Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

It was the character Spendius - Isabella- who was strangely intrigued by men of doubtful character.

And it wasn't being chased through the bushes - you got all bent out of shape when I wanted to have the manservant sit at the table and eat dinner in her diningroom.

We should work on that story again. But only if you're not so friggin bossy about what I get to write..

Shira - Whatever - how many neutered third persons do you know who've been pregnant and borne a child?
I was starting to think you were pretty smart but now I just think you're selectively so.
Pretty convenient in terms of the evolution of your chosen character.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

I just don't like the dishonesty he employs, that's all. His tactics reek of dishonesty, but then again, it's debatable whether you can call it dishonest if the dishonest person doesn't know that (s)he's being dishonest or not.

I'm thinking of changing my use of the word "dishonest" to fallacious for the times when dishonesty can be unintentional (even if the tactics are a roundabout form of dishonesty, like changing the subject in response to a question).

spendius wrote:

No. I heard it was a load of crap.

Perhaps you should, as it's from the DI, a group constituting the face of ID as well as its main advocacy group, not to mention paying/including Behe and Dembski as fellows. As an aside, if you want to get an idea for their incompetence covered with a shiny veneer, they just signed on Michael Medved (terrible idea, he barely knows what he himself thinks on this issue). The Wedge document is similar in that the fact that it was leaked shows massive incompetence but when no other options (outside of simple and coherent honesty) were available, they embraced it and tried to play semantics games.

spendius wrote:

It is very sensible for you to refrain from going into the details. Waffle is the way forward on that subject as you so correctly preceive.

I never indicated that to be the case. I see that you didn't reply to my nice numbered points, either.

spendius wrote:

I'm all for interesting explorations of plausibilities but not for using them as an excuse to shove Darwin into classrooms (watered down versions I mean) where the community doesn't want it.

Abiogenesis is not evolution nor is it used to promote teaching evolution. Why is it that every time you speak about science, you manage to convince me even more that you don't have a clue about it but aren't willing to admit it?

spendius wrote:

Nuclear reactions are dependent in many ways on energy from organic sources. They are not yet self sustaining in the economic sense. If they became so they would be perpetual motion machines. What I mean is that the nuclear reactions would need to provide all the energy required to build, maintain and clear them up when finished with. Until they can do that they are dependent on organic or hydro/wind. Mainly organic. They might even be said to be just a way of focussing the other energy inputs. When they can do without them you have perpetual motion I think. Don't you? Not infinite though. But as near as makes no difference.

Three points

First, I am explicitly talking about organic molecules being necessary for the actual reactions taking place. You seem to be attempting to support this in the most tangential way possible and it actually implicitly makes my case: the reaction itself doesn't involve organics, only the surrounding equipment and setup for controlling it in our reactors. Look at the sun or other stars: those are sustained nuclear reactions that produce organics but for which there is no evidence (and no necessity given our understanding of physics) for organic molecules being required for their origin or sustenance.

Second, nuclear power puts out gobs and gobs of energy. If there were the political will, they could easily be the only electricity source to the exclusion of all others. The only major problem outside of immediate safety concerns (meltdowns, etc, due to incompetent workers) is how to deal with the waste.

Third, none of this would have to do with perpetual motion and none of it violates the second law of thermodynamics. Nothing about what I've said implies infinite useful energy.

spendius wrote:

The comparison Jesus made between this world and a lightning flash. A serious blasphemy at the time. They were frightened of the infinite and the infinitessimal. For religious reasons of their own. It's why they never got into "our" mathematics. I've discussed it before but AIDsers turned away in disgust. It is quite a complex piece of speculation on my part I'll admit. And I think original. Spengler simply says that it was an instinct of Nicolas Cusanus that led him to the elements of the differential calculus from the unendingness of God but I think the Bishop had been studying the Luke gospel which is something in the world that happened and which AIDsers are trying to discredit on the grounds that Jesus couldn't walk on water.

It's fun that you get confused about what these "AIDsers" are and equivocate the idea with antireligion atheists. It implies that the other side is religion in clear terms. Thanks!

The comparison you list isn't in any way a mathematical model, it's a relative distinction and a rather small one. In fact, since much of the point is comparing the infinite post-apocalyptic future to our lives, it works much better as a religiously-motivated attempt at stressing the urgency of one's acceptance of his ideas than anything related to discovering the relative length of time man or the earth has been around compared to the rest of the observable universe.

