|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 1:36:25 PM | "Putting together all those options and giving room for all kinds of shades, tones and variations, there is no wonder that these discussions sometimes feel like a Tower of Babel scenario."
This statement misses the thrust of the argument. You are lumping together various definitions of "theory" under one class when it is not justified. Some of your examples are disagreements within the confines of science, while others lie outside scientific methodology. The main complaint by those in the biological sciences is simply the dishonesty of those who would pretend to proffer scientific rebuttals to the theory of Evolution when they are doing nothing of the sort. The complaint is not that there are other viewpoints that lie outside the parameters of science. The complaint is only in the abomination of scientific methodology to politically promote ideological and/or metaphysical agendas.
"passportcharlie I never understand ONE paragraph of what you write."
I am in full accord on this. No offense Charlie, but your posts are cryptic. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 1:51:17 PM | wonkavision, sir i never take offense to anyone or anything and cryptic as you so perceive might be the opposite to those who can see.
 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 1:59:07 PM | "wonkavision, sir i never take offense to anyone or anything and cryptic as you so perceive might be the opposite to those who can see."
So your premise here is that understanding your prose is contingent upon some advanced level of enlightenment? Is this your point? If so, that is a fatally flawed argument. First I have yet to see any empirical examples of this proposed profundity on your part, and secondly, it is an ad hoc conjecture. I'm not saying that you have no capacity for profound insight, only that you have not displayed it here. If you are privy to some esoteric wisdom, please grace us with it. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 2:19:06 PM | I think some people are simply misunderstanding each other. Sometimes it can be a little hard to interprit what PassportCharlie is saying, but the spirit of it is never malicious or arrogant as far as I can see.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 2:36:19 PM | wonkavision,
So your premise here is that understanding your prose is contingent upon some advanced level of enlightenment? Is this your point? If so, that is a fatally flawed argument. First I have yet to see any empirical examples of this proposed profundity on your part, and secondly, it is an ad hoc conjecture. I'm not saying that you have no capacity for profound insight, only that you have not displayed it here. If you are privy to some esoteric wisdom, please grace us with it.
i am humble to the enlightment of tony robbins as the world cannot get enough of him, therefore answering you questions and statements, empirical example, ad hoc and esteric which i am neither to both, referanced only to the latter and sir, in referance to at least one partial statement you are intelligent. gracing one who does not assimulate will never change anyones mind.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 2:46:24 PM | "I think some people are simply misunderstanding each other. Sometimes it can be a little hard to interprit what PassportCharlie is saying, but the spirit of it is never malicious or arrogant as far as I can see."
Honestly, that's how I took his statement, but perhaps I misunderstood either the content, or tone, or both. Sometimes I'm not sure if he is, at least partially, saying things in a tongue and cheek manner even. For instance:
"i am humble to the enlightment of tony robbins as the world cannot get enough of him, therefore answering you questions and statements, empirical example, ad hoc and esteric which i am not, referanced only to the latter and sir, in referance to at least one statement you are intelligent."
Okay, Lizard, you tell me what you think that means. In fact, we can have a contest. Everyone give their interpretation of this statement, and Charlie will give the brass ring to the most accurate paraphrasing. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 2:54:17 PM | | I think he just meant that he liked the motivational speaker, Tony Robbins and that, in spite of the fact that he disagreed with you, he thinks that you are intelligent. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 3:06:32 PM | | wonkavision, accurate paraphrasing i assume you are referancing true paraphrasing instead of accurate. i thank you for the kind word paraphrasing as in definition it means moderate and tone down. as to anthony robbins, imho, a simple search on his name should answer your question. empirical example, ad hoc and esteric are words you used. nothing confusing about those words and do you deny intelligence? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 3:20:38 PM | mlr, you are 100% correct intrepreting what i have written. True tony robbins is an inspirational and motivational speaker which is the affect, his cause is spiritual.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 3:23:14 PM | holy-moley.
i'm confused now.
sounds like pastoral puffery to me. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 3:36:38 PM | thisis2weird,
holy-moley.
i'm confused now.
sounds like pastoral puffery to me.
the first pastoral meaning is a musical composition that envokes rural life. as to the second definition i am neither a pastor and i don't have a congregation in this thread.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 3:44:45 PM | "i assume you are referancing true paraphrasing instead of accurate."
That seems to be splitting hairs, but if you prefer "true" to "accurate" that's okay with me. I am familiar with who Tony Robbins is, and I'll withhold commentary on him as irrelevant to the thread. If he appeals to you, great.
"empirical example, ad hoc and esteric are words you used."
