Explain this, creationists...a Liger!

[neutrino_cannon]

neutrino_cannon, yeah, fossils are fun to fool around with; could I say a lizard is a lizard? Next you'll be beating me with archy's wings.

Hardly. Were it that the squamata had anything to do with avian evolution, I might say the line is fuzzy. No reputably scientist would posit anything but archosaurian ancestery for birds.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Biblical? Who cares? Are you a nut?

This is the only part that is even slightly worthy of a reply.

"Biblical?" Well, unless you are about to propose some genius theory that is neither evolution by natural selection nor a Biblical creationism the only possible basis for your opinions is Biblical creationism.

"Who cares?" Biblical creationists seem to care very much. The modern world cares somewhat that the creationists try to misrepresent scientific ideas and information to shoehorn it into their highly partisan view of Christianity. If you don't care then perhaps you should dismount that high horse of yours.

"Are you a nut?" Very possibly. That begs the question as to whether anyone who is not at least slightly nutty spends time on these boards. Perhaps I should seek advice on that from someone with more than double my post-count.

 

[hammegk]

"Are you a nut?" Very possibly. That begs the question as to whether anyone who is not at least slightly nutty spends time on these boards.

Too true for comfort ....

Perhaps I should seek advice on that from someone with more than double my post-count.

Sorry. My Magic 8-Ball says "Ask again later.".

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

"Biblical?" Well, unless you are about to propose some genius theory that is neither evolution by natural selection nor a Biblical creationism the only possible basis for your opinions is Biblical creationism.

"Who cares?" Biblical creationists seem to care very much. The modern world cares somewhat that the creationists try to misrepresent scientific ideas and information to shoehorn it into their highly partisan view of Christianity. If you don't care then perhaps you should dismount that high horse of yours.

You seem only to have replied to the frivolous issue, so I've re-posted the more substantive topics.

 

[Dr Adequate]

But what makes people wonder where you're coming from is that if you're not a fundie, you have been very thoroughly duped by them. All the trash about evolution being based on atheism --- where else did you get this nonsense? Not from reading a scientific textbook or journal. Not by talking to scientists or to people who understand science. Did it just pop into your head one day? Or... where does one hear this cretinous drivel morning noon and night? I smell a fundie fink somewhere in all this.

Repent. hammegk! Ask Darwin to forgive you, or Jack Chick, the Stupid One, will take your brain. Only science can save you from eternal ignorance! The truth will make you free!

 

[drkitten]

Please advise the fools who compile dictionaries ...



Other than that, thanks.

That would be me, I guess. My professional advice is to find a better dictionary. From the OED:

...
6. Strict accuracy, severe exactitude.
...

 

[hammegk]

Something about spelling tests you don't understand?

 

[hammegk]

.... No reputably(sic) scientist would posit anything but archosaurian ancestery for birds.

Agreed.

Now I ask if you deem "posit" as an indication of a "fact"?

But what makes people wonder where you're coming from is that if you're not a fundie, you have been very thoroughly duped by them. All the trash about evolution being based on atheism --- where else did you get this nonsense? Not from reading a scientific textbook or journal. Not by talking to scientists or to people who understand science. Did it just pop into your head one day?

Good question. What you are hearing is the type section so far as I know, and is the result of many months reading and posting, much of it on JREF. When I first arrived here, I was a philosophical dualist, although I'd never really thought about it. My science background is old and rusty, but it does exist, with a fair amount of earth sciences, a fair amount of math/physics/chem, weakest in humanities.

I currently favor objective idealism as a philosophy, and as such, evolution by random chance is not logically sustainable. I've previously mentioned that I lean more towards Strong Anthropomorphic Principle as a possible solution.

You seem only to have replied to the frivolous issue, so I've re-posted the more substantive topics.

Christianity and Arks are frivolous imnsho.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I currently favor objective idealism as a philosophy, and as such, evolution by random chance is not logically sustainable.