Think about it: even if the earth and man were around for the entirety of the history of the observable universe, Jesus could still have made that comparison because he is comparing that finite idea with something infinite.

I don't think it's original at all on your part to be claiming mathematics for Jesus because calculus was invented by Christians (some would say discovered). It would be of course hilariously ironic if the true inspiration and necessary quality for pursuing such things and deeper truths (which I don't think is accurate, given all those nice atheist mathematicians) relied on myths.

It doesn't take much to discredit the notion that the Gospels can be legitimately said to be an accurate, historical description of the life of Jesus. It certainly doesn't take listing all the miracles, although that does feed into the notion that these extraordinary events should be accompanied by some more evidence if they actually happened in front of that many people.

spendius wrote:

No. A microcosmic example. A hypermarket would do just as well. Or a Test Match. Or a ring top beer can.

Same difference, really.

spendius wrote:

Not at all. If I went to live in a Muslim country for its benefits I would become a Muslim at the airport.

So you're a moral relativist in the extreme and you apparently subscribe to the appeal to consequences. Unless of course you don't think that Christianity is in any way accurate or more accurate than Islam.

spendius wrote:

That's waffle. George might explain why.

Or you can have you unsupported assertion, that works too.

------ another post

spendius wrote:

You're dead wrong there old chap. I operate on evolutionary principles.

You lot are kidding yourselves. You wouldn't go near evolutionary principles if you knew what they consist of. They are just words to you.

You even think price gouging is "wrong". i.e. "bad" (NF in operation). And price gouging is tummy tickling in the struggle for existence.

I think this right here exemplifies spendius's methods of operation almost perfectly. We get condescension, the insistence of knowledge without any support for it (and past evidence to the contrary), and best of all the listing of a fallacy in order to show further problems in our understanding, despite just learning about it after my repeated insistance (and of course, he completely missed the context and chose the wrong version). The only thing missing is a misplaced attempt at literary wit.

Of course to do so you had to skip over the section explaining how you do go about attaching morality to these naturalistic explanations. I imagine you're implicitly doing it right now in that second paragraph.

I think you would learn fairly quickly how the word "good" is used by the people you oppose and how they understand their use of the word if you were to actually ask them rather than pretend they are just like you. It has nothing to do with the original naturalistic fallacy, which is attaching a transcendant value to natural ideas like survival, evolution, pain, etc. I think you'll find that they use it out of habit but do not hold to the original metaphysical values attached to it.

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

Shira - Whatever - how many neutered third persons do you know who've been pregnant and borne a child?
I was starting to think you were pretty smart but now I just think you're selectively so.
Pretty convenient in terms of the evolution of your chosen character.

Nope, I just forgot that you yourself had been pregnant. In fact, I believe you only referenced your own pregnancy implicitly. Thanks for the insult, though.

Are you really not aware that the use of "they" rather than "he" or "she" is entirely valid and common in modern english, either when gender is unknown or seen as inappropriate to point out?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

The first sentence of that is not only incomprehensible but downright astoundingly so. It's a fancy way of saying "you're talking out of your ass". Are you suggesting that were I to take up your suggestion and test my own comprehension I might discover that I don't know what I'm talking about. (Now say that sentence in the tone of a lady to whom you have made an inappropriate suggestion.) And if I found that my comprehension was up to speed you would simply say test it again.

Obviously not, and again you prove that you either don't pay attention to context or willfully exclude it in order to make your criticisms.

Here, I'll flesh it out so you're not confused:

I'll repeat the notion that you should test out your opinion that your ramblings are comprehensible. So far everyone who has commented has agreed with my opinion that they are not, both explicitly and implicitly. The one person (aidan) who defended you has also expressed the opinion over some of your statements that she had trouble figuring them out and in fact seems to have guessed wrong in her original defense of the misunderstanding as a cultural barrier. That would be cultural barrier as opposed to unclear writing.

The test is to take one of your rambling snippets, and hand it out to people and ask them if they know what you were saying. Then compare it to the understanding I guessed at concerning it and see if it's any more specific and accurate. I've listed this general challenge before and did after the part you quote as well.

Perhaps as you read on, you'll find this:

Shirakawasuna wrote:

You very clearly don't get it. Like I've said, test it out. Take that bit about the pub you wrote when you were (apparently) talking about abiogenesis and organic molecules. Show it to people. See if they understand it. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but a thread on Intelligent Design is not writing a novella.

spendius wrote:

If you think the number of people agreeing with your side has any effect on me you must not even be up to speed on the thread. Even c.i. noticed my immunity in that direction.

