Tim Daneluk

Page 12 of 13  

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

You wriggle and squirm, but you can't escape your own words:
refute: To disprove and overthrow by argument, evidence, or countervailing proof; to prove to be false or erroneous; to confute; as, to refute arguments; to refute testimony; to refute opinions or theories; to refute a disputant.
A "disproof" is a proof of a negative. You're logic is slippery and disingenuous. It's also untrue.
I said that as a joke about your attempting to "refute" something when after all that blather you regurgitated about the futility of proofs. You get it? It's a joke about your apparent inability to keep track of your own arguments. It's an amusing geeky joke, at your argument's expense. Get it? Hahah!
[stupid arrogant ad hominem, snipped]

You did this (describe undecidability in a pomo populist science/philosophy ignorant way) to explain your source of criticisms. You assert ID's "views": "The assumption that the mechnical/material view is sufficient is wrong." Who's argument is that? That went out years ago, and in fact complexity theory is still in its infancy. So if that isn't science (seems "utilitarian" enough to me, so I assume you're asserting the inadequacy thereof) then is it philosophy? 'Cause it's old and crusty in that field too, my little poseur. Are you going to back away from that statement as well?
Look, if you *are* going to state an argument and back it up, you really *must* make an effort to keep things clear, alright? If you aren't making an argument against outdated notions of the state of philosophy, don't include it in your response! A please remember to maintain a distinction between philosophy and science as it's very important.
[another attempt to smear and annoy, snipped]

Oh, so you aren't saying anything real, or relevant? Is that why you change the subject and natter on some more about my "cute trivializations"? Again, if it's not a part of your argument, don't include it! Sheesh.
[another childish name calling, snipped]

But it appeared to be completely irrelevant to your--gosh, you don't really have an argument so far, do you?

Ahem. This is relevant to your explanation of critique of the Big Bang Theory as it pertains to your disregard for evolution viz. ID, how?
[asinine wannabe childish arrogance, gone!]

So we have discovered something! ID has NO value or relevance.

Here my little poseur friend, I can say that you are clearly out of your depth and foundering in your own ideology.
Billions of dollars are invested each year in the predictive value of the mechanics of evolution and natural selection. Trillions of dollars a year are made using the predictive value of the mechanics behind evolution and natural selection. Trillions.
I'm the one that used practice to demonstrate Science's value, not you.
You try to validate ID putting it above Science, by saying that because positivism has been debunked that anything goes. Well that works in philosophy, Buttercup, but science isn't philosophy. Science is influenced by philosophy, but ID isn't philosophy, and it aint science. It's a mental exercise.
Also predictive is *considerably* more than a demonstration of utility value. You measure your ideas against the world my little poseur, and if they match, you have a healthy world view.
[stupid little non-sequitur ad hominem (and a falsehood), snipped]

Because I inferred it from your inclusion of these limitations for evolution, as a part of your (still upcoming... hopefully soon now) expose of how the BBT is crap and why that shows ID > Evo as a theory? Because you are using these arguments against evolution? Because it doesn't leave you with an argument for ID if you disown it? Because your apparent task was to show us why ID was valid, where evolution is a big lie? Are you not arguing for ID? Am I to take it from this that you are just making lots of noise and my "sound and fury" theory was right?
[stupid ad hominem, blah blah...]

How much development has occurred in the last 150 years. Yup.
Somewhere is a proof that you CANNOT GO BACKWARDS IN TIME, involving dT/dT as an impossibility. Sometimes the best you can do is make inference. That isn't a weakness in Science, it's a limitation of our own abilities that spans all our observation. Nobody has ever bounced a perfectly elastic star off another. Does that mean stars don't follow normal newtonian physics? No, we make inferences between them and earthly objects.
Missing fossils is NOT a refutation either. That's very simple to explain if you just look at the amount of change to the geography over the years. And guess what, Buttercup: there have been many, many instances where there *were* no transitional fossils, BUT THEN THEY FOUND SOME. Isn't that amazing! In one instant they were an intervention by an Invisible Diddler, and the next, just another entry in the fossil record.
These are really weak arguments, poseur, that exploit exactly that uncertainty of the Philosophy of science (and the honest appraisal of that) against the endeavor. Philosophy of science acknowledges that, and science tries to overcome it by the means available.

