Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@spendius,

Quote:

I wouldn't like to be at a posh reception with a gob full of cream-cracker and caviar and a swig of Barbadillo Oloroso and have such a statement addressed to me by a po-faced twat in a stentorian tone of voice.

I don't think, if I were you, that Id have anything to worry about . Never drink sherry with caviar, its so, so, low class.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Bio needs the support of other disciplines to assure itself that their evidence is even valid.

But which disciplines fm? What about theology? What about sociology? And psychology? Even economics gives you problems.

I suppose the disciplines you are referring to are those which you have a smattering of knowledge about sufficient to pass in common company as an expert. Worming sheep for example.

The others you have in mind probably require expensive instrumentation which, as is well known, produces a sense of well being in the operator in direct proportion to the level of funding, extracted from the taxpayers by a method I assume you are familiar with, and suffuses him from top to toe with confidence in his ability to speak on any subject, extempore, without fear of contradiction.

Instruments as territory. Jealously guarded and expansionist as a matter of course.

0 Replies

@Miss L Toad,

Miss L Toad wrote:

Herald, I don't know why you bother trying to explain these things.

You may get knowing, for example ... before writing the comment. The thread is open, you have only to go backward a little bit.
I can save you the efforts and tell you what it is all about.
The original claim was 'Bacteria were one of the first and the most simple forms of life on Earth'.
When I presented some reasoning showing that bacteria are not exactly 'the most simple' some people here argued that I don't have the interpretation of the right type and I am supposed to use 'the actual, scientific, precise ...' interpretation of this, etc.
That the bacteria are not 'one of the most simple' is obvious, but were they really 'one of the first'? If they have extraterrestrial origin we don't have even the slightest idea who may be 'one of the first'. Anyway.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Sticking with truth is easy

You must be aware fm that Pilate's question--"What is truth?"---has the reputation of being the most famous question in Western history.

Do you dispute its position? It isn't even "true" that it is 15 minutes past the hour when I post this.

0 Replies

@Herald,

So the "truth", Herald, is either that 'Bacteria were one of the first and the most simple forms of life on Earth' or that they were not.

As any choice between the two cannot be based on any "actual" and "detailed" and "precise" evidence ( and the other wonderful words ros clasped to his bosom) it follows that both positions are beliefs.

Hence an argument between them is pointless unless it focuses on the social consequences which they each imply and a careful study of which will, or more likely will, serve our best interests.

And each side asserting that the other one doesn't know what it's talking about: which is fair enough in both cases except that it goes nowhere.

Bacteria in the foggy ruins of time are neither here nor there. It's whether to have a binge of sexual free-for-alls or not. As far as I know no heresy has ever not promised, usually vaguely, a free-for-all. One or two have made no bones about it.

I saw a film about the Burning Man cult and the scenes on the car park were quite sufficient for me to know what the foundational truths were.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

So the "truth", Herald, is either that 'Bacteria were one of the first and the most simple forms of life on Earth' or that they were not.

This is a complex statement and the truth value is not that simple. Actually here we have three claims ('three in one'):
1. Bacteria were one of the first forms of life (wherever).
2. Bacteria were one of the most simple forms of life.
3. Bacteria are made from ground zero (or whatever) by evolution here down on the Earth.
The whole claim is true when ALL the three are true. If only one of them is false, the whole claim becomes false.
None of the three could be proved to be true beyond any doubt ... so the dispute is really objectless.

further wrote:

As any choice between the two cannot be based on any "actual" and "detailed" and "precise" evidence ( and the other wonderful words ros clasped to his bosom) it follows that both positions are beliefs.

Yes, they are beliefs, actually the whole theory of evolution is belief. It is religion. It is not science.
As far as 'actual, detailed and precise' is concerned our tragedy is that we are interpreting them too literally. If one views them as 'fireworks' on the blog, it may become clear that this is simply top design pyrotechnics intended to attract attention and ovation ... and nothing else.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

1. Bacteria were one of the first forms of life (wherever).
2. Bacteria were one of the most simple forms of life.
3. Bacteria are made from ground zero (or whatever) by evolution here down on the Earth

All three are true. A basic biology class could explain it to you.

Quote:

Yes, they are beliefs, actually the whole theory of evolution is belief. It is religion. It is not science.

Let me ask you a question: are you smarter than the Biologists of the world? A yes or no and no a ring-around-the-rosey answer will be fine, thanks.

The reason I ask is because for you to claim evolution isn't science (despite all of the world's biologists adhering to it) you'd literally have to know more about Biology than those particular individuals who have devoted their lives to studying it.
I know that you probably are that arrogant. A lot of creationists like yourself are. I have a news flash, though. You are not smarter. In fact, your statement "evolution is religion not science" clearly displays your ignorance and puts it out for all on the thread to see (it was already displayed many times earlier, but most people probably chose not to read it).

3 Replies

@JimmyJ,

Herald is clinging to a piece of something he must have gotten from "Dr Dino' where he is making the assertion that because of complexity of some genera of bacteria, bacteria could NOT have been representatives of earliest life on the planet.
He is so precious.
What he wants to do is totally ignore the Protista and the fossil record.
Its like saying that birds could NOT have risen from reptiles because birds have feathers and reptiles do not. That is until we found fossils of dinosaurs with feathers and early birds with teeth and reptilian nostrils.

I saw a new paper about a fossil "fishopod' that, an example of which was found in 2004 but now a complete specimen of it has been found. The new specimen clearly shows that this fish Tiktalik rosacea could amble on the shallow benthic zone beacsue it had fins that were become proto "flippers' like an axolotl.

A neat "intermediate" between two Linnean Classes.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Whatever that proves, fm. is irrelevant compared to science proving that your significance, and mine, and everybody's, is so asymptotic with nothing that no instrument will ever be devised to measure the difference.

Jesus had said that too. It's one of the reasons he was offed. They were not as ready for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth as we are today.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

. If one views them as 'fireworks' on the blog, it may become clear that this is simply top design pyrotechnics intended to attract attention and ovation ... and nothing else.

So long as you see the attention and ovations in regard to erections I can go with that Herald.

0 Replies

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

All three are true. A basic biology class could explain it to you.

I don't doubt, but maybe I would not be fond for a 'basic biology class' to explain this to me - much more interesting it would be for some advanced class to try to explain it ... not as simple axiomatic statements with assigned a priori truth value, but as serious justification (at least), if there are no evidences (for the processes driving the evolution, and for the existence of the evolution itself).

further wrote:

Let me ask you a question: are you smarter than the Biologists of the world? A yes or no and no a ring-around-the-rosey answer will be fine, thanks.

Smarter does not exclude beliefs ... and lack of scruples, and talking different things from what you are thinking ... and having assistants that are developing malware when they lack actual arguments.

Besides you don't have a single piece of verifiable and reliable evidence that most of the scientific theories are not made because they are convenient, but are exclusively made for the sake of the truth. When there are a lot of various other considerations, the truth value and the seeking for the truth become very relative ... and it has nothing to do with intelligence.

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

(contginued)

Quote:

The reason I ask is because for you to claim evolution isn't science (despite all of the world's biologists adhering to it) you'd literally have to know more about Biology than those particular individuals who have devoted their lives to studying it.

Devoting life could not be any argument ... for whatsoever. A lot of people devote their lives to develop malware, for example, there are some other people devoting their lives to develop fake financial system (to cheat the population of the world), there are even some other people that devote their lives to develop psychotronic projects in order to make cloudless professional career (by avoiding the Hippocratic Oath in the use of medical knowledge for 'strategic purposes'), etc.
The very circumstance that somebody devotes his life to something does not necessarily mean that this something is the road of the right type.
Besides that devoting one's life to some dead end road is not critically fatal. One may devote the rest of his life to study whether it is really simply beliefs (religion) or 'actual scientific' evidences (science). Exploring wrong paths in search of the truth is not waste of time ... so far one knows what he is doing.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Devoting life could not be any argument ... for whatsoever. A lot of people devote their lives to develop malware, for example, there are some other people devoting their lives to develop fake financial system (to cheat the population of the world),

You are still a bit mixed up , even those people who wish to do harm with a technology need to have a good knowledge of that technology. The applications are always dependent upon ones abilities.
I wonder what technologies or sciences you support? Surely you cannot be denying all science and tech? Your own bio states that you are associated with programming. Should I assume that you develop malware?