Who is a better judge of the clarity of your points than people who have read them? What is a better way to judge for clarity than the ability for people to figure out what you're trying to say? You certainly can't hide behind these ideas being a highly technical subject matter...

This is one of the only cases where an appeal to numbers makes sense: communication. If lots of people don't understand you and probably should (fluently understand english, native speakers, etc), via the very tautology of communication being the ability to communicate ideas to others, you have failed. Note that this has nothing to do with your new favorite (and still tragically unoriginal) term, "naturalistic fallacy" and nothing to do with moralistic statements.

spendius wrote:

And if, as I presume, you mean aidan is the one who has issues figuring it out, she would scoff at such a daft idea, let me tell you that we have form back 3 years, it must be now, my- how time doth fly and lo the bird is on the wing, so I wouldn't worry about me and Becksie. We've had our ups and downs.

What I said seems to be accurate and I have been careful in my wording.

spendius wrote:

We once tried to write a romantic tale set in 18th Century France on a story thread and she couldn't figure out what I was getting at in that but she seemed to like the idea of being chased through the bushes by men of doubtful character. To cut a much longer story short with a cliche.

Oh goody, another chance to use the new term. Random Tangent alert! *woop woop*

0 Replies

Oh my - look who's getting thin-skinned now...I wasn't aware I'd insulted you. If I did - I'm sorry- truly.

I think I said something like, from the moment I knew I was pregnant I'd have done anything to protect my child's life....I think that goes a little beyond implication.

But yeah, that was pages and pages ago- so maybe you just forgot.

And yes, I do know that it is acceptable to use 'they' when referencing an unnamed he or she as in: That person is going to the movies- they will also want to have some popcorn.

But I've never seen it used as you used it referencing a singular, specific person - I guess if I'd been unsure of the gender it'd have made more sense to use 's/he'- shorter too - less letters.

Sorry for any misunderstanding.

0 Replies

I don't really know what to choose as I am due in the pub at 22.10.

Quote:

spendius wrote:
You're dead wrong there old chap. I operate on evolutionary principles.

You lot are kidding yourselves. You wouldn't go near evolutionary principles if you knew what they consist of. They are just words to you.

You even think price gouging is "wrong". i.e. "bad" (NF in operation). And price gouging is tummy tickling in the struggle for existence.

I think this right here exemplifies spendius's methods of operation almost perfectly. We get condescension, the insistence of knowledge without any support for it (and past evidence to the contrary), and best of all the listing of a fallacy in order to show further problems in our understanding, despite just learning about it after my repeated insistance (and of course, he completely missed the context and chose the wrong version). The only thing missing is a misplaced attempt at literary wit.

I did support it. Anybody who thinks an itsy-bitsy bit of price gouging is "wrong" fails the evolution test and is up with the NF in operation as well. My method of operation is to support what I say, or at least be able to. And I did. Price gougers can be "good" to an evolutionist. It's a form of emergency rationing system which goes into operation faster that a bureaucracy can. Buys time. You see how half-baked you are unless you like price gougers like I do.

It follows from that that there is no condescension and thus the assertion that there was was not only unsupported but couldn't be.

And, of course, condescension being a "bad" thing the old NF is back in both its forms.

And all I learned was that an aspect of common sense, often joked about on TV, had a been given a label--"The Naturalistic Fallacy" so that it can be used in debates in dinner-party circles and other lower-middle-class gathering places as a weapon of last resort and was quite effective with those who don't question what it means.

It means every time you make a value judgement you're off your trolley. Maybe Mr Moore had ended up with the college Mrs Mop.

Very utilitarian I must say. No more "nice" frocks. Great goals are okay because they are not value judgements. It's in the back of the net.

It is often the case that refined wit passes clean over the heads of the LMC without it making a sound.

0 Replies

Mr S wrote-

Quote:

Perhaps you should, as it's from the DI, a group constituting the face of ID as well as its main advocacy group, not to mention paying/including Behe and Dembski as fellows. As an aside, if you want to get an idea for their incompetence covered with a shiny veneer, they just signed on Michael Medved (terrible idea, he barely knows what he himself thinks on this issue). The Wedge document is similar in that the fact that it was leaked shows massive incompetence but when no other options (outside of simple and coherent honesty) were available, they embraced it and tried to play semantics games.

That's what I said--a load of crap.