Ah, another find! It's not wrong because of that. I'm glad we agree the theory is not wrong. At least, I think we do. You'll probably deny that. When did we start talking about faith and belief? I was talking about validity of theories. Evolution has validity and is well-established as a theory. There is huge amounts of data to support it: in the fossil record, in breeding of livestock, in biology, in population studies.... ID on the other hand is spaghetti monsterism. Whimsy. Wishful thinking. A philosophical puzzle. There's no way to begin to establish it even as a theory. The best you can hope for is that thing you seem so disdainful of: faith. There's nothing wrong with it, but it has no place in the establishment of a theory of speciation.
[more pretending to be a grownup (with an argument), snipped]

You are the one right here making the argument. Take responsibility for your own actions, young man. It was your task to demonstrate an argument for why The Big Bang was nothing more than a lot of hot air as far as theories go, and then explain why that would demonstrate that ID was better'n evolution. Oh wait... we already established that you don't have one. You've backed away from everything thus far.
I make no professions of faith. Quite the opposite. Actually, in my own mind I do regarding how to treat people, community responsibilities, and life choices like that. Those are irrelevant here, though.
There is no assertion in anything I said that I am at the top of the "knowledge food chain". You're all alone, teetering up there, Buttercup.
[silly child prattling, snipped]

You don't know what that is. An argument by authority is like saying the Mayor says the space shuttle blew up because the stars weren't right, so it must be true. Get a little reading done, and learn up on your fallacies, Buttercup.

I don't get an answer to my question, then. I don't get a clarification of an argument? I just get spurious accusations of fallacious arguments? I was expecting something demonstrable from you, some way to legitimize ID as a theory that would somehow put it in contention with evolution as a theory. And I was willing and ready to put up my knowledge as a counterpoint. Instead I get this, this spin. I really truly think you should change your name to SPIN DULIEALOT. Because that's what you're doing. You're a spinmeister, nothing more. Pathetic.
You were going to provide us with an argument, but you back away from everything when you get your nose rubbed in your fallacies.

Is it a habit of yours, to provoke people with your snide little arrogant shit comments, and then turn it against their argument? You are a pathetic little monster of a boy, Buttercup. And dishonest. You have succeeded in annoying me. That was your intention precisely so that you could pull this little dagger out, and turn my annoyance against me. Slimey.
er
--
email not valid

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

Ah Watson lives ...

Your use of language is sloppy. While "prove" is one possible way to undersand "refute", it is not the only one. "Proof" has a very particular meaning in the philosophical context of this discussion which is why I avoided the word and used "refute" instead.

There was nothing "joking" about it. You are snide and condescending which is why I replied in kind. If you want a serious discussion, you have to maintain your side of it. And, here's an example of your contemptible manner, however subtle: I *NEVER* said proofs were "futile" or even hinted at it. I was *very* specific that proofs *about starting propositions* are impossible. I then went on to explain just where proofs *are* possible (in the context of validating a theorem against an axiom). You know all this, of course, but want to slide in some idiotic transformation of what I said - it's the only way you can defend your increasingly-enfeebled position.
<SNIP>

The IDers. Are you capable of reading and understanding standard English? I was reciting a list of ID claims as I understood them, not asserting whether I agreed with those claims or not.

Another attempt to step out of your self-inflicted middenheap. Complexity theory - whatever its current state - does not undermine the mechanical/material premises baked into all contemporary science. It speaks to the question of just *how* the parts get organized as they do. It does not, however, change the notion that science is sufficiently served by examining the parts and not the metaphysical whole. I keep repeating the same things here in hopes it will penetrate your already made-up mind.

Making things "clear" is impossible when the other party neither honors the common use of language nor is capable of grasping short sentences with simple words.