Yes, again, friend, I'm not sure what you are saying here. I did use those words, and I stand by them all in relation to your post. I would add that I meant nothing pejorative by "esoteric." I simply meant that your content does not always come across clearly, and I was appealing to you to try to be more clear, so that we may all engage in discussion together.
"nothing confusing about those words"
Brother, it's not any of your words (or mine) themselves, but their contextual use with each other that is the issue. I merely wanted to understand your premise, before making any comments on the content of your statement.
"and do you deny intelligence?"
LOL I am not that humble. | |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 2913 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 3:52:23 PM | This statement misses the thrust of the argument. You are lumping together various definitions of "theory" under one class when it is not justified. Some of your examples are disagreements within the confines of science, while others lie outside scientific methodology.
Exactly Wonkavision!
What I was trying to illustrate is the fact that in the discussions about Evolution and Creation, there are always some arguments based on things "within the confines of science" and those "outside...". Flawed discussions then, but they happen repeatedly and that is why I was citing the Tower of Babel figure.
I certainly agree.
"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."
However, some people say that even in those things you give to Caesar, God's hand is in... so that becomes a... circular argument? Wonka please correct me on that one. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 3:57:36 PM | i'm not trying to be oppositional, but rather attempting to demonstrate that perhaps you could get your point across with fewer words (and less puffery - you neglected to define). call me the utilitarian.
pastoral - from webster's ...
"a literary work dealing with shepherds or rural life usually in a usually artificial manner and typically drawing a contrast between the innocence and serenity of the simple life and the misery and corruption of the city and especially court life.
for me ... a play on passport
puffery - again from webster's ...
"exaggerated commendation especially for promotional purposes".
no slur intended. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 4:09:43 PM | "However, some people say that even in those things you give to Caesar, God's hand is in... so that becomes a... circular argument? Wonka please correct me on that one."
I'm assuming, in your metaphor, that science is Caesar. There is nothing contradictory or circular in believing that God's hand is evident in nature. I don't believe it personally, but many scientists believe they are uncovering the glory of God in nature. Still, they remain rigorous in delineating personal metaphysical beliefs from the methodology of their work. Did I understand your question correctly? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 4:14:57 PM | wonkavision,
"i assume you are referancing true paraphrasing instead of accurate."
That seems to be splitting hairs, but if you prefer "true" to "accurate" that's okay with me. I am familiar with who Tony Robbins is, and I'll withhold commentary on him as irrelevant to the thread. If he appeals to you, great.
"empirical example, ad hoc and esteric are words you used."
Yes, again, friend, I'm not sure what you are saying here. I did use those words, and I stand by them all in relation to your post. I would add that I meant nothing pejorative by "esoteric." I simply meant that your content does not always come across clearly, and I was appealing to you to try to be more clear, so that we may all engage in discussion together.
"nothing confusing about those words"
Brother, it's not any of your words (or mine) themselves, but their contextual use with each other that is the issue. I merely wanted to understand your premise, before making any comments on the content of your statement.
"and do you deny intelligence?"
LOL I am not that humble.
i apologize for any reasons i gave you to interpret my words to "splitting words" as it was not my intention to do. My intention was to clarify and obviously I did a poor job.
i understand where you're coming from and i understand your postion and the reasons there of, thus, allowing me to communicate with you without rejecting any of your thoughts. there are no gains rejecting someones thoughts, do you agree? I may disagree with you and surely i have no "pejorative" thoughts about you, also.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 4:33:47 PM | "there are no gains rejecting someones thoughts, do you agree?"
I certainly agree. Even positions of diametric opposition are important, even if only to help better solidify or formalize ones contrary notion. In the best of situations, such contrary thoughts can provide synthesis between seemingly opposed ideas. In fact the history of both science and philosophy is rife with such examples, and, from a personal perspective, I know that I have often developed a deeper understanding of a theory by understanding extinct contrary theories that were subsequently proved false. | |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 2918 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 5:39:14 PM | "However, some people say that even in those things you give to Caesar, God's hand is in... so that becomes a... circular argument? Wonka please correct me on that one."
I'm assuming, in your metaphor, that science is Caesar. .... Did I understand your question correctly?
nope... what I was trying to say is
IF ""Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."
AND IF God is everything
Therefore Give nothing to Caesar.
This merely logical argument *which I do not believe* makes some people think that Science, Nature and Religion cannot be intrinsically separated, because ALL our actions are closely monitored "from above" and I put this as an example...
As I meditated further I realized that the bible actually predicts that this will happen in the last days. People will have such a strong desire for God to be non-existent that He will send them a strong delusion so that they will believe the lie. 2Th2:11. I can't think of anything that fits the description of the delusion as well as the theory of evolution. It says also that the delusion is so strong that it will deceive the elect if that were possible.
