothing in science really depends on Darwin any more; everything has been cross-checked so many times. Mentioning Darwin just shows you are behind the times.

"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-05-2020 4:07 PM Richard L. Wang has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-09-2020 4:23 PM ringo has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33669
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 48 of 452 (875880)
05-08-2020 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Richard L. Wang
05-08-2020 4:16 PM


Creationism is simply fantasy at best. But it's profitable.
The fact remains.

There is evidence of natural things and natural processes.

There is no evidence of any supernatural things or supernatural processes.

Adding in a God provides no information or explanations; it serves no purpose.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-08-2020 4:16 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by dwise1, posted 05-08-2020 11:53 PM jar has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 49 of 452 (875886)
05-08-2020 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Richard L. Wang
05-08-2020 4:08 PM


Re: Re – 28/40(Stile) & 24(JonF)&36(Tangle)&39(AZPaul3)
So you have no argument for your claim that it's a central axiom?

Didn't think so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-08-2020 4:08 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 50 of 452 (875887)
05-08-2020 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Richard L. Wang
05-08-2020 4:16 PM


Re: The DN’s premise (continued 2)
Start from the end of my post 32: DN can be described as
1. Life consists only of matter;
2. Information either supervenes upon the physical or can be reduced to a physical account;
3. Life operates by the laws of physics;
4. No supernatural power, no God.

Nope. You are a very slow learner. And you are making it very obvious you have no evidence for your claims. I.e. you're a bog-standard creationist.

If the second point is correct...

It's meaningless without an operational definition of whatever you mean by "information". Pony one up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-08-2020 4:16 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4822
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 6.3


(1)
Message 51 of 452 (875888)
05-08-2020 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by jar
05-08-2020 4:42 PM


Re: Creationism is simply fantasy at best. But it's profitable.
Adding in a God provides no information or explanations; it serves no purpose.

Let's go ahead and add in a god and see how that turns out.

Universal Gravitation:

        GMm
FG = -------
d2

Now let's introduce "God" into that equation as γ (the Greek letter gamma, since "G" is already taken as the constant of gravitation and "g" is commonly used for gravitational acceleration). We could add "God" either as a term or as a factor.

Adding "God"as a term, we'd get:

        GMm
FG = ------- + γ
d2

And adding "God" as a factor we'd get:

        γGMm
FG = -------
d2

Now, the "Atheistic" form of the equation (ie, what we would very properly call the non-theist form, but Richard L. Wang insists that it is Atheistic) gives us the correct value, so any additional terms or factors that we add to it must not change that correct value.

Therefore, adding "God" as a term must mean that that term is equal to ZERO. Therefore, God equals zero. God is quite literally nothing. QED.

Adding "God" as a factor must mean that that term is equal to unity. Which means that GOD HAS NO EFFECT ON ANYTHING AND THEREFORE IS COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS. Again, QED.

And, of course, adding in the "God" factor/term or just plain leaving it out has no effect on the outcome. So adding "God" into science is completely meaningless and has no effect whatsoever outside of adding some confusion as to why we are being required to do something so obviously stupid.

So that's what Richard L. Wang wants to prove about his god? Really?

Edited by dwise1, : added reason for not using "g" instead of γ


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 05-08-2020 4:42 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 05-09-2020 10:20 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 525 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 52 of 452 (875897)
05-09-2020 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by dwise1
05-08-2020 11:53 PM


Re: Creationism is simply fantasy at best. But it's profitable.
Adding "God"as a term, we'd get:

        GMm
FG = ------ + γ
d2

Now, the "Atheistic" form of the equation (ie, what we would very properly call the non-theist form, but Richard L. Wang insists that it is Atheistic) gives us the correct value, so any additional terms or factors that we add to it must not change that correct value.

Now, the "Atheistic" form of the equation (ie, what we would very properly call the non-theist form, but Richard L. Wang insists that it is Atheistic) gives us the correct value, so any additional terms or factors that we add to it must not change that correct value.

Solving for γ gives us

          GMm
γ = FG - ----- = 0
d2

And adding "God" as a factor we'd get:

        γGMm
FG = -------
d2

And solving for γ gives us:

      FG d2
γ = -------- = 1
GMm

In neither case does the result change with or without γ, but what you cannot say is whether or not {god/s} created the universe such that this was so.