So, if I understand you (and I'm trying, *unlike* you), your claim is that the philosophy of science in current use no longer limits itself to understanding the universe in purely mechanical terms. That is, there is a legitimate teleological (why and from where) dimension to science as currently practiced. Show me.

<Explanation For The Churlish & Feeble>
1. I got asked a question 2. I attempted to answer the question in two parts:
a) A discussion on the limitations of what can be "proven" b) A catalog of what I understand ID's claims are
3. You trivialized 2a) by reducing it to "doubt" (Probably because you didn't understand it)
4. You repeatedly tried to hang 2b) on me as if it were *my* stated position. (Because you're lonely and need someone to argue with.)
</Explanation For The Churlish & Feeble>

Certainly not one simple enough for you to grasp.

Where in the post in question did I even *mention* the Big Bang or demonstrate a "disregard" for evolution. Just for the record, I accept that evolution operates at some scales. I am less convinced that it is sufficient to produce the currently-observed biocomplexity. I am open to it being demonstrated one way or the other.

Where on earth were you educated? Clearly formal logic was not taught there. The fact that science is sometimes predictive speaks in no way to whether ID has relevance. Just because *you* think ID is a "flight of fancy" does not make it so.

That's right - the mathematics of it all have relevance and demonstrable utility. And I was clearly not specific/simple enough in language to make sure you understood what I meant. So I will try one last time. Instead of "current evolutionary theory is no such thing", I should have been more precise and said:
Biological evolutionary theory as understood today is not predictive. One cannot look at a given species, and using this theory, reliably predict anything about how that species will evolve. Moreover, the biological theory of evolution is inferred from observation but cannot be repeated or demonstrated *in the large* (macro evolution).
The underlying mathematical foundations, however, have value in their own right and have found utility value in other disciplines.

I don't know for whom you are putting on the demonstration. I stipulated that science has utility value in my initial post. Oh, I forgot, Big Words confuse you. Let me translate: You didn't need to demonstrate that science has utility to me - I already knew that and said so long before you polluted this thread.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I defy you to cite any example in this thread where I have done this. I have attempted to *define* ID, and have never "put it above" science. Then again, I do not have the slavish religious devotion to any epistemology you have for science.

Your hubris is exceeded only by your profound ignorance. No system of knowledge can even exist without a philosophical starting point, implicit- or explicit. Science isn't philosophy - it is the *application* of a philosophical theory of knowledge. ID most assuredly is a philosophy and may- or may not be shown to also be science. The jury is still out on that one.

Really. Do grace us with more of your sophisticated expositions on the matter. Beyond utility, just what does prediction "demonstrate" for science?
You measure your ideas against the world my little poseur, and

I have never taken the amount of controlled substances it would take to match your world view, nor do I care to.

So, you went from a non-existent claim on my part, to an invented premise on yours, to a consequent inferrence to conclude that I insinuated something I never did. I hope you are a better scientist than writer/thinker or someone needs to pull your grant money.

Not once have I done so. Show me.

ID and evolution are potentially entirely compatible. You would however, have to give up some of your current faith that you are the epitome of knowlege.

No. In this particular case I was trying to define it.

I was answering a question, that's all. But I got the added benefit of watching you soil yourself repeatedly. It's been entertaining.

It's not a "weakness" in Science, at least not inherently. But is speaks to how much certainty we can ascribe to a theory. A theory that can be directly experimentally verified/refuted is far strong than one built entirely on inferrence. All scientific theories live on a continuum between these two endpoints with a corresponding degree of certainty.

I never said it was. But it raises fair questions about the correctness of the theory.

But the overwhelming body of animal fossil variety is Cambrian - a relatively short 100 Million years or so. Certainly not enough for macro evolution to take place.
Are you saying that today's theory of evolution is so clearly certain it bears no further scrutiny. If so, you are a fool. The science in this area is far from established, and questioning it is not a retreat to mysticism, an affirmation of ID, or any such thing. It is a fair question to a discipline that keeps claiming how unbiased it is. Scientists are not high priests and can fairly be questioned when the evidence for their position is weak, inferrential, and cannot be examined by experiment.