When humans aren't at the "center" of your worldview, does that become the crux of your denials of biology in general and evolution in particular? What do you think about Copernicus?

2 Replies

@farmerman,

All Herald was saying, fm, it seems to me, was that the act of devoting one's life to something is not an argument in favour of that something or its validity or usefulness.

Devoting a life to painting, say, is not evidence of art being involved. Devoting a life to describing the "what, where and when" of life forms is not evidence of science being practiced. It can just as easily be a hobby or a form of escapism. Or just an obsession. Or a type of socialising.

2 Replies

@spendius,

He is saying way more than that spendi. Hes attempting to impugn an entire discipline of science, (and by inference, the folks who spend their PROFESSIONAL careers therein)
Now I cn see the utter waste of a life by being a "Creation SCientist" where the few schools that confer such degrees in the US aren't even accredited by the entire body of Accreditation associations.
That's a really good attempt at averting our eyes from thruths of the matter.
My all time challenge is once again herein renewed.

NAME JUST ONE SCIENTIFIC ADVANCE OR DISCOVERY THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE WORLD THROUGH RESEARCH INTO " CREATION SCIENCE"?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Obviously anybody who devotes their life to something will become familiar with the technical terms involved, especially the polysyllabic ones. Using them to pretend a scientific sensibility with others who are not familiar with those terms is then easy but it doesn't mean that a proper scientific sensibility is operating.

It then makes sense to Ignore anybody who has a scientific sensibility, not something I recommend btw, and who knows that there are thousands of subjects to choose from which might be useful in faking having such a sensibility.

1 Reply

@spendius,

If someone, unfamiliar with the terminology, hs asked a previous question making statements an assertions like Herald has, Id classify as being defiantly ignorant. "Terminology" in a craft is called jargon. jargon (one of its secondary definitions)is usually language that is crafted within a profession to be a precise descriptor. Jargon is easy to learn. Herald tries and tries but his language skills don't often rise to include proper use of the jargon. He mixes up the terms and the meanings so often that its more funny than helpful to his "point"
RELATED POINT
Jim is soon to be a graduate from an accredited college in the discipline of evolutionary biology. He is seeking to enter med school. I for one would rather be provided medical care by a person so trained than some graduate of Bob Jones U or Ave Maria U wherein they offer "Biology" as an unaccredited minor to be included in a ministerial degree (which IS accredited).
Im sure a Bob Jonser would have a great difficulty entering an MD or a DO program at any reputable University.
DO you really think that a "Science" background from Bob Jones would prepare one for advanced study or research? Maybe in Middle Earth.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

NAME JUST ONE SCIENTIFIC ADVANCE OR DISCOVERY THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE WORLD THROUGH RESEARCH INTO " CREATION SCIENCE"?

The orderly and efficient management of the relations between men and women for economic purposes.

The discovery of the role of elaborate ceremonies in human affairs.

I accept that scientific materialists might have ideas about those two aspects of social organisation. Let's hear them eh? We can't put them under scrutiny unless we are appraised of their content.

You are giving yourself a free pass by not explaining what you would do in regard to the orderly and efficient management of the relations between men and women for economic purposes and the other side have gone into great detail on the subject and have produced a body of operating instructions which I assume you disagree with for personal reasons. I would prefer if you disagreed for scientific reasons.

The only time you have risked putting a toe in the water in this regard was your promotion of rehabilitation camps for religious believers. Obviously a joke with only a mere 15% of the population in charge of rehabilitating the 85%.

The most famous writers of utopian or dystopian fantasies in respect of the future never give a moment's thought to rock sediments or fossils.

1 Reply

@spendius,

and how has "Creation Science" forged the path that has led to discoveries in even those areas of "Sociological intersts"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I don't know who Bob Jones is but no individual is of any consequence to the subject of this thread.

Just as Tiger Woods is of no consequence in a discussion of golf as a social activity. It is hard to see how golf arises in a casino universe.

Or the study of fossils. Come to think of it the past is not a subject which the writers of utopian or dystopian scientific fantasies ever consider.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know