This is a good time to explore LATEX

Peek to see coding

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by dwise1, posted 05-08-2020 11:53 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by jar, posted 05-09-2020 10:46 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33669
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 53 of 452 (875900)
05-09-2020 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by RAZD
05-09-2020 10:20 AM


Re: Creationism is simply fantasy at best. But it's profitable.
RAZD writes:

In neither case does the result change with or without γ, but what you cannot say is whether or not {god/s} created the universe such that this was so.

What we can say is that it is apparent that there is no need to factor in any God to understand reality.

It's fine to believe in a God but just silly as well as unnecessary to try to assert or insert such an entity.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 05-09-2020 10:20 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Richard L. Wang
Member (Idle past 465 days)
Posts: 104
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 54 of 452 (875921)
05-09-2020 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by ringo
05-08-2020 4:33 PM


Re-46(PaulK)&47(ringo): Evolution is a great theory
PaulK writes:

Since you’ve already admitted that you are actually opposed to evolution …


No, I’m not against evolution. In my opinion, because of his extraordinary contribution to biology - that all living and extinct organisms are descendants from common ancestor and natural selection has played an important role in biological evolution -, Charles Darwin, along with Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, are the greatest scientists in human history.

ringo writes:

You really should drop the D altogether. Nothing in science really depends on Darwin any more; everything has been cross-checked so many times. Mentioning Darwin just shows you are behind the times.


In his time, Darwin’s Naturalistic view of biology is understandable. D in my abbreviation DN does not represent Darwin’s, but Neo-Darwinism’s or Neo-Darwinists’.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by ringo, posted 05-08-2020 4:33 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 05-09-2020 4:29 PM Richard L. Wang has responded
 Message 56 by Tangle, posted 05-09-2020 5:34 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 59 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2020 10:10 AM Richard L. Wang has responded
 Message 63 by ringo, posted 05-10-2020 1:25 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17072
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 55 of 452 (875923)
05-09-2020 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Richard L. Wang
05-09-2020 4:23 PM


Re: Re-46(PaulK)&47(ringo): Evolution is a great theory
quote:
No, I’m not against evolution

Yes you are. You made that very obvious in Message 20

You do not accept that evolution can account for the features seen in biology.

You also insist that creationism must be accepted as mainstream science Message 30.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-09-2020 4:23 PM Richard L. Wang has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-10-2020 3:36 PM PaulK has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8333
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 56 of 452 (875928)
05-09-2020 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Richard L. Wang
05-09-2020 4:23 PM


Re: Re-46(PaulK)&47(ringo): Evolution is a great theory
Can you just get on with it please?

Maybe address the point that we're all raising, that naturalism is a conclusion of science not its premise and that it will change its mind the second anything supernatural crops up.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-09-2020 4:23 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by jar, posted 05-09-2020 5:40 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33669
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 57 of 452 (875930)
05-09-2020 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Tangle
05-09-2020 5:34 PM


Re: Re-46(PaulK)&47(ringo): Evolution is a great theory
As expected the Gallop and Tap Dance continues. So far in none of his threads has he ever provided any support of any of his assertions.

It's sameo sameo. Creationists never learn.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Tangle, posted 05-09-2020 5:34 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8333
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.4


(3)
Message 58 of 452 (875931)
05-09-2020 5:43 PM


I see this guy is now asking to open yet another thread. He's not interested in debate or even discussion, he's here to lecture/preach.

Please don't promote it until he's answered his questioners here.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 525 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 59 of 452 (875945)
05-10-2020 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Richard L. Wang
05-09-2020 4:23 PM


Just say evolution
In his time, Darwin’s Naturalistic view of biology is understandable. D in my abbreviation DN does not represent Darwin’s, but Neo-Darwinism’s or Neo-Darwinists’.

Then you should use NDN, but even there you would be in error.

Trying to relabel evolution is something creationists do, it is not done by scientists, and it's like you can't bring yourself to simply say "evolution" ... why is that?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-09-2020 4:23 PM Richard L. Wang has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-10-2020 3:43 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 60 of 452 (875946)
05-10-2020 10:51 AM


In his ignorance he doesn't know that evolution theory has moved significantly beyond neo-Darwinism. Neutral theory for example.

Of course creationists usually don't even know about neo-Darwinism.


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022