The flat earth was once well-established. That didn't make it so. *You* are the one introducing Faith because you come unglued when I merely record the position *of another party* that questions your orthodoxy.

No one, including the IDers, questions that evolution works in some contexts. What is being questioned is macro-evolution (going from primordial ooze to fish to .... to Ted Kennedy).

Ah, the High Priest has spoken. Off with the infidels' heads.

You have exhibited more Faith in the last 10 paragraphs than most religious people do in a year. You trust a theory (macro evolution leading to speciation) that cannot be experimentally verified, is built entirely on inferrence, has no fossil examples, would have to have made a huge step-function jump in just 100 million years, and has no intelligent cause to which you are willing to stipulate . You're entitled to hold this theory, but don't kid yourself, you're more "religious" than Pat Robertson.

Huh? Where did I do this? I never ONCE mentioned the Big Bang in the post that initially got your pantyhose all bunched up. You are either elderly, confused, drug bestotted, or just addicted to argument so someone/anyone will talk to you.

You make repeated professions of faith in this email alone. You believe things without evidence. You discard contrary positions without evidence. You denigrate anyone who does not share your views. You are deeply religious. Your theology is the scientific method and your deity is your own intellect. All well and good, but quit claiming you're not religious - you are.

<SNIP>
You cannot explain calculus to a cat. There no explanation clearer possible than I have already given. You just don't want to accept it because you'd have to acknowlege your initial characterization of my position was WRONG. And High Priests are never wrong.

How did you reach the conclusion that ID and evolution are mutually exclusive? Oh, I forgot, it wasn't in any of your holy books.
<SNIP>

Then my work is done
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Spin Denyalot wrote:

My use of language is perfectly standard. Yours only comes evident in your denials.

[left a snip here unindicated, didn't you buttercup]

You have the order wrong... I didn't start the ad hominems. You did.
And if the proofs of theorems against axioms are against axioms whose proofs are impossible, can one not deduce that all proofs are on shaky ground? That is the state of the art, Buttercup. Nothing idiotic about it.

So you were just reciting? No goals in doing so? Not answering questions or defending an argument--just noise?

You don't seem to have anything to penetrate with, Buttercup.

That's become very clear to me in your denials and your strange and unconventional use of "refute", among other oddities.

No? You don't need to step outside of my sentence, just keep your disciplines in order.

That's a ragged argument, if that's what you're calling it, and misses much of the detail. A question does impose some restrictions on the answer, ya know.

I wasn't trivializing anything. There's nothing to trivialize, Buttercup. You're just reciting but not making any claims based on your recitation.

No I'm just looking for an argument that you don't have.

Or one relevant to the original question.

So you aren't concerned at all with fredfighter's query. Or my criticisms of ID as theory. Ok. Your just making noise.

Since you only deny any attempt to circumscribe an argument, I can only surmise your "utilitarian" description of Evolution or Science doesn't extend to ID. But you're just making noise.

That's an absurd limitation on "predictive". It's also not true: you forget animal husbandry (i.e., "unnatural" selection.) Demonstrable Macroevolutin' is a canard. A phantom invented by... Behe? Can you describe it?

Actually, they were borrowed from them. Crossover among disciplines is slow and fraught with academic/industrial politics, discrimination. But the incentive is there...

Hey, I'm at least making an argument, Buttercup.

Above as in the field of philosophical and metaphysical endeavors, Buttercup, where things have a different way of unfolding.
Sorry if I didn't make that clear, but you want to give a metaphysical exploration the wrappings of Science. But with the strictures of Metaphysics. All muddled up.

My hubris is a mote in your own chaotic mind, Buttercup. You seem to be making my point: Science and Philosophy are different endeavors.

Gaping roar (and snips), that's all?

more snips, buttercup? What you did seems to be the big mystery because it has already been reduced by you to nothing.

Well it probably doesn't exist. Or anything resembling a treatment of the question.

No, but I would have to swallow a BIG pill were I to take it on. I can regard the religious questions with interest and zeal in the philosophical

So, just a big recitation? No point?

A question that exists only in your head.

