• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Annoying creationists

Status
Not open for further replies.
articulett said:
too clueless to know that he's the buffoon he accuses everyone else of being.
Click to expand...
Sometimes it seems like of all of human drama can be explained by two psychological phenomona: projection, and not being able to ask for help.
 
The Atheist said:
Your posts [?] shows a complete inability to read very simple, short posts
Click to expand...
A perusal of my posting history would demonstrate that I do quite well with simple, short posts.

If you're having trouble getting your point across, you might consider spending more effort on clarity, and less on slavering insults.

The only hint I'll give you is to ask WHERE I mentioned Popper's correctness? You're so bleeding thick you didn't even notice that I noted he was WRONG.
Click to expand...
If you can't just say what you mean, perhaps you should concentrate on figuring out what it is you mean. Ordered thoughts are a prerequisite for ordered writing.

WHAT HAVE YOU ACHIEVED?
Click to expand...
What possible relevance could that have to this conversation?

I have spent a career in building scientific instrumentation, so I know something about extracting signal from noise and computer science. That seems apropos in a discussion about data signals. I have a degree in philosophy, which is perhaps relevant to epistimology and Plato.

But I expect my arguments to stand independently, without any more authority than their own logic. So my qualifications - or lack thereof - are wholly unimportant. As are everyone's, really.

What part of this do you disagree with?

give us your credentials for declaring Popper an "idiot",
Click to expand...
This brings up so very, very many questions.

1. What is your addiction to argument from authority - why do you ask for "credentials" rather than arguments?

2. Are you actually interested in a philosophical discussion, or do you just want to hurl insults and demand credentials?

3. And of course, the question both most important and most likely to be fruitless: did you actually read the D.C. Stove article?
 
Last edited:
John Hewitt said:
Quite so, I can't remember a single posting from either Yahzi or Articulett that manages to be both polite and sensible.
Click to expand...
What, exactly, do you find impolite or insensible about this post?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2290652&postcount=1906

Accordingly, his criterion of falsifiability does not apply to his own work.
Click to expand...
I really can't think of anything to say to this. And I don't know where to get that little jaw-dropping smiley.

For the latter one must turn to Kuhn, Feyerabend, Knorr-Cetina, Mitroff, Ziman, Lakatos or others.
Click to expand...
What a rogue's gallery!

When I said Popper was an idiot, I was being hyperbolic. I had no idea you would drag Kuhn out, and leave me grasping for derogatives.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Actually, I'd rather not have to obtain a degree in psychoanalysis in order to understand what he's saying.
Click to expand...
Good luck, then. ;P

Well, this is quite obfuscatory, I must admit. Could you give us more details of your thoughts on this?
Click to expand...

When I asked him:

Do you find materialism (metaphysical naturalism) adequate to explain the totality of human existance and experience?

He responded:

John Hewitt said:
Dunno! Do you think it has been so far?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2274558&postcount=1681
Click to expand...
 
kleinman said:

ETR depends on the size of genome and mutation rate used in ev. [mucho snippo] There is/are no such selection process(s).
Click to expand...

Dr. Kleinman, I wasn't successful at parsing your statement for the answers to my questions. I'm seeking four numbers, not four pararaphs:

- Minimum estimated time to evolve the bacterial genome.
- Maximum estimated time for same.

- Minimum estimated time to evolve man from chimp ancestor.
- Maximum estimated time for same.

Thanks in advance...
 
Scott said:
Dr. Kleinman, I wasn't successful at parsing your statement for the answers to my questions. I'm seeking four numbers, not four pararaphs:

- Minimum estimated time to evolve the bacterial genome.
- Maximum estimated time for same.

- Minimum estimated time to evolve man from chimp ancestor.
- Maximum estimated time for same.
Click to expand...
I think two of those "estimated" should be "available."

~~ Paul
 
Yahzi said:
When I asked him (John Hewitt):

Do you find materialism (metaphysical naturalism) adequate to explain the totality of human existance and experience?

He responded: "Dunno, do you think it has been so far?"
Click to expand...

And I am still waiting for a reply.
 
John Hewitt said:
And I am still waiting for a reply.
Click to expand...

Yes. We've not needed to invoke anything supernatural to discover all that we've discovered so far. Moreover, the naturalistic explanation in which nucleic acids are the basis of replicators is a far more useful means of understanding evolution than your assertion that cells are the true replicators; in fact, recent information continually shows how off base that assertion is: http://schaechter.asmblog.org/

However, I imagine that if you are proffering the notion that something other than natural processes are responsible for life, then the obfuscating idea that cells are the "true replicators" of life might be usefully obfuscating.
 
I couldn't see this on a quick search before:


http://objectiveministries.org/creation/kangaroo.html

Middle Eastern Kangaroos:


Did Kangaroos once live in the Middle East?

Like most people who have been indoctrinated by the secular media, your answer to this question will probably be:

"No, of course not! Kangaroos live only in Australia."

<snip>


So then, did kangaroos once live in the Middle East? ("It is clear that they must have. There is no other sound, Biblical explanation!")
Click to expand...


