97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 2 Nov, 2006 01:10 pm
spendi wrote: Can you not deal adequately with the point about imagination and it's very poor showing in non-Christian cultures.

I don't have info on "non-chrisitan cultures," but did you know that the USA with over 80 percent christians has one of the highest crime rates in the "civilized" world? You must quit making a fool of yourself - over and over and over....
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Thu 2 Nov, 2006 01:40 pm
Ya know, besides being a woman hater and not understanding government and science, there is (as ros best described ) a sense of mean-spirited covetousness in almost every spendi post.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 2 Nov, 2006 02:45 pm
Sheesh! This is getting embarrassing.

Are there no Americans reading here who wish to disassociate thenselves from the infantile claptrap being presented on this thread by anti-ID Americans who, by their own admission, are a fifth, at best, of the American population. The impression is being given that these contributions by a mere three or four of this small minority represent the position and method of interaction of the American intelligence.


They are even quoting themselves. "(as ros best described)".

I'm sure that the crime rate in North Korea and Iran is much lower than that in the US but I'm not sure what conclusions to draw from that. One presumes it is only reported crime anyway. And crime itself is a debateable category.

One has to wonder whether the high US crime rate is associated with the method of proceeding in social interactions displayed in the posts above coming from that country.

In just three lines fm managed four heavy-handed assertions all of which are untrue in every respect as anyone who reads these threads properly will know.

I must admit to not understanding science and government as much as I would like (there isn't the time) but I have far more understanding of it than the two posters concerned do. They display a knowledge of both subjects asymptoting with zero. It might even be necessary for them to start their education on empty again for them to begin to gain even a modicum of understanding of either such are their prejudices and the reflexivity of their assertiveness.

I would bet good money that neither could read a chapter of Spengler and get 1 out of 100 in an examination on it. They had never even heard of Vico and La Mettrie. It goes without saying that their understanding of the humanist de Sade is nothing. They can't even read Joyce. They don't know Veblen's works. They know nothing of the Materialist Theory of Mind.
They think Dylan is a folk singer. They are intolerant, bombastic and bigoted.

And the evidence is up in lights on our back pages. Flashing impertinently in every direction. They have not one answer to any of the serious questions they have been asked. They are in opposition to 80%, at least, of the American population and to the President and any of his likely successors. Also to the British government and, judging by wande's earlier quote, the German government. They are only in step in a room by themselves and if they were in that situation they would soon be falling out and reaching.

All they can do is blurt. Loud and long and to no effect. They haven't even got on board yet that their assertions are water off a duck's back.

Try answering this one-

Quote:
Can you not see that by using assertions you empower others to do the same unless you assert that only your assertions have validity.


which is simple enough.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Thu 2 Nov, 2006 02:51 pm
Quote:
In just three lines fm managed four heavy-handed assertions all of which are untrue in every respect as anyone who reads these threads properly will know.

I assert and you assert, the difference is, Ive got evidence.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 2 Nov, 2006 02:53 pm
spendi, You don't realize it, but you've failed every test of sobriety and logic.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Thu 2 Nov, 2006 02:59 pm
farmerman wrote:
I assert and you assert, the difference is, Ive got evidence.


spendi,
I must say that farmerman's evidence has always been more persuasive than your quotes from Spengler.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Thu 2 Nov, 2006 03:05 pm
farmerman wrote:
Ya know, besides being a woman hater and not understanding government and science, there is (as ros best described ) a sense of mean-spirited covetousness in almost every spendi post.

For example:
spendius wrote:
I must admit to not understanding science and government as much as I would like (there isn't the time) but I have far more understanding of it than the two posters concerned do. They display a knowledge of both subjects asymptoting with zero. It might even be necessary for them to start their education on empty again for them to begin to gain even a modicum of understanding of either such are their prejudices and the reflexivity of their assertiveness.

I would bet good money that neither could read a chapter of Spengler and get 1 out of 100 in an examination on it. They had never even heard of Vico and La Mettrie. It goes without saying that their understanding of the humanist de Sade is nothing. They can't even read Joyce. They don't know Veblen's works. They know nothing of the Materialist Theory of Mind.
They think Dylan is a folk singer. They are intolerant, bombastic and bigoted.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Thu 2 Nov, 2006 03:32 pm
Quote:
They had never even heard of Vico and La Mettrie. It goes without saying that their understanding of the humanist de Sade is nothing. They can't even read Joyce. They don't know Veblen's works.

If Ive been listed as one of the people who dont understand Spengler, thats a bit humorous . Spendi asserts that if ione remains silent on one of his circular posts , one is non-conversant. Quite the opposite, when he first brought up La Mettrie I could smell the vapours of malt coming through my panel, he was merely trying to resurrect an argument of materialism that, , with which, I dont even disagree .However, it had not a thing to do with the topic. It is good manners to often recognize a thread crasher and then let im go. I (and everyone else, ) just ignored him.

Im even being somewhat rude to wandel because here Im spitting at spendi and its really not very polite of me. Im just a bit ticked at how spendi mixes mean-spirited, ad-hominem invective in with his alleged "points of debate" and then scoots off and later, when he comes to, gets offended at my own. This is not the US congress, or the UK PArliament where such attacks are encouraged.

Im amused at how Spendi, when we arent paying enough attention to him tries the "shotgun Approach", where he tosses things out to see whether anyone responds, and when we dont hes angry and very disappointed. Thats when his ad hominems start . Noone has ever stopped him from posting any tripe he wishes. However, responding equates with encouragement in my book.
SO Ill stop there
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 2 Nov, 2006 03:41 pm
I'm off out. It's Thursday. Again. Don't they come round quick.

All posts since my last one meant nothing. All assertion. Concentrated. I know you don't know those writers I mentioned. You wouldn't write what you do if you did.

See if you respond to this from you know where-

Quote:
Vico is best known for his verum factum principle, first formulated in 1710 as part of his De Italorum Sapientia. The principle states that truth is verified through creation or invention and not, as per Descartes, through observation: "The criterion and rule of the true is to have made it. Accordingly, our clear and distinct idea of the mind cannot be a criterion of the mind itself, still less of other truths. For while the mind perceives itself, it does not make itself." This criterion for truth would later shape the history of civilization in Vico's opus, the Scienza Nuova (The New Science, 1725), since civil life - like mathematics - is wholly constructed.

Relying on a complex etymology, Vico argues in the Scienza Nuova that civilization develops in a recurring cycle (ricorso) of three ages: the divine, the heroic, and the human. Each age exhibits distinct political and social features and can be characterized by master tropes or figures of language. The giganti of the divine age rely on metaphor to compare, and thus comprehend, human and natural phenomena. In the heroic age, metonymy and synecdoche support the development of feudal or monarchic institutions embodied by idealized figures. The final age is characterized by popular democracy and reflection via irony; in this epoch, the rise of rationality leads to barbarie della reflessione or barbarism of reflection, and civilization descends once more into the poetic era. Taken together, the recurring cycle of three ages - common to every nation - constitutes for Vico a storia ideale eterna or ideal eternal history.

Vico's major work was poorly received during his own life but has since inspired a cadre of famous thinkers and artists, including Benedetto Croce, James Joyce, Bertrand Russell, Samuel Beckett, Northrop Frye, Harold Bloom, Edward Said and Robert Anton Wilson. Later his work was received more favourably as in the case of Lord Monboddo to whom he was compared in a modern treatise[1].

For Ernst von Glasersfeld, Giambattista Vico is "the first true constructivist" (in An Introduction to Radical Constructivism).


It might at least jump start someone. It might not this tiny claque of anti-IDers but there are others who read here who might be interested in things they don't know yet rather than braying out what bit they do as if it is everything and that's anti-education as well.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Thu 2 Nov, 2006 03:50 pm
have fun.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 2 Nov, 2006 05:51 pm
Well fm- that's serious peer reviewing I think even you might admit or do only the peers who you say are peers get to do the peer reviewing.

That's ring-a-ring-a-rosies isn't it? Not Rosie's. Obviously.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 2 Nov, 2006 05:58 pm
Quote:
Try answering this one-

Quote:
Can you not see that by using assertions you empower others to do the same unless you assert that only your assertions have validity.


which is simple enough.



Again.

At least make an effort. Don't worry about how pathetic it is going to sound. Just do it. For once.

Can you see it or not? What could be simpler?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 2 Nov, 2006 06:52 pm
spendi wrote: Well fm- that's serious peer reviewing I think even you might admit or do only the peers who you say are peers get to do the peer reviewing.

That's ring-a-ring-a-rosies isn't it? Not Rosie's. Obviously.

Where have you been all these years? Haven't you heard about scientific findings being revised when new information proved the old information was in error? Where have you found such peer review on ID except word games?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 3 Nov, 2006 04:58 am
That's a nice game c.i.

Only scientists can peer review other scientists due to the language being esoteric and only known to scientists.

You obviously are not familiar with the works of C.P.Snow who wrote-

Quote:


He was a scientist and wrote The Two Cultures which caused something of a sensation and

Quote:
Its fame got an additional boost a year later when the critic F. R. Leavis published his attack on The Two Cultures in The Spectator. Originally delivered as the Richmond Lecture at Downing College, Cambridge, "Two Cultures? The Significance of C. P. Snow" is a devastating rhetorical fusillade. It's not just that no two stones of Snow's argument are left standing: each and every pebble is pulverized; the fields are salted; and the entire population is sold into slavery. Leavis spoke of "the preposterous and menacing absurdity of C. P. Snow's consecrated public standing," heaped derision on his "embarrassing vulgarity of style," his "panoptic pseudo-cogencies," his "complete ignorance" of history, literature, the history of civilization, and the human significance of the Industrial Revolution. "


I am not defending Leavis here.

All I'm showing is that there are two sides to the argument and the existence of Ethics Committees and such like supervision of science show that the other side is taken seriously by politicians responding to public concern. They are not just "word games" and to suggest so is simply another crass assertion which lays bare an absence of knowledge on this subject for anyone who doesn't already know of it.

Anti-IDers are too one sided. There is a major difference in being "right" in the laboratory and amidst the collections of fossils and being "right" in the public domain and with political and social consequences.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Fri 3 Nov, 2006 07:19 am
Well, Im for a bit of novelty verse on Thermodynamics today
Quote:
After me...


The First Law of Thermodymamics:
Heat is work and work is heat
Heat is work and work is heat
Very good!
The Second Law of Thermodymamics:
Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body
(scat music starts)
Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body
Heat won't pass from a cooler to a hotter
Heat won't pass from a cooler to a hotter
You can try it if you like but you far better notter
You can try it if you like but you far better notter
'Cos the cold in the cooler with get hotter as a ruler
'Cos the cold in the cooler with get hotter as a ruler
'Cos the hotter body's heat will pass to the cooler
'Cos the hotter body's heat will pass to the cooler

First Law:
Heat is work and work is heat and work is heat and heat is work
Heat will pass by conduction
Heat will pass by conduction
Heat will pass by convection
Heat will pass by convection
Heat will pass by radiation
Heat will pass by radiation
And that's a physical law

Heat is work and work's a curse
And all the heat in the Universe
Is gonna cooool down 'cos it can't increase
Then there'll be no more work and there'll be perfect peace
Really?
Yeah - that's entropy, man!

And all because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which lays down:

That you can't pass heat from the cooler to the hotter
Try it if you like but you far better notter
'Cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a ruler
'Cos the hotter body's heat will pass to the cooler
Oh, you can't pass heat from the cooler to the hotter
You can try it if you like but you'll only look a fooler
'Cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a ruler
That's a physical Law!

Oh, I'm hot!
Hot? That's because you've been working!
Oh, Beatles - nothing!
That's the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics!


You may continue until you become sufficiently bored and begin a new discussion of "What have the Romans Reaaallly Done for Us?"
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Fri 3 Nov, 2006 07:19 am
OR PERHAPS we are all in for a dose of mnemonics should we sing Tom Lehrer's
Quote:
``There's antimony, arsenic, aluminum, selenium,
And hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen and rhenium
And nickel, neodymium, neptunium, germanium,
And iron, americium, ruthenium, uranium,
Europium, zirconium, lutetium, vanadium
And lanthanum and osmium and astatine and radium
And gold, protactinium and indium and gallium (inhale)
And iodine and thorium and thulium and thallium.

``There's yttrium, ytterbium, actinium, rubidium
And boron, gadolinium, niobium, iridium
And strontium and silicon and silver and samarium,
And bismuth, bromine, lithium, beryllium and barium.

``Isn't that interesting?
I knew you would.
I hope you're all taking notes, because there's gonna be a short quiz next period.

``There's holmium and helium and hafnium and erbium
And phosphorous and francium and fluorine and terbium
And manganese and mercury, molybdinum, magnesium,
Dysprosium and scandium and cerium and cesium
And lead, praseodymium, and platinum, plutonium,
Paladium, promethium, potassium, polonium, and
Tantalum, technetium, titanium, tellurium, (inhale)
And cadmium and calcium and chromium and curium.

``There's sulfur, californium and fermium, berkelium
And also mendelevium, einsteinium and nobelium
And argon, krypton, neon, radon, xenon, zinc and rhodium
And chlorine, carbon, cobalt, copper,
Tungsten, tin and sodium.

``These are the only ones of which the news has come to Harvard,
And there may be many others but they haven't been discovered.''
0 Replies
 
Mathos
 
  1  
Fri 3 Nov, 2006 07:43 am
Oi Spendi,

I read an article in The Telegraph today which in turn took me to the following site;-

www.wayn.com


Americans were voted the most stupid and worst dressed nation on the planet.


It went on to state that only Germans have a worst sense of humour.


Did you have anything to do with this slur on our American and German colleagues Spendi?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Fri 3 Nov, 2006 08:26 am
Quote:
Americans were voted the most stupid and worst dressed nation on the planet.
. We took a vote and decided that we didnt want to look like Brits so we invested heavily in blue jeans and proper dental hygiene.
0 Replies
 
Mathos
 
  1  
Fri 3 Nov, 2006 08:30 am
Who counted the casting votes for you then?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Fri 3 Nov, 2006 09:02 am
certainly not one as spendi. Hes quantitatively "challenged". Not having been there, Id suppose we subcontracted it to some German firm
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 10/04/2024 at 07:19:59