You are confusing Science and Metaphysics again. Stop it.

I know, you never said anything beyond a recitation.

There's geological/climatic explanations for that. They're worthy of study.
How would you propose to embark on a study of ID explanations for that?

No. Sorry to disappoint you. Lots of work in evolution. Can't deny it. And don't. But it doesn't follow that "science in this area is far from established". Again, sorry to disappoint you. The work is there, but it's in the margins, and there's no real conflict between the world and the theory. Can you suggest other methods than inference into places and times that are unreachable by modern instruments, other than through the artifacts they leave behind? Can you make an argument for your "weak evidence" claim when the evidence, while inferential, is global, integrated, and all verifies the theory? Can you make a practical argument that a theory cannot be examined by experiment if the experiments test by inference the artifacts, and are constructed in such a way as to affirm or refute properties of evolution?

Here again I am trying to clarify the problem with your... recitation.
Draw a line between philosophy and science, and decide where ID lies.

Yes, but competing theories that actually had a basis in the physical world upset old theories of the earth.
Your non-defense of ID, and your non-criticism of evolution seem to be an attempt to defend ID against evolution, but as you are merely reciting but don't have an actual position I understand that you are merely making noise.

Macro-evolution. please define macro-evolution clearly and in terms a mere scientist can understand. I don't think that ooze->fish->yourobsession really cuts it.
And while we're at it Buttercup, I know it's offtopic, but how does that guy end up in EVERY one of your discussions?

If you kept ID in the realm of metaphysical discussion I'd be fine with that. But there are older and far more incisive questions that treat the question of god. ID doesn't add anything to that. ID has been from the very beginning a political game, and its proponents have tried to use it to foist a religious agenda upon scientific endeavors as they are depicted in schools.

blah blah, assertions assertions, no content. Macroevolution is a phantom, unless you can define it in a testable way. Might be a good starting point for a budding ID Scientist. Finding proof of intelligent intervention in what are isolated problematic elements of our understanding of the course of evolution are flights of fancy if there's a plausible simple explanation at hand. They are certainly not proofs that evolution cannot explain their presence. You are asking me to make a far greater leap of faith. I'm ready (I've done it!) to concede the gaps, but I'm also going to prefer a simple explanation that can be tested or that has a possibility of explication, to one of spaghetti monsterism.

Well, I did assume you responded to the question with the intent to answer it. And I did assume that your arrangement of recitations was an attempt to answer the question. That I have to wait for the denials in your responses certainly must show that. I've had some coffee this am. Your speculation of my drug use I'll take to mean that you don't really have any other intention than to make a lot of noise and be chaotic.

This isn't email, Buttercup. I've not done that, only assessed the validity of various explanations of the world *as* *theories*. I've not said *I* *believe* anything, but evolution has much more of my attention as a valid theory than... well you're just reciting and denial, and conflating Physik with Metaphysik.
If I discard a contrary position it is because there is no evidence to support it, or it's not testable as a theory. If you want to have a metaphysical discussion leave Evolution and Science vs. ID alone because that's muddying it up with practice.

No it's because you can't keep your knowledge and epistemology straight, because you aren't answering a question posed, and because you only claim to be reciting dogma when it is evident you had a ID vs. Evo agenda (based on the content of your recitation. A supposition I'm comfortable with.)

Oh maybe it was the arrangement of your recitation, or the incantation of "macroevolution".

Ah, the point at last. Thank you for being honest about *that*.
er
--
email not valid

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

In a debate, I usually know when the other guy has run out of worthy argument and it's time to move on...
Joe Barta
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joe Barta wrote:

Say, didn't you just the other day say that silence implies consent?
:)
er
--
email not valid

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

No, I think it was something about being silent and thought a fool ;-)
Joe Barta
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joe Barta wrote:

Ouch. I was thinking of Fredfigher, now I peruse google's groups.
er
--
email not valid

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

Yup. It is, however, interesting, that old "Enoch" takes such time and energy to refute someone he consideres not having a worthy position, having muddled epistemology/knowledge, and having some mystical agenda to attack his beloved evolutionary faith. If I were really that confused with so little an argument, you'd think he would just dismiss my argument and not bother engaging. Methinks he's worried (and for good reason too) ...
(I will respond to your earlier question when I have a moment...)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Enoch Root wrote:

<SNIP of an endless barage of half truths, political argument, appeal to scientific authority, and all the rest of the shrill squealing by a deeply-frightened ER>
You have squealed on and on about what I do and don't believe in some vain attempt to discredit what you *think* I believe. So let me clear it up for you. Unlike the previous post that got your garters snapped (where I was trying to define the position of *a third party*) here is *MY* take on things. You're free to attack it all you like and I will read it with great merriment. Squealing is always the sign that someone poked a nerve. So put your garters back in order, read this in direct simple English and try not to foam too much:
I am personally a Theist, but not necessarily an IDer - I think the jury is still out on ID, partly because the orthodox science establishment has dug in its heels so hard and refuses to hear them, and partly because the IDers have conflated philosophy and science and they are hard to understand when you do hear them.
In any case, I do not subscribe to a young earth, evolution, miro- or macro- does not threaten me, and I am willing to hear new evidence for any of this. I do have suspicions macro-evolution/speciation via natural selection is at least somewhat wrong and perhaps profoundly so as I do not see compelling evidence for it. But even if it is shown to be incontrovertibly true, this has no bearing one way or the other on my Theist beliefs.
I am trained in Computer Science at the graduate level and have a passing familiarity with complexity theory, and perhaps an advanced layman's appreciation for the physical sciences. I do not worship science as the highest form of human knowledge - it is one of many such sources of knowledge. Logic is not more valid than Faith - they address different kinds of knowledge. And, finally, I do not worship my own intellect. As a Theist, I acknowledge that my intellect - indeed everything in the Universe - is bestowed upon me by the original Author of it all - I am steward of what I have been given. I am not arrogant or presumptuous enough to believe that I am the source of my own knowledge.
You will note that *none* of this correlates to any of the attacks you've attempted to launch my way in the past several days. Despite the strong tone of my responses, I am not in the slightest bit angry or irritated with you. I mostly feel sorry for you. Your god is your own intellect and you will always find it an unsatisfying deity.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Spin Denyalot wrote:

I tried to get it out of you, to help you organize your thoughts... but that shall remain a Mystery when you reply with your denials, your half-cocked notions of logical fallacies, your backpedaling, and your childishly insulting postscripts to each of your replies...

Okay, Spin, I've got a bib on, I've put the coffee down, I'm sitting, and I can barely suppress a giggle of excitment and anticipation. GO!

er... aren't you jacking one of my criticisms against your uh, non-arguments there? Yup.

Young earth is not all of creationism:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
Please refrain from equating macro-evolution and speciation, as inferred with your forward slash, until someone has seen fit to define macro-evolution sufficiently as to warrant a comparison. Thanks.
I'm glad your Theist beliefs don't depend upon Evo being false. Nothing wrong with that.

CS/Business Information Systems?

That's probably a good thing, too. Glad for ya, Spin.

I don't know that I'd agree with you, but I haven't formed an opinion on that question, meself. I'm unsure that it has any meaning.

Ooh, when I look back through your postings your arrogance really shines. Maybe you need an outside opinion. You know what they say about the inadequacy of any system to describe itself...

Ah. Hmm. Don't know what to say. I suspect that's an expression of your faith because it can't be demonstrated but you feel the truth of it, eh? Maybe I'm not expected to respond... I'll just gaze upon it.

Because that would be absurd. Knowledge is gained by study of the world, and ourselves, and of the works of others as well as being won by our own experience. It's like a social Commons.

Yeah, I noticed it's all pretty irrelevant to the questions, the "answers", and their critiques.

Well, that makes one of us, Spin. I found your arrogance, your spin, and your cheesy little insults downright bothersome, sometimes. In fact, I don't think I've ever been annoyed by anyone in this group 'til you responded to my post with your childish prattle about "Grownups".

That's because you are so compassionate, huh?