Jim

Pretty accurate spoof... check out their divine org chart...
 
Last edited:
articulett said:
Yes. We've not needed to invoke anything supernatural to discover all that we've discovered so far. Moreover, the naturalistic explanation in which nucleic acids are the basis of replicators is a far more useful means of understanding evolution than your assertion that cells are the true replicators; in fact, recent information continually shows how off base that assertion is: http://schaechter.asmblog.org/

However, I imagine that if you are proffering the notion that something other than natural processes are responsible for life, then the obfuscating idea that cells are the "true replicators" of life might be usefully obfuscating.
Click to expand...
I didn't ask for more irrelevant links or irrelevant nonsense from you. I just said, to Yahzi, "Dunno, do you think it (metaphysical naturalism, or something like that) has been adequate to explain the world so far?" I am still waiting for him to reply.
 
Hewitt said:
I didn't ask for more irrelevant links or irrelevant nonsense from you. I just said, to Yahzi, "Dunno, do you think it (metaphysical naturalism, or something like that) has been adequate to explain the world so far?" I am still waiting for him to reply.
Click to expand...
What does that question mean, exactly?

First of all, science doesn't require metaphysical naturalism, it only needs scientific naturalism, which is purely epistemological.

Second, clearly naturalism has been adequate so far, in one sense, since that's all science uses.

So are you asking whether science could have made more progress so far if something "broader" than naturalism were its epistemological basis? Or are you suggesting that there is a major flaw in our explanation for something because we've been too closed-minded? Or are you contemplating the idea that we will need to broaden scientific naturalism in the future?

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
What does that question mean, exactly?

First of all, science doesn't require metaphysical naturalism, it only needs scientific naturalism, which is purely epistemological.

Second, clearly naturalism has been adequate so far, in one sense, since that's all science uses.

So are you asking whether science could have made more progress so far if something "broader" than naturalism were its epistemological basis? Or are you suggesting that there is a major flaw in our explanation for something because we've been too closed-minded? Or are you contemplating the idea that we will need to broaden scientific naturalism in the future?

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

I am far from sure what metaphysical naturalism means. My problem is tht Yahzi is demanding that I commit myself to a belief in it and seems to be claiming that this belief system, whatever it is, has enormous explanatory power. He seems to be saying that it adequately explains everything. He seems to be claiming that I am somehow being heretical in not wishing to join this sect, or whatever. So, I want to know what metaphysical naturalism is and how it copes with explaining some of the knottier problems that concern us.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
First of all, science doesn't require metaphysical naturalism, it only needs scientific naturalism, which is purely epistemological.

Second, clearly naturalism has been adequate so far, in one sense, since that's all science uses.
~~ Paul
Click to expand...

Thank you, Paul. I like my Science natural without artificial additives. I want the pure method untainted by bleepin philosophical interpretations.

True, there are some epistomological assumptions in the mix. Some yeast is necessary in the bread making. But I just want the bread to rise, not explode in the oven.
 
Hewitt said:
I am far from sure what metaphysical naturalism means. My problem is tht Yahzi is demanding that I commit myself to a belief in it and seems to be claiming that this belief system, whatever it is, has enormous explanatory power. He seems to be saying that it adequately explains everything. He seems to be claiming that I am somehow being heretical in not wishing to join this sect, or whatever. So, I want to know what metaphysical naturalism is and how it copes with explaining some of the knottier problems that concern us.
Click to expand...
Well, geez, I'm not sure we need to make a sect out of it. I think he's just suggesting that we not invoke supernatural mechanisms, such as they are, without need. Certainly not as a "supernatural of the gaps" explanations for things we don't yet understand. He may also be daring to suggest that if we ever discover that we need a supernatural explanation, we will soon discover that it is not supernatural at all. In fact, if we try to define supernatural, I suspect we'll get into deep trouble.

~~ Paul
 
hammegk said:
How are you doing defining your Natural twin gods, Energy, and Time?
Click to expand...

Gods are definitionally unmeasurable, and therefore not subject to any definition -- not even a relativistic one. Whereas energy and time are measurable.

Thus your question, as posed, is a non-sequitur.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Well, geez, I'm not sure we need to make a sect out of it. I think he's just suggesting that we not invoke supernatural mechanisms, such as they are, without need. Certainly not as a "supernatural of the gaps" explanations for things we don't yet understand. He may also be daring to suggest that if we ever discover that we need a supernatural explanation, we will soon discover that it is not supernatural at all. In fact, if we try to define supernatural, I suspect we'll get into deep trouble.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...
I am glad we do not want to make a sect out of it but I keep being subject to the accusation that I don't follow it - what, precisely, is that acusation about? The implication from Yahzi and his friend Articulett, repeated again and again and often rather explicit, is that I am proposing supernatural explanations. So, would somebody please tell me exactly what this faith is that I am being accused of breaking?

I prefer epistemology because that is the "Theory of Knowledge" and knowledge is necessarily encoded as data, as are other types of evolution. It lends itself to a merger with the rest of evolution but what is anybody supposed to do with "metaphysical naturalism?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom