OT: Huckabee, Ughh

Page 10 of 13  
Brian Henderson wrote:

Given the ability to make a coherent argument, most people do resort to violence to make others see things their way. Game, set, and match ...

"evidence" is all relative to your starting points.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

*inability* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm currently reading that book! So far it is a good read.
http://richarddawkins.net/godDelusion
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brian Henderson wrote:

Brian, I know this is a late addition to the thread, but - most of the posters, including you, have missed something, in fact several things.
1. The assumption that Creationism holds to a 6,000 year old event is exactly that, an assumption. As it turns out, an incorrect assumption.
2. Darwinism has more problems than ID does.
3. The theories of Relativity posit a point at which time began.
4. Then there are the minor things like entropy, anthropic principle and single handed DNA, to mention a few.
Admittedly, there are brain dead folks who will defend Bishop Usher's to the death. But there are Darwinist equally as dense. Neither invalidate the principle they espouse.
For the honest person, the data is all that matters. Before you throw too many rocks at ID, make sure you check the DATA and not your assumptions or the "gospel" of some Darwinist zealot.
Deb
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dr. Deb wrote: ...

Which "DATA" might that be?
So far, that's been their problem, they have no data, only a preconceived notion to make evidential theories to fit--which, of course, aren't needed anyway if some external force acted outside natural law. So, if may be a "theory", but it's not a scientific theory.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

If they want it to be a scientific theory, all they have to do is produce a test by which it may be falsified. So far evolution has passed every test that anybody's thrown at it. Has anybody even defined a test for "intelligent design"?
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If they did, you'd flunk it, John.
++
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:51:00 -0500, "J. Clarke"

Of course not, it's specifically untestable, it specifically makes no predictions and it cannot be falsified. Ultimately, what ID/creationism rests on is "we don't like evolultion, therefore this *MUST* be true".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

More importantly though, it also has more solutions to those problems. Creationism has but one solution to every problem: "God did it."

More precisely, that is an hypothesis that arises from a relativistic big bang model. It is not a postulate of either the special or general theories themselves, or of any other theory as far as I know.
But your statement was still a heck of a lot closer to the truth than most.

Indeed.
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No need to rely on assumption.
It is easy to identify the Creationsists who are also 'Young Earthers' . They are the ones who attack the Big Bang Model, in addition to evolution and geology.
For a long time that was a mystery to me as the Big Bang model, at least the dumbed down pseudo-Newtonian version, agrees so well with the creation Story in Genesis. "And God said, 'Let there be light.'", and BANG! there was the Universe!
Their problem is the great age of the Universe implied by the details of the model. For years they tried to advance other explanations for the cosmological redshift--interstellar reddening, historical variation in the speed of light and so on.
But they never got anywhere doing that so now they reject the big bang model outright.
Maybe that shouldn't have surprised me so much. After all, "God made man from the mud of the Earth." sounds like shorthand for the evolution of living things from non-living matter--at least to anyone but a Biblical literalist.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 13:44:07 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Yep. And the only rational answer to those questions is "I don't know", an admission the human species has always been loath to make.

Not those who have questions, just those who have "answers" based on nothing but their cultural bias.
What do I mean by cultural bias? There are approximately 20 major religions on the Earth. At least 19 of them are wrong. But few people ever seriously investigate any religion other than the one of the culture they grew up in. That gives them at best a 5% chance of being right :-).
IOW, Tim, if you'd grown up in Tibet, you'd probably be defending Buddhism with just as much fervor as you now defend Christianity.

Possibly, but I suspect they were just the group that best meshed with yuor worldview.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

And I've never said I "knew" the answers to these questions, merely that: a) They were important questions that needed investigation and b) Science is inadequate to cope with them.

You have NOT seen me "defend" Christianity. I have defended the Judeo-Christian roots of our legal system as a matter of historical fact. I am scrupulous to not inject my personal faith into any of this. I am not selling anything here, nor am I trying to make converts. I simply will not sit still when ill-educated atheists try to dismiss people of faith as if we were idiots.

Not even close to true. In the two main university settings I was primarily educated (one Evangelical Christian, the other Roman Catholic) I came away agreeing with *neither* on many significant and foundational points. You haven't lived until you get hauled into the Dean Of Faculty's office a month before graduation to 'splain to the head of the Theology Department why "literal inerancy" is a broken doctrine and why saying so doesn't make you a heretic. Then go hang out with the secular rationalists for a while a try to 'splain to them that - as a consequence of Godel - Reason itself is an inherently limited method of knowing things. Just for fun, follow that up in the Philosophy department and point out that ever since Hegel and Kant, philosophy has been busy destroying knowledge not finding it. Oh yeah, I really "meshed" with the cool kidz on campus...
My "worldview" such as it is, is that we should use science when it applies. We should admit that there are deep and important questions that science cannot in-and-of-itself "prove" (Oh, how I hate that word - for "proof" does not truly exist outside the narrow confines of mathematics.) And - most importantly - every thinking person should make an internal discussion of those questions an important part of their lives *even if we never get complete answers*. It is in the asking of these questions that much value can be found.
Some other cold month when I can't get in the shop, perhaps we can chat about why *no* system of knowledge ever can actually "prove" anything at all. In the end, what you "know" *always* depends on what you assume in the first place.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote: ...

And most of them are simply unanswerable unless indeed it turns out we can finally grasp a unified theory and it turns out to be, as I suspect it will be and hinted at before, inherently contained within itself.
...

I seriously doubt they were any "smarter" or if they were it was a very biased sampling. "Different" scope of interest and learning undoubtedly; "smarter"? -- I doubt it.
...

The thing is that these "deep" questions may actually turn out to not be questions at all in the end. And, while interesting philosophical discussions can and do occur, what is underpinning any of their conclusions other than some belief system? OTOH, at least w/ a scientific field, there is the ultimate question of "does it explain what we observe?" that provides an ultimate basis of comparison.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

OK, I said that badly. The theologians I studied were *far more broadly educated* than the mathematicians and scientists. The theologians had background than embraced science (archaeology, in particular is a cornerstone of theology), linguistics, history, philosophy, and, in some cases, mathematics.

At the end of the day *everything* may be moot. Science - like all systems of knowledge - hinges upon at least one unprovable starting axiom. In the case of science that axiom is that we can reliably observe our universe and draw general conclusions about its operations based on those observations. While I happen to agree with that starting point, it is not inherently True and could turn out to be entirely wrong. Similarly, a quest for information outside of science has to acknowledge that there are limitations to other, non-scientific ways of discovery. My point in this whole subthread was: a) People exploring non-scientific avenues of knowledge are not necessarily or inherently anti-intellectual morons. b) Science is not some kind of "better" way to know things. It has great utility value where it applies, but it also has significant gaps in what it can even address. It is possible to be schooled in science, and affirm its value, while at the same time having a life of faith. I know of a good many practicing scientists who fit into this exact category.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

And, since you have a small sampling of such you claim all scientists and mathematicians are intellectually inferior or lacking in training in other areas of knowledge?
I would repeat it is simply a product of the rapid expansion of learning, particularly in the scientific arena. It is simply impossible today for any one person to be fully cognizant at any level of expertise in all areas of human knowledge. The days of the "natural philosopher" are long gone. That may be regrettable, but it is simply a fact of life and as I noted before, that science now is so nearly unknowable to the broader community is, imo, a leading cause for the impasse (not to leave out, of course, the simply abysmal current education system).
As I have noted in another location, I've just finished Grant's and Sherman's memoirs. Apropos to this subject, I was struck by the fact that simply 150 years ago or so, when Sherman was the first head of the Louisiana Seminary (now LSU), he was the professor of "natural philosophy". Now, of course, that field of study is what we would call "physics", but as recently as the Civil War (he was in this position, resigning when the secession of Louisiana became fact and returning at that time to St Louis as he told the committee of oversight he could not continue to serve in a location not loyal to the Union) the level of knowledge in the field was such that it was still considered "philosophy", not "science".
I believe it is that recent development of science as it is now known and practiced is _so_ recent as compared to the long history of philosophy going back to the beginning of civilization that makes the former unfamiliar while the latter is so ingrained as to have become inate over the ages. Compounded with the level of sophistication it now requires to even comprehend the basics of science as it now exists and the philosophical arguments are relatively simple to at least comprehend. Everybody has an opinion or belief, hardly anyone understands even the rudiments of string theory.
...

Well, so far it has worked remarkably well. If we ever find a point in time or in space where it doesn't work, then the axiom will have to be modified. That would be one evidence of the outside influence someone else mentioned, perhaps.
I'll note one "pet thought" of mine regarding your earlier question of root cause and "where did it come from originally" is that the existence of quantum fluctuation just _might_ be that external force, or in another way, that little bit of "wriggle room" in the Heisenburg principle is the man behind the curtain we're not supposed to be paying attention to.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

No. I just acknowledged that I said it poorly in the first place. Having both studied with an read a pretty good swath of theologians, mathematicians, scientists, and philosophers, my contention is merely much *broader* in their knowledge base. This makes them far less parochial than some of the arguments we hear coming from the Rationalist/empiricist camp (as demonstrated in this thread in spades).

Which is as it still should be. If you don't know *why* you "know" things, you will never understand the limits of the system you're using. Science - whether scientists like it or not - is the handmaiden of philosophy. It does not stand on its own except as a purely utilitarian discipline - i.e. The auto mechanics of knowledge.

There is some truth to this. But I still maintain that if you do not understand the philosophical foundations of your knowledge system, you cannot ever understand its limits and pretty soon everything starts to look like a nail for your hammer - much as we've seen in this thread.

I've never disputed the utility value of science.

And this is the sort of thinking that is productive, useful, and interesting even though it is not amenable to empirical confirmation.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...
I dispute the conclusion and contend that with the "width" comes inevitably the "shallow", particularly in the sciences.
...

That is _precisely_ the self-righteous pontification of the liberal education major of which you smear the scientific community... :(
It is the d-d rare eminent scientist who lacks such founding.
...

But the same is true from the other direction -- if you do not understand the _depth_ of scientific theory, how can you possibly pontificate meaningful upon its meaning (or lack thereof)?
I contend it is like clashing cymbals...
...

[snippage above repaired to retain context]
Utility aside, the ultimate ability of "a theory of everything" to understand the "how" of "what" may prove there was no "why" or at least what the "why" had to do.
It is at least as significant to me you ignore the point that scientific thought would be thrown into a tizzy and completely regenerated if such an event as hypothesized were to actually be observed. As opposed to purely philosophical arguments, the necessity to meet reality is key and whatever modifications to the axioms of science required would be promptly created and adopted to meet the revised state of knowledge.
That's a reality folks on your side have as difficult a time of grasping as the most ardent creationist does of the possibility of more than seven literal days.

"Productive and useful" I don't know about...interesting, perhaps.
And, as I've alluded to on numerous occasions (which I note you adroitly avoid even acknowledging), the former is seeming to be likely to be either what we find or at least a prelude.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

I agree that it is not "inevitable". It's just common. When I hear scientists insist that science demonstrates the lack of need for a deity, I think they make my case for me.

1) None of my edication was primarily in liberal arts, it was in applied technology, science, and mathematics. I was just lucky to go to schools that insisted that *everyone* have a good grounding in liberal arts.
2) I was not attempting to "smear" science or its practitioners. The fact that you took it as such is just another indication of how insular science has become as its adherents elevate it to being the sole font of useful knowledge. The idea that science - indeed *all* epistemic systems - are the handmaidens of philosophy is historically unremarkable and certainly (until the last 100 years or so) would never have been read as polemic.

Maybe. But this thread alone demonstrates my claim in this area. The moment someone (me) injects doubt about the sufficiency of science, insists that philosophy is germane, and suggests that there is a place (in human knowledge, not science proper) for metaphysics, the howling begins. Y'all may have that "founding" but you don't seem to respect it much. I, OTOH, *do* respect the methods and value of science, I just don't give it sole authority to discover True Things in my life.

First of all, I have not once in this set of threads commented upon what science "means". I've commented primarily on its sufficiency to apprehend (in principle) all the True Things that are important to humans. Big difference.
Secondly, I do not have to be versed in every detailed area of science to have a pretty good sense of its limits. Why? Because I have a reasonable understanding of the philosophy that underpins and enables science. So, for instance, I know that science depends in some direct way on both empirical observation and logical deduction about what is observed (I'm not saying this is *all* there is to science here, BTW). So, science is necessarily limited to stuff we can observe and reason about. But there are limits to logic (cf Goedel). There are real limits to what can be observed - even in principle. So, without having a clue about any of the high complexity details of modern string theory, I can say things about the limits of what those theorists will ever be able to do. This is not some assault on science, it is innate in its very *structure*. But, these days, science has been given religion-like status in the popular culture, and good many scientifically literate people have begun to believe their own P.R. in the matter. Simply put, I know the limits of any system from its foundational axioms not by putting together a laundry list of every single fact in the system.

Hmm, I do not understand the last clause of this paragraph.

This is true but unremarkable.

Eh? The only thing I'm having trouble grasping here is the flow of your argument.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote: ...

...
How 'bout Hobbes vs Wallis?
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

Say more -not sure where you're going ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.