0 Replies

Mr S wrote-

Quote:

Note that this has nothing to do with your new favorite (and still tragically unoriginal) term, "naturalistic fallacy" and nothing to do with moralistic statements.

It was not me who introduced the term "naturalistic fallacy" to this debate.
I admitted I had never heard of it.

(A hush goes round the room.)

When I did look into it in case I was missing something I discovered that the "goodest" uncles were the ones who gave you some silver coins and the arseholes were the ones who didn't. And that it was illogical to think they were the "goodest" because their actions could cause a young lad to think "this is a breeze" and that that's bad and that the "struggle for survival" is "good".

And Darwin without generous relatives is selected out. Nobody who sat on a horse like that could not be if I understand village virgins correctly.

But I am glad you introduced me to the subject formally. It helps me to understand your posts better.

What on earth is a "moralistic statement" that hasn't been known for 2,000 years or so?

0 Replies

"Moralistic behavior" is a manmade definition that has no universal standard.

0 Replies

I'm not going to argue with that. I could get myself all bogged down in naturalistic fallacies if I did.

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

Oh my - look who's getting thin-skinned now...I wasn't aware I'd insulted you. If I did - I'm sorry- truly.

Uh... not sure how you got thin-skinned out of that. I took the insinuation that I'm "selectively smart" as a personal attack which leads to one of two main conclusions: either I'm just randomly dumb or I plan these things out and am being dishonest. Since right after that claim you noted how convenient it was for the "evolution" or my "chosen" character, I picked the last one.

aidan wrote:

I think I said something like, from the moment I knew I was pregnant I'd have done anything to protect my child's life....I think that goes a little beyond implication.

Ah, you're right. In any case, I forgot and all I did was use the third person neutral pronoun. I think I'll call you 'it' just to be spiteful Wink

.

aidan wrote:

But I've never seen it used as you used it referencing a singular, specific person - I guess if I'd been unsure of the gender it'd have made more sense to use 's/he'- shorter too - less letters.

Perhaps it's more common in America.

aidan wrote:

Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Same here, let's ignore the personal stuff Wink

.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I did support it. Anybody who thinks an itsy-bitsy bit of price gouging is "wrong" fails the evolution test and is up with the NF in operation as well.

Uh... which one of my points are you responding to, exactly? I think you've just mushed two of them together.

spendius wrote:

My method of operation is to support what I say, or at least be able to. And I did.

Well anyways, this is wrong. You haven't supported the notion that you understand diddly concerning evolutionary theory, let alone any scientific concepts (you seem more like an armchair philosopher type to me, just a guess). In fact, you've demonstrated ignorance on various topics, which I believe I alluded to when I said "evidence to the contrary".

spendius wrote:

Price gougers can be "good" to an evolutionist. It's a form of emergency rationing system which goes into operation faster that a bureaucracy can. Buys time. You see how half-baked you are unless you like price gougers like I do.

Uh no, I only see how half-baked this last reference of yours is. You've slightly fleshed out your claim, but haven't supported it beyond mere assertions of a slightly different level and seem to have forgotten the original claim, even. Of course, few people identify themselves as "evolutionists" and I think I'd be right in guessing that you're not terribly familiar with the topic.

Here's what I quoted you as saying:

spendius wrote:

You lot are kidding yourselves. You wouldn't go near evolutionary principles if you knew what they consist of. They are just words to you.

You even think price gouging is "wrong". i.e. "bad" (NF in operation). And price gouging is tummy tickling in the struggle for existence.

So it wasn't just a possibility of relabeling, you were arrogantly saying that others didn't understand these ideas in the slightest, but you most certainly did. It had nothing to do with what an "evolutionist" "can" do. Even with your newer version, you've failed spectacularly at providing any connection to evolutionary theory. Apparently you think you can just substitute cutthroat capitalism, which just supports my idea that you have at best a cartoonish idea of evolution even better.

spendius wrote:

And, of course, condescension being a "bad" thing the old NF is back in both its forms.

Hahaha, this is just so pitiful. Every time I express an opinion that might involve some stigma or negative idea, you act like it has something to do with the naturalistic fallacy. I'd recommend that you spend a bit more time learning about it, maybe a bit more than just reading Wikipedia.

spendius wrote:

And all I learned was that an aspect of common sense, often joked about on TV, had a been given a label--"The Naturalistic Fallacy" so that it can be used in debates in dinner-party circles and other lower-middle-class gathering places as a weapon of last resort and was quite effective with those who don't question what it means.