Look, even if there was a way to get from ontology (objective idealism or whatever) to "evolution by random chance is not logically sustainable" (and I haven't seen such an argument) then the evidence that this has actually happened would be sufficient to knock over the philosophy, not vice versa. But I don't think there is. How do you get from the ontological to the empirical --- from what "what" means, to what has taken place?

I should warn you that so far as I know no-one has ever produced any such argument that has proved successful. I think I know why, but that would require another thread and another debate. However, even if it isn't impossible, if you can do it you'll be the first. Never mind Darwin being right or wrong --- can you give an example of anything at all which can be proved empirically and from ontology (any ontology?) Show me, in short, any example of the synthetic a priori.

By the way, try "evolution by random chance, inheritance, and natural selection". When you say "random chance" and leave it at that, you're getting a little too close to yet another fundie straw man. The next step is to explicitly say "by chance alone", at which time it's time to call for the nurse and the back-to-front jacket.

 

[hammegk]

..... How do you get from the ontological to the empirical --- from what "what" means, to what has taken place?

I should warn you that so far as I know no-one has ever produced any such argument that has proved successful. I think I know why, but that would require another thread and another debate. However, even if it isn't impossible, if you can do it you'll be the first.

Yeah, and I'm a long way from writing my book.

For some starting points, draw the line life/not-life. Consider Stimpy's Dilemma: iff it effects or affects 'material' it is also 'material'. Does free-will exist?(is yes your answer?). That's a start; please defend your monism.

Never mind Darwin being right or wrong --- can you give an example of anything at all which can be proved empirically and from ontology (any ontology?) Show me, in short, any example of the synthetic a priori.

The problem is that empiricism does not -- cannot -- address material(non-life) ontology vs. ~material(could we say "living" or "sentient" or "aware") ontology.

By the way, try "evolution by random chance, inheritance, and natural selection". When you say "random chance" and leave it at that, you're getting a little too close to yet another fundie straw man. The next step is to explicitly say "by chance alone", at which time it's time to call for the nurse and the back-to-front jacket.

Umm. Inheritance, not "random". You might consider that yourself. Ditto with survival of the "fittest" (should we say luckiest). Have you also convinced yourself that environment vis-a-vis any specific mutation is not blind chance?



But now ya'all have done it, calling me a (biblical) creationist. Baramin, baramin, baramin .... just ignore the YEC pap.

http://www.grisda.org/origins/51004.htm

 

[Dr Adequate]

Yeah, and I'm a long way from writing my book.

For some starting points, draw the line life/not-life. Consider Stimpy's Dilemma: iff it effects or affects 'material' it is also 'material'. Does free-will exist?(is yes your answer?). That's a start; please defend your monism.

The problem is that empiricism does not -- cannot -- address material(non-life) ontology vs. ~material(could we say "living" or "sentient" or "aware") ontology.

Umm. Inheritance, not "random". You might consider that yourself. Ditto with survival of the "fittest" (should we say luckiest). Have you also convinced yourself that environment vis-a-vis any specific mutation is not blind chance?

But now ya'all have done it, calling me a (biblical) creationist. Baramin, baramin, baramin .... just ignore the YEC pap.

http://www.grisda.org/origins/51004.htm

Er... this came out a bit cryptic.

Try again.

Explain how we get from an ontological position --- any ontological position --- to the position that species have not arisen through a process involving inheritance, variation, or natural selection. It just doesn't seem to add up. I mean, there are terms in the supposed conclusion that don't seem to be mentioned in the premises of any ontology I can think of right now. And you've not even sketched out a line of argument. So... how did you reach that conclusion?

 

[fishbob]

Hammy:

evolution by random chance is not logically sustainable.

Evolution by random chance is not how it works. The process is evolution by natural selection, which is not the same thing at all. Maybe you are using 'random chance' as shorthand, but if not, you need to understand evolution before you decide to be against it. Otherwise, you just look stupid.

 

[hammegk]

Er... this came out a bit cryptic.

Darn, I don't even have a monograph to refer you to.

To begin, please define where non-life (material) ends and life begins. Hint: you can't do so in any defensible way. But, please, go ahead & demonstrate my opinion that the energy field(s) that are our universe are not also "alive/sentient/aware-of-surroundings". Strings? Quarks? Bosons? what do you think?