A vicious circle (?) in which Evolution theory was created by God, so by itself it is just a delusion from God, which only proves, again, that God is everything...
 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 6:50:47 PM | enryk, friend,
This merely logical argument *which I do not believe* makes some people think that Science, Nature and Religion cannot be intrinsically separated, because ALL our actions are closely monitored "from above" and I put this as an example...
am i assuming correctly that all the words you wrote are yours *which i do not believe* including "all our actions are closely monitor from above".
God being everything I disagree, in one form He is certainly not the devil. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 7:08:07 PM | "This merely logical argument *which I do not believe* makes some people think that Science, Nature and Religion cannot be intrinsically separated, because ALL our actions are closely monitored "from above" and I put this as an example..."
Okay, I see where you're going. You are invoking the paradoxes contained in absolutes. I don't think we need to go into formal logic and the illumination of the inevitable paradoxes encountered when dealing with absolute constructs to sidestep your concern. As I said above, one can (and some scientists do) believe that god is inherent in nature, but understand that the study of nature with rational-empirical precision need not, nor can not, involve itself with those metaphysical concerns. As a point of analogy that I've used before in this thread- you can study an internal combustion engine, reduce it to it's constituents and understand the co-active roles those constituents play without any attention to the man who invented the internal combustion engine. Metaphysical conjectures, by their non-falsifiable, subjective and implicitly untestable nature do not cohere with scientific methodology. There are brilliant scientists who hold spiritual beliefs; they simply understand that the two are, possibly complimentary, but not mutual. You're example quote (I'm not sure what that's from, an earlier post?) is blatant ad hoc reasoning, and is really a fringe belief. I'm sure I don't need to point out why it is so fatally flawed. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 7:32:05 PM | in research, stephen jay gould opinionuated, editorized in 1997, the following, which i agree
"As Saul despised David for receiving ten thousand cheers to his own mere thousand, we scientists often stigmatize, for the same reason of simple jealousy, the good work done by colleagues for our common benefit. Because we live in a Philistine nation filled with Goliaths, and because science feeds at a public trough, we all give lip service to the need for clear and supportive popular presentation of our work. Why then do we downgrade the professional reputation of colleagues who can convey the power and beauty of science to the hearts and minds of a fascinated, if generally uninformed, public?
This narrow-minded error--our own Philistinism--arises in part from our general ignorance of the long and honorable tradition of popular presentation of science, and our consequent mistake in equating popularization with trivialization, cheapening, or inaccuracy. Great scientists have always produced the greatest popularizations, without compromising the integrity of subject or author."
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 9:13:13 PM | Workavision, you have the basis for being a wise man however you continue to use your will power and use of words in an attempt to gain over others. i can assure you my will power is unapproachable at least from your point of views as i assume you believe yours to mine. the words you use in my opinion, are from a single minded person, words to show how powerful you believe to be, you know the words but imho, ones who writes like you do does'nt comprehend the meanings and is unimpressionable in the form you use them. there is nothing in your post which needs further reply. enough said on that topic friend,lets continue a debate.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/4/2006 11:39:58 PM |
So what do you propose to do to these Evolution people? They are obviously trying to delude society and corrupt its moral fabric by your account. If this amounts to heresy, what should be done with them? I just want to see the logical conclusion to this line of thinking spelled out clearly by its author.
The logical conclusion of my statement was to pray that eyes may be opened to see the truth. It's going to take a bigger miracle than I had anticipated.  | |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 2924 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/5/2006 1:52:20 AM | Yes, that millenarist argument was coming from a post in the previous page.
Second, passportcharlie, I would appreciate if you refrain from misquoting or altering quotes, particularly mine, thanks.
As for the Jay Gould quotation, I have no idea what is really doing here, but
he is referring to scientists normally looking upon those devoted to "popularisation of science". Why? because when you explain things to an audience, first of all you normally have to put all the nitty-gritty stuff aside and convey a general message through analogies and generalisations.
Evolution scientists like Maynard Smith(RIP) and Ernst Mayr (have) had big arguments with Gould for falling into "excesses" in this area and Gould was just hitting them back with the biblical reference. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 1/5/2006 5:09:18 AM | enryk, i would be more than happy to review your concerns. please point me to the right direction.
Jay Gould as far as I read his bio was an evolutionist and a scientist within the order. You refer to two additional evolution scientists and i'd be more than please to review your references.
| |
|
|
| Page 117 of 156
|
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 |
|
Home
login 