Nope, as you've been concentrating on the wrong one - I clearly implied the second one that you listed. Here's how a standard naturalistic fallacy goes: Animals kill each other all the time, it's natural. We're animals. So it's natural for us to kill each other and therefore morally OK.

Got it?

It's not as common sense as you think. People employ it all the time without realizing it. The version I listed is also an example of a third kind of naturalistic fallacy, where what is described is what should be now and in the future (moralistically)

spendius wrote:

It means every time you make a value judgement you're off your trolley. Maybe Mr Moore had ended up with the college Mrs Mop.

Nope, not at all. It has to do with attaching an ephemeral transcendent property to a clearly definable property. I've clearly made no arguments indicating that explicitly and to get that out of them implicitly you'd need to make a huge amount of assumptions about my intentions and meanings (in other words, invent things).

spendius wrote:

That's what I said--a load of crap.

Good, now apply it to the context in which I originally referenced it.

spendius wrote:

It was not me who introduced the term "naturalistic fallacy" to this debate.
I admitted I had never heard of it.

I will answer this with the extremely pedantic reply of "duh".

spendius wrote:

(A hush goes round the room.)

When I did look into it in case I was missing something I discovered that the "goodest" uncles were the ones who gave you some silver coins and the arseholes were the ones who didn't. And that it was illogical to think they were the "goodest" because their actions could cause a young lad to think "this is a breeze" and that that's bad and that the "struggle for survival" is "good".

Congrats on what I think is an attempt at humor (emphasis on attempt).

spendius wrote:

And Darwin without generous relatives is selected out. Nobody who sat on a horse like that could not be if I understand village virgins correctly.

But I am glad you introduced me to the subject formally. It helps me to understand your posts better.

What on earth is a "moralistic statement" that hasn't been known for 2,000 years or so?

Again, not quite sure what to do with these. All but the second paragraph are anything but straightforward or clear - I'm sorry that I don't really care about your reference to village virgins. Perhaps one of your pub friends will care, please show it to them. I wonder what the age of a moralistic statement has to do with anything.

0 Replies

Mr. S. wrote:

Quote:

Since right after that claim you noted how convenient it was for the "evolution" or my "chosen" character, I picked the last one.

I was just trying to stay on topic...if I slip a little word like 'evolution' or 'organism' in at least once a post - I can feel justified in being over here in science.

And yeah - I hate all that spiteful, personal stuff too- as far as I'm concerned it should be totally aborted.
In fact- I have an idea for a new topic in the music forum... I think I'll head over there for a while.

Nice talking to you.-

0 Replies

Right then Mr S for solipsism and solecism-

You don't know what I've responded to when it was as plain as day.

I have "mushed" two together which I hadn't.

I'm wrong. An assertion.

I don't understand "diddly" about evolution theory. An assertion.

I don't understand "any" scientific concepts. An assertion.

I'm an armchair philosopher. An assertion.

I've demonstrated ignorance. An assertion.

You "believe" you have alluded to something or other. An act of faith.

My reference to price gougers is "half-baked". An assertion.

I "seem" to have forgotten my original claim. A wishy-washy assertion.

You think you would be right in guessing that I'm not not terribly familiar
with the topic. Jeepers creepers.

I was arrogantly saying that others didn't understand these ideas in the slightest. Assertion.

What I said had nothing to do with what an evolutionist "can" do. Cripes.

I've failed spectacularly at providing any connection to evolutionary theory. Assertion.

I'm pitiful. Assertion.

I act like a value judgment has something to do with the NF. I don't act it. A value judgment always involves the NF. They did before Mr Moore was a gleam in his Daddy's eye.

I apparently think I can substitute cut-throat capitalism. No. Leave out "I apparently think". Then you have it.

I am recommended to study the NF when I've known about it since my Mum said I was a good boy for getting her a glass of sherry.

You've switched the argument to "morality" which is out of order, "immoral", on a science thread. an ad hom. as well. You want the Morality forum for morality. All's fair in love and war.

I need to make a huge amount of assumptions about your intentions and meanings. I need no so thing. I don't even want to. A " large number" might be better though.

I'm instructed to apply my "load of crap" principle to your reference when I have been applying it all along about the Disco & Co.

You brought moralistic statements into this. Not me.

You're not debating anything as far as I can tell.

