Darwinists Running Scared
- Thread starter phildwyer
- Start date
Science and mysticism are two complementary manifestations of the human mind: of its rational and intuitive faculties
Lets backtrack 2000 years to india
Atman: The reality within discovered using intuition and spiritual venture
Brahmin: The reality without discovered using logic and experience.
Looks like we`ve not advanced much in some areas
Lets backtrack 2000 years to india
Atman: The reality within discovered using intuition and spiritual venture
Brahmin: The reality without discovered using logic and experience.
Looks like we`ve not advanced much in some areas
Thats the whole point, progress is found in the equilibrium between the two modes of perception. Current society more or less denies the inner reality except as a product of the outer (matter/brain)
Essentially our minds our out of balance because they are heavily biased towards Brahmin.
Essentially our minds our out of balance because they are heavily biased towards Brahmin.
Good Intentions
Pst Mdrn Cntxt Mnstr
phildwyer said:
There is one serious omission in that article, which pretty much turns it into so much pseudo-science mush - Mendel and his peas revolutionising the life sciences.
It's pretty much certain that if you ask any scientists of who he respects, Mendel has to be in the very highest ranks. Higher than Darwin, perhaps.
Appleyard talks about untying knots - the below paragraph is the very shaky, nonsensical focus of his argument.
Appleyard said:
The below is also hogwash:
Appleyard said:
That's called Lamarckian evolution, is somewhat crude and is wholly disproven. We might not know everything, but we are certain of quite a few important things.
Appleyard's conclusion alternates between tautology and non-sequitors
"[T]hey can never hope fully to understand" is quite a distance from ID ("that guy did it") and is much closer to, for instance, the shortcomings of the Copenhagen InterpretationAppleyard said:
Good Intentions
Pst Mdrn Cntxt Mnstr
Perhaps that's an indication of the (non)usefulness of the question?Azrael23 said:Science and mysticism are two complementary manifestations of the human mind: of its rational and intuitive faculties
Lets backtrack 2000 years to india
Atman: The reality within discovered using intuition and spiritual venture
Brahmin: The reality without discovered using logic and experience.
Looks like we`ve not advanced much in some areas
Good Intentions
Pst Mdrn Cntxt Mnstr
I'm the type who believes in arguing from examples - science after all exists to model the real world. So, phil, why don't you give us an example of something that is described only by ID, or one of the classic examples in favour of evolution which ID disproves?
How do you answer the vast body of knowledge in microbiology, where they work with virii and bacteria growing at such a rate that we can see evolution happen before our eyes?
How do you answer the vast body of knowledge in microbiology, where they work with virii and bacteria growing at such a rate that we can see evolution happen before our eyes?
Good Intentions
Pst Mdrn Cntxt Mnstr
Ultra-Darwinists? It's still too far to go to Guy Fawkes day to be erecting straw-men.
And evolution very much goes against intelligent design. One of the important elements of evolution is the complete lack of conscious input. It isn't necessary. Occam's razor and all that.
To put it another way: creationism (or any theism) says that the universe is created by Supreme Agent, and Supreme Agent is uncreated. Isn't it more sensible to say that the universe is uncreated? Extend that argument to evolution.
If a cause is entirely superfluous, and no material evidence exists for that cause, that cause can be said not to exist.
And evolution very much goes against intelligent design. One of the important elements of evolution is the complete lack of conscious input. It isn't necessary. Occam's razor and all that.
To put it another way: creationism (or any theism) says that the universe is created by Supreme Agent, and Supreme Agent is uncreated. Isn't it more sensible to say that the universe is uncreated? Extend that argument to evolution.
If a cause is entirely superfluous, and no material evidence exists for that cause, that cause can be said not to exist.
Good Intentions said:
The term "ultra-Darwinists" is S.J. Gould's. The existence of a Creator can be deduced by rational thought, it is not an empirical hypothesis. Before we continue, kindly go back and read the thread, since you obviously haven't done so yet. I can't be bothered going back over this ground again.
Good Intentions
Pst Mdrn Cntxt Mnstr
Let us be kind to each other and assume each knows the ground we are walking on - we can both agree these are necessary preconditions for any useful discourse.
Give me an example I need intelligent design to explain.
I should warn you I'm unimpressed by intimidations and special pleadings to authority. I don't think too much of Gould - not more than most other scientists. I don't care who coined the term. I think far more of Mendel as a scientist, rational arguments are rather ephereal and I have trouble imagining something more real than thousands upon thousands of hand-bred peas.
Give me an example I need intelligent design to explain.
I should warn you I'm unimpressed by intimidations and special pleadings to authority. I don't think too much of Gould - not more than most other scientists. I don't care who coined the term. I think far more of Mendel as a scientist, rational arguments are rather ephereal and I have trouble imagining something more real than thousands upon thousands of hand-bred peas.
Good Intentions
Pst Mdrn Cntxt Mnstr
Jesus, that narrows it down.
I disagree with you, by the way. Why don't you go into some more depth. I for one am continuously surprised by how self-apparent truths are rarely either.
But it is a better battleground for me than some others, artificial intelligence being my field of study.
I disagree with you, by the way. Why don't you go into some more depth. I for one am continuously surprised by how self-apparent truths are rarely either.
But it is a better battleground for me than some others, artificial intelligence being my field of study.
So far in the history of life on earth humans have appeared one times out of one - therefore they are 100% probable.Azrael23 said:
Now, since you say you are a scientist, would you care to give your calculations showing how "improbable/impossible" the emergence of humans was?
Go fuck yourself you dribbling idiot. You are just here to troll and brag about you pitiful knowledge of dusty texts. Either you enegage with the debate or keeping your moronic trap shut and go and study what science actually is. Come back in a few years time when you have worked it out. Until then stop wasting our time with your utter shite.phildwyer said:
onemonkey said:
You obviously haven't been to phildwyer's neighbourhood. There are bands of fundamentalist Darwinists picketing around his every movement. They shout slogans like "No truth but Origin", and have placards reading "Modifications of evolutionary theory since the 19th century - No thanks !"
TeeJay said:
Yeah sure...
Errmmmm swear I had `em somehere round here...
You can`t use that logic, if you roll a dice once and get a 6, does that mean the dice will always be a 6? Reality is multifaceted and infinitely more complex than a dice. It is IMPOSSIBLE to quantify figures for an equation like that, there are too many variables. It is instead better to look around at the world and use your common sense.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Jo/Joe said:
It is an excursion into egomania.
TeeJay said:
Don't tempt me TeeJay. I had a pretty frustrating evening yesterday, and I'd dearly love to work it out on you. You seem like a basically decent guy, and rather a fragile one at that, I'd say. You don't want any of this, its not good for your equilibrium.
Good Intentions said:
OK, as I understand it, you want me to narrow down my example of something that could not have been produced by evolution beyond "the human mind," is that correct? How about "self-consciousness?" I put it to you that evolution could not possibly have given rise to a self-conscious animal. I'd alos like to *widen* my example to life itself. I further put it to you that evolution could not possibly have produced life.
TeeJay said:
I won't, TeeJay. I actually do think you're alright but, to be absolutely honest, you seem to have these violent and unpredictable mood-swings, which suggest to me that you are not someone who can be relied on to take internet banter with the appropriate grain of salt. I think I'd be irresponsible to play with your head, and that's the honest truth.