There's that embittered little boy ending, again. I almost thought you were rehabilitating, Spin.
er
--
email not valid

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

Not even close. Hard core Theory Of Computation, Computer Languages, and Automata - the theoretical end of CS. But I practice professionally in business contexts not in the Academy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Just a guess...
er
--
email not valid

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

Good. Perhaps next time you won't attack positions that are not held, invent straw men ammenable to your abilities to refute, and generally behave boorishly when the adults are speaking politely. My objection and subsequent response to you were not rooted in the substance of your disagreement. They were rooted in the cavalier manner you misrepesented the intent and content of my original post so you could appear to be reducing it to ashes. Liars and charlatans deserved to be exposed and treated as such. If you'd behaved honestly in the first place, I wouldn't have ever had to spank you publically and we could have had a civil disagreement and discourse.

No. You deserve pity because there is considerable evidence (provided by you) that you do not value truth - you prefer to win the rhetorical battle even if you have to resort to fraud and misreperentation. People who do this are inevitably miserable humans.

I am not even slightly bitter. I live a fairly joyful life. I hope you discover how to do this as well. (Hint: It starts with being honest with yourself and then with everyone else you deal with.)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

That was a very nice question. An opportunity to criticize the Big Bang Theory, and offer sources, cites.
I would have been very interested in knowing how that would undermine the theory of evolution or support ID seeing as how it's, as you say, irrelevant^Wofftopic.
By the way, I found your posts in the Jimmy Carter thread to be really well done.
and offtopic. :)
er
--
email not valid

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

You need to understand the context of the quote. Someone described ID as irrational "mumbo jumbo". I responded with the above quote as an example where non-provable assumptions served as the basis for *science*. It had nothing whatsoever to do with "undermining evolution" or "supporting ID". It had to do with trying to swat away this contention (implicit in much of that thread) that science is somehow epistemicly "purer" and/or that ID is an idiotic position. In fact, ID is built on Faith and so is Science.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:

You keep confusing science with philosophy, that's your problem. You know the word epistemology, but you don't understand it. (there's a (very) little joke there, if you look)
don't trip while you backpeddle away from your statements.
er
--
email not valid


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

I am entirely clear on the distinction and have no conqsequent problem:
1) The philosophy of science requires "faith" in certain unprovable starting points about the nature and efficacy of the methods of science.
2) The practice of science is built upon the philosophy of science.
3) By Transitive Closure, the practice of science is thus built (ultimately, subtlely) on a kind of "faith". That fact that this belief is non-religious does not make it any less "faith".

You're right, it's very little.

I won't, I affirm them more strongly.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:

On the contrary, Philosophy is perfectly happy and interested in pursuing the question of god, and acknowledges the limitations of knowledge: they are its bread. Philosophy acknowledges its limitations, and even spends a great deal of ink studying them.

Science doesn't do anything other than provide a framework of inquiry. Philosophy informs that, and describes its limits.

blah. The fact is, ID proposes a "theory" that rightly is a metaphysical question, not a testable theory of science.

er
--
email not valid

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

However, as I pointed out in email and as was implied by my comments at the time, the criticisms were not directed at the Big Bang model. Rather they were directed at a straw man, a misrepresentation of the Big Bang model, essentially the 'dumbed down' version such as one might see presented on PBS.
IMHO, the weakest part of the Big Bang model is the underlying assumption that physical law was always the same as our current understanding of physical law.
As we have learned in the 20th century, physical law, as it was understood in the 19th century, was proven to be incorrect regarding conditions significantly different from everyday macroscopic phenomena. When we explored the physics of the very small, the very fast, and the very massive we found that physical law, as it was previousl understood was a 'special cases' of more general physical law. It should not surprise us if we find that 20th century physics is incorrect IRT the early universe--what we observe to be physical law in the present univers is a special case of more general physical law.

I suppose by that you mean that Science is based on faith in the scientific method. On that point I have no issue.
However, the scientific method pwer se, is based on doubt.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:
<SNIP>

And the assumption of the sufficiency of Reason itself.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.