Before you came on with the intention of demonstrating your superior intelligence we were debating, admittedly a trifle desultorily, giving the kids in schools evolution theory taught by people who have no understanding of it and who would shrink violently away from it if they did judging by their lifestyles and other conventionalities and sentimentalities they demonstrate everytime we hear from them and whether American science would go off a cliff if the kids were denied this privilege on the grounds of the few "controversial issues" that the Texas senator mentioned.

You seem to be playing a form of ping-pong with the kids swept to one side as of no consequence when your pride is in the vicinity.

0 Replies

Oh nice, spendius, you know the words solipsism and solecism. Congratulations. Too bad you can't apply the first one correctly and the second is far from true in comparison to your own sentences. Or do you still think you can write worth a damn? Just ask other people.

spendius wrote:

You don't know what I've responded to when it was as plain as day.

I have "mushed" two together which I hadn't.

Of course you have and you obviously didn't even attempt to understand what I was referring to.

Here's the quote when I mention "support"

Shirakawasuna wrote:

We get condescension [and] the insistence of knowledge without any support for it (and past evidence to the contrary)[...]

I was replying to

spendius wrote:

You're dead wrong there old chap. I operate on evolutionary principles.

You lot are kidding yourselves. You wouldn't go near evolutionary principles if you knew what they consist of. They are just words to you.

So I'm claiming that you insisted on having knowledge, alluding to your claims concerning "evolutionary principles", without giving any support for it. You reply:

spendius wrote:

I did support it. Anybody who thinks an itsy-bitsy bit of price gouging is "wrong" fails the evolution test and is up with the NF in operation as well.

Your reply seems to address another thing I wrote, the one about the misapplication of the naturalistic fallacy I referenced.

spendius wrote:

I'm wrong. An assertion.

One which I supported in my explanation. Funny how you don't put "unsupported" in front of it, eh? I guess I have to repeat it:

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Well anyways, this is wrong. You haven't supported the notion that you understand diddly concerning evolutionary theory, let alone any scientific concepts (you seem more like an armchair philosopher type to me, just a guess). In fact, you've demonstrated ignorance on various topics, which I believe I alluded to when I said "evidence to the contrary".

spendius wrote:

I don't understand "diddly" about evolution theory. An assertion.

This is clearly not what I said, read above. I said you have given no support for your claims to understanding evolutionary theory and have in fact demonstrated ignorance on various simple scientific concepts.

spendius wrote:

I don't understand "any" scientific concepts. An assertion.

See above.

spendius wrote:

I'm an armchair philosopher. An assertion.

Actually, what I said was

Shirakawasuna wrote:

you seem more like an armchair philosopher type to me, just a guess

Deliberately misinterpreting people is a form of dishonesty, spendius. These sentences aren't hard to figure out. For example, I explicitly said that you seem like an armchair philosopher type, and that the statement was a guess. I suppose it's too much to ask that the person who rambles on to flex their supposed literary muscle read my very explicit caveats for comprehension?

spendius wrote:

I've demonstrated ignorance. An assertion.

Yes, a demonstrated one. Just go back to the section on nucleosynthesis for a single example.

spendius wrote:

You "believe" you have alluded to something or other. An act of faith.

Wow, this is another example of something which either demonstrates willful misinterpretation or incompetence. What I said was

Shirakawasuna wrote:

In fact, you've demonstrated ignorance on various topics, which I believe I alluded to when I said "evidence to the contrary".

"Believe" is transitive here, which if you check the OED or m-w.com, has no religious/faith version. Simply put, it means to consider true or accurate.

spendiu wrote:

My reference to price gougers is "half-baked". An assertion.

Uh, I was just making a stupid joke out of your own unsupported assertion of others' ideas being "half-baked". I did a better job supporting it, too, as not only did I tie it to an explanation, but the explanation itself was easy to understand and written in plain english.

spendius wrote:

I "seem" to have forgotten my original claim. A wishy-washy assertion.

You seem to think honest qualifiers are wishy-washy. Would you prefer it if I just accused you of forgetting the original claim? By all means it looks like you did, so that's what I said.

spendius wrote:

You think you would be right in guessing that I'm not not terribly familiar
with the topic. Jeepers creepers.

Yes, and I explained why.

spendius wrote:

I was arrogantly saying that others didn't understand these ideas in the slightest. Assertion.

Yup, a subjective one. It reads as pretty damn arrogant to me. Should I repeat it?

spendius wrote:

You lot are kidding yourselves. You wouldn't go near evolutionary principles if you knew what they consist of. They are just words to you.