Examine II's boulder-rolling question in a little more depth than "it doesn't have a brain".




fishy: Define random chance. Explain why the evolution of life per Darwinianism of any flavor is not at heart guided solely by it.

 

[fishbob]

Ham - The process of evolution is sequential. Mutations are produced one at at time, in a single organism within a species. The mutation may be harmful, have no effect, or may be beneficial. If beneficial or no-effect, that organism is more likely to reproduce, passing that mutation into the general population of the species. The species includes millions of individuals, the process is continuous, but sequential. Chance certainly plays a part in the process, but selection for survival also plays a part, and mitigates some of the randomness out of the process.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I lean more towards Strong Anthropomorphic Principle as a possible solution.

"Strong Anthropomorphic Principle"? A principle stating that the Universe wants to change into a big muscly man!!

Christianity and Arks are frivolous imnsho.

So, just for clarity, are you happy with the notion that the world is billions not thousands of years old?

 

[hammegk]

"Strong Anthropomorphic Principle"? A principle stating that the Universe wants to change into a big muscly man!!

I'll assume you are joking.

So, just for clarity, are you happy with the notion that the world is billions not thousands of years old?

Apparently at least 14 billion; some believe we are approaching midpoint with, iirc, 8 previous expansions/contractions completed -- so they are at 240 billion +-.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Darn, I don't even have a monograph to refer you to.

To begin, please define where non-life (material) ends and life begins. Hint: you can't do so in any defensible way. But, please, go ahead & demonstrate my opinion that the energy field(s) that are our universe are not also "alive/sentient/aware-of-surroundings". Strings? Quarks? Bosons? what do you think?

Examine II's boulder-rolling question in a little more depth than "it doesn't have a brain".

Er... this came out a bit cryptic.

Try again.

Explain how we get from an ontological position --- any ontological position --- to the position that species have not arisen through a process involving inheritance, variation, or natural selection. It just doesn't seem to add up. I mean, there are terms in the supposed conclusion that don't seem to be mentioned in the premises of any ontology I can think of right now. And you've not even sketched out a line of argument. So... how did you reach that conclusion?

Try again. Harder. Or, if you really, really don't want us to know your opinion, you could always stop posting.

 

[hammegk]

Try again. Harder. Or, if you really, really don't want us to know your opinion, you could always stop posting.

Try ignore, or just scroll down really fast if you can't figure that out. Is any mental lifting on your part --medically perhaps--contraindicated?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Listen carefully. Posting meaningless gibble which you refuse to explain does not make you smarter than the people who point out that it's meaningless gibble which you refuse to explain. Affecting an air of superiority will not actually make you clever. Nonsense is not a substitute for thought, nor arrogance for learning. If you can't answer the question, go away and think about it --- don't strut around pretending that you can answer it when you can't. It's dishonest and silly. Let me ask you again. How would you disprove speciation from ontological premises? It's OK if you can't answer that --- but pretending you can makes you look silly.

 

[hammegk]

Listen carefully. Posting meaningless gibble which you refuse to explain does not make you smarter than the people who point out that it's meaningless gibble which you refuse to explain.

If you find it gibble, why respond? Afraid you might be mistaken?

You have much of interest to contribute in general, and I look forward to your posts. BTW, my real interest is self-education, not Dr. A education.

I asked you a few questions. Try an answer, ask a question I can try to answer, or at least in this thread I suspect we are done. As we stand, I have no idea how to answer your question "How would you disprove speciation from ontological premises?; at the moment, to me, it is of the class "define the Universe & give 3 examples".

Regurgitating:

To begin, please define where non-life (material) ends and life begins. Hint: you can't do so in any defensible way. But, please, go ahead & demonstrate my opinion that the energy field(s) that are our universe are not also "alive/sentient/aware-of-surroundings". Strings? Quarks? Bosons? what do you think?

Examine II's boulder-rolling question in a little more depth than "it doesn't have a brain".