You even think price gouging is "wrong". i.e. "bad" (NF in operation). And price gouging is tummy tickling in the struggle for existence.

That's you, being arrogant ^.

spendius wrote:

What I said had nothing to do with what an evolutionist "can" do. Cripes.

It's true, and I supported this. You wrote all of these "responses" and never noticed the irony in that you're also listing "assertions" and not supporting them in the least (occasionally getting them completely wrong). Most of the responses in this post that aren't your lists of what you think I've said seem to be small incredulous or disdainful remarks (psst, unsupported).

spendius wrote:

I've failed spectacularly at providing any connection to evolutionary theory. Assertion.

Yes, an assertion. As supporting it would be an attempt to prove the negative, all you'd have to do to show it wrong would be to actually explain how you tied any of this to evolutionary theory. Very easy. Instead , you only alluded to your usage of it in the original post.

spendius wrote:

I'm pitiful. Assertion.

Another deliberate misinterpretation or display of incompetence.

Here's what I said:

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Hahaha, this is just so pitiful. Every time I express an opinion that might involve some stigma or negative idea, you act like it has something to do with the naturalistic fallacy. I'd recommend that you spend a bit more time learning about it, maybe a bit more than just reading Wikipedia.

I'm talking about the specific instances where you keep bringing up the naturalistic fallacy - you've even started referring to it as "NF", probably due to how often you randombly bring it up to incorrectly assert its application.

spendius wrote:

I act like a value judgment has something to do with the NF. I don't act it. A value judgment always involves the NF. They did before Mr Moore was a gleam in his Daddy's eye.

Meh, this is essentially a nonresponse to my counterclaim. All you've done is restated your original assertion in a slightly different way. So here's what I said, again:

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Nope, not at all. It has to do with attaching an ephemeral transcendent property to a clearly definable property. I've clearly made no arguments indicating that explicitly and to get that out of them implicitly you'd need to make a huge amount of assumptions about my intentions and meanings (in other words, invent things).

spendius wrote:

I apparently think I can substitute cut-throat capitalism. No. Leave out "I apparently think". Then you have it.

So my guess was correct. Thank you for again affirming your ignorance of evolutionary theory. Perhaps if you look up "social darwinism" you'll understand how this reply is supported by being literate and slightly educated on the topic. I am asking that you be humble with your understanding, and you seem very opposed to the idea. I'm not sure if it's worth my time to fix correct your understanding, in that case.

spendius wrote:

I am recommended to study the NF when I've known about it since my Mum said I was a good boy for getting her a glass of sherry.

Yes, because you keep using the one I wasn't referring to, despite my repeated corrections. Well, that and the misapplication of the one you found. You've let your new discovery of the wrong reference go to your head and have completely forgotten to apply my use of it in the context of my older posts.

spendius wrote:

You've switched the argument to "morality" which is out of order, "immoral", on a science thread. an ad hom. as well. You want the Morality forum for morality. All's fair in love and war.

I never switched the argument to "morality", that's been your game all along. I'll refer you back to my original posts if you don't believe me and if you don't actually go and check it, I'll be forced to list them myself.

In fact, the only times I ever seem to reference morality have to do when I'm defending my usage of words as having nothing to do with the moral concepts you keep insinuating to be in them. If you disagree, start quoting me, as again it's quite hard to prove a negative.

I believe you started by claiming abhorrence of torture as requiring the "Christian dispensation".

spendius wrote:

I need to make a huge amount of assumptions about your intentions and meanings. I need no so thing. I don't even want to. A " large number" might be better though.

I've already explained how this is the case earlier, but I'll do it again. For example, when I have referenced "bad", say in the example of your writing, I did not attach any transcendant indefinable properties to it, but was using it as a convenient placeholder for a general idea combining things like "uncommonly constructed", "rambling", "incoherent", "amateurish", etc.

You sought to claim that it was a statement susceptible to the naturalistic fallacy, which is not the case unless you assume I was using it in a more moralistic sense and assumed that all my other explanations about why your occasional rambles fail to communicate.

spendius wrote:

I'm instructed to apply my "load of crap" principle to your reference when I have been applying it all along about the Disco & Co.

Then you need to revisit the context a bit more and see that I also claimed that they were at the forefront of the ID movement and regularly adopt leading ID figures as "fellows", often paying them, publishing them, giving them internet forums, having them edit various publications, etc. How does this apply to the original context?

Shirakawasuna wrote:

spendius wrote:
Saying that not all religious people are as ignorant as me is a meaningless sentence.

How so? I know many religious people who understand science quite well and have no problems with it whatsoever. Note that if you actually understand ID and subscribe to it, you absolutely do have a problem with science. Have you read the Wedge document?

The Wedge document clearly explains an anti-science agenda and your use of the still-offensive "AIDsers" very strongly implies that you favor ID.

spendius wrote:

You brought moralistic statements into this. Not me.

Now that's an unsupported assertion, there. I've already explained and provided a reference for how you brought it up and also stated that most of my posts involving the word have to do with me denying that my statements are moralistic. It'd be easy for you to support this assertion, if you're correct.

spendius wrote:

You're not debating anything as far as I can tell.

An ironic description of yourself? Wink

Sometimes it does feel like I'm debating no one, given your incoherent rambles you use as the primary justification for your main points.

spendius wrote:

Before you came on with the intention of demonstrating your superior intelligence we were debating, admittedly a trifle desultorily, giving the kids in schools evolution theory taught by people who have no understanding of it and who would shrink violently away from it if they did judging by their lifestyles and other conventionalities and sentimentalities they demonstrate everytime we hear from them and whether American science would go off a cliff if the kids were denied this privilege on the grounds of the few "controversial issues" that the Texas senator mentioned.

I have yet to see you supply any support for why anyone teaching evolution should shrink away from it if they understood it. I've interpreted various fallacious ideas in there, but you've really given nothing explicit. You don't seem to be aware of the general situation when it comes to the political controversy around the teaching of evolution in the U.S., as the pressures almost always constitute attempting to slip in some form of creationism in an attempt at "equal time". Sometimes the controversy constitutes casting undue doubt on the veracity of evolutionary theory. As opposed to trying to simply remove it from the curriculum, that is.

spendius wrote:

You seem to be playing a form of ping-pong with the kids swept to one side as of no consequence when your pride is in the vicinity.

I don't see any support for that forthcoming Wink

.

0 Replies

I don't mind playing ping-pong for a short while if just to see that my backspin swerver serve is still in decent nick after all these years but I soon get bored with it.

I concede on all points and all the rest you might bring up in the future about what word means what and what you said about what I had said you had said you had said and what you had said about what you had said and that your compositional techniques and command of the synax and rhythm of the English Language are best communicated to the next generation through your hands rather than mine which are obviously by the internal logic of this trifling communication wanked out oil rags of the type that once were a pair of knickers are sacrificed to a task such as wiping sump oil off the frock-front when the radiator cap was removed before it really ought to have been and they tend to get re-used and after a couple of years being moved around the garage floor they are eventually discarded as wanked-out and replaced by something else. Like a pair of underpants if you don't mind my referring to underpants at this time of day.

Is there a dash in re-used apart from the one I just used in order to more clearly convey my meaning. Sorry about forgetting the question mark just there. ?

0 Replies

What I wish to know is how an atheist can give kids a moral compass assuming it is agreed it is a "good" thing for them to have one such.

With reference say to pilfering. Nothing serious. (I apologise to any shopkeepers or garden or home accessories disposal plants if that offended their personal philosophy.)

**No response is required from those who don't think it is a "good" thing for kids to have moral guidance. I know what they will do. It's old hat. In fact there is only one thing they can do.

0 Replies

Oh, if only that reply was actually ironic (outside of honestly admitting fault).

I suppose there's a shorter word for amateurish armchair-philosopher-type who seeks to impress with poorly strewn-together sentences dashed with literary references all the while trotting out fallacies and what can only be described as sophistry: troll.

I believe I offered optimism repeatedly as to your ability to see reason or respond to criticisms. Let's just say it's gone Wink

.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

What I wish to know is how an atheist can give kids a moral compass assuming it is agreed it is a "good" thing for them to have one such.

The issue is tangential. There is nothing inherent in theism (or for a theist) that substantiates a moral compass, and of course there isn't any inherent to atheism. Christopher Hitchens puts it best when describing such a "morality" system as groveling before a celestial dictator. I might add that when the theistic concept is fleshed out, he tends to be a rather nasty fellow.

To put it more simply, your question is loaded as it implies that a theist can properly substantiate such things.

This might seem like avoiding the question, but avoiding a loaded question is what one should very much expect.

0 Replies

spendi, I'm curious; please show us evidence that theism has produced morals in this world? I betcha for every one you produce, I can produce double the amount of negatives for every positive.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know