How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3935
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1250 times
Been thanked: 802 times

How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1

Post by Purple Knight »

This is not a question of whether or not evolution is crazy, but how crazy it seems at first glance.

That is, when we discard our experiences and look at claims as if through new eyes, what do we find when we look at evolution? I Believe we can find a great deal of common ground with this question, because when I discard my experience as an animal breeder, when I discard my knowledge, and what I've been taught, I might look at evolution with the same skepticism as someone who has either never been taught anything about it, or someone who has been taught to distrust it.

Personally my mind goes to the keratinised spines on the tongues of cats. Yes, cats have fingernails growing out of their tongues! Gross, right? Well, these particular fingernails have evolved into perfect little brushes for the animal's fur. But I think of that first animal with a horrid growth of keratin on its poor tongue. The poor thing didn't die immediately, and this fits perfectly with what I said about two steps back paying for one forward. This detrimental mutation didn't hurt the animal enough for the hapless thing to die of it, but surely it caused some suffering. And persevering thing that he was, he reproduced despite his disability (probably in a time of plenty that allowed that). But did he have the growths anywhere else? It isn't beyond reason to think of them protruding from the corners of his eyes or caking up more and more on the palms of his hands. Perhaps he had them where his eyelashes were, and it hurt him to even blink. As disturbing as my mental picture is of this scenario, this sad creature isn't even as bad off as this boar, whose tusks grew up and curled until they punctured his brain.

Image

Image

This is a perfect example of a detrimental trait being preserved because it doesn't hurt the animal enough to kill it before it mates. So we don't have to jump right from benefit to benefit. The road to a new beneficial trait might be long, going backwards most of the way, and filled with a lot of stabbed brains and eyelids.

Walking backwards most of the time, uphill both ways, and across caltrops almost the entire trip?

I have to admit, thinking about walking along such a path sounds like, at very least, a very depressing way to get from A to B. I would hope there would be a better way.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 352 times
Been thanked: 1054 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #691

Post by Jose Fly »

William wrote: Fri Feb 11, 2022 2:15 amOn why you lack interest in the idea of an intelligent universe.
I'm not sure what "an intelligent universe" refers to.
The reason I am interested in what the position is re someone who lacks interest in the idea of an intelligent universe, is that the main positions [theism - agnosticism and non-theism] don't appear to me to lack this interest.

For example, atheism simply lacks belief in gods - so in that, lacking an interest in the universe being a mindful thing, isn't atheism.

Nor is it agnosticism, which also lacks belief in gods, but is open and thus interested in any evidence which looks to support the notion that the universe is mindful.

Theisms interest of course, goes without saying, even that there are branches of religious views which deny the universe itself is intelligent...

Perhaps the lack of interest is simple an attitude of indifference?
The general term for my position is apatheism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism
An apatheist is someone who is not interested in accepting or rejecting any claims that gods exist or do not exist. The existence of a god or gods is not rejected, but may be designated irrelevant.[5] One of the first recorded apatheists was arguably Denis Diderot (1713 - 1784), who wrote: "It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all."
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15258
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 975 times
Been thanked: 1801 times
Contact:

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #692

Post by William »

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #691]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #691]
I'm not sure what "an intelligent universe" refers to.
It refers to the universe being intelligent - essentially forming itself purposefully.

Rather than it being a mindless random thing.
The general term for my position is apatheism.
Okay..so indifferent then. Thanks for making that clear.

I don't want to assume you are an atheist, simply because my experience with those calling themselves such, is that they give the appearance they are interested re demanding evidence to do with 'God'-stuff - which the subject of an intelligent universe, essentially is.
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all."
How that looks when the word God is substituted for the word-string "a Cosmic Mind" or "an Intelligent Universe"

"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in a Cosmic Mind is not important at all."

"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in "an Intelligent Universe" is not important at all."

I wonder why anyone would be indifferent to that...but then realize ithas to do with belief, and where science shows clearly what evidence there is, the requirement for belief is nulled. It become a matter of fact.

But anyway - I won't be as Cosmic-Mind-botherer and leave you to your indifference re any scientific evidence I could point you to.



:)

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #693

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Feb 11, 2022 1:41 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Feb 10, 2022 3:15 pm

See here:
According to Robert Priddy, all scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that cannot be tested by scientific processes;[31] that is, that scientists must start with some assumptions as to the ultimate analysis of the facts with which it deals.
From: Naturalism.

If you're still confused just reach out to me.

By the way, I've been meaning to ask, is your name David Hedison by any chance?

Image Image
I like how you quoted mined to look something else. So funny how creationists love to do that.

"Some claim that naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists, and that the following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method:"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

Claiming does not entail truth.

Q: Who is Robert Priddy?

Some claim that those are problems for scientific method and that there are scientific assumptions when they don’t understand that axioms/rules and assumptions only exist in the mathematics and logic which science uses.

Science uses induction(inductive reasoning) to go about and find axioms/rules about “reality” may it be simulated or not. Axioms are the rules that are contained within a context. Again, the rules are only part of the context, but like the rest of the context, are utterly contrived. They are fabrications of human minds, with no necessary linkage to the natural world. Context can change, our contrived things can change based upon new findings, experimentations.
A simulated universe/ “reality” still obey certain rules one can discover them the same way.

A child uses inductive reasoning and informal scientific method to investigate their world. They do it without any formal mathematical framework.
One can do science without mathematics. The essence of math is to express things precisely so that one can expand and test the consequences implied by them.
Scientists can also expand on those rules(mathematics) and figure new possible aspects about reality(ex: black holes derived out of Einstein field equations ). They go and try to find evidence to support the mathematics which off course may be wrong and not congruent with reality.

One can use mathematics and logic to imagine all kinds of possible worlds, concepts and phenomena.

The scientific method comes as a useful tool to determined things about the reality we live in.

Positing imaginary problems like meaningless, incoherent concepts like solipsism(for anything to have meaning one must compare it self relative to something else: “I” without “not I” cannot exist) is laughable and have no practical use.

Frustrated creationists can complain all they want, but the inescapable truth remains: so far the scientific method has been useful and it works, has worked.
You type so much on and on, ad nauseum and complain talking down on science on a PC, using the Internet and electricity. Things that were invented using the scientific method.
The irony is superb. :P

Also its so absurd and inconsistent how Creationists talk of doubting objective reality(solipsism), the past(fake memories) and so on which is extraordinary skeptical but they are not skeptical of things like gods for which the evidence is basically non-existent or very weak(anecdotal personal unfalsifiable experience and testimonials).
I don’t understand.
They(ex:Sye Ten Bruggencate) can be more skeptical then the skeptics but at the same time many times more credulous.
The contradiction is so apparent is baffling.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Feb 10, 2022 3:15 pm By the way, I've been meaning to ask, is your name David Hedison by any chance?
Q: I thought you were against name calling, talking about the person one debates? What is this, hypocrisy?
Q: The pot calling the kettle black? :)

Sherlock Holmes: “That's ad hominem, talking about me…”

Sherlock Holmes: “By the way, I've been meaning to ask, is your name David Hedison by any chance?”
Not at all, it struck me how your avatar bears a striking resemblance to David Hedison, I see now he passed away in 2019 so, my mistake.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 352 times
Been thanked: 1054 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #694

Post by Jose Fly »

William wrote: Fri Feb 11, 2022 2:52 pm It refers to the universe being intelligent - essentially forming itself purposefully.

Rather than it being a mindless random thing.
Thanks for clarifying.
Okay..so indifferent then. Thanks for making that clear.
No problem! :)
I don't want to assume you are an atheist, simply because my experience with those calling themselves such, is that they give the appearance they are interested re demanding evidence to do with 'God'-stuff - which the subject of an intelligent universe, essentially is.
I appreciate that.
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all."

How that looks when the word God is substituted for the word-string "a Cosmic Mind" or "an Intelligent Universe"

"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in a Cosmic Mind is not important at all."

"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in "an Intelligent Universe" is not important at all."

I wonder why anyone would be indifferent to that...but then realize ithas to do with belief, and where science shows clearly what evidence there is, the requirement for belief is nulled. It become a matter of fact.

But anyway - I won't be as Cosmic-Mind-botherer and leave you to your indifference re any scientific evidence I could point you to.
Thanks.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15258
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 975 times
Been thanked: 1801 times
Contact:

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #695

Post by William »

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #694]
Thanks
On and off
Ignore the Noise From The Peanut Gallery
Ancient Entity Indifference

Re: Generating Messages
Post #2
Post by William » Thu Jan 20, 2022 3:20 pm


[source]
Not a problem.

I can learn to ignore the indifferent. :)

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #696

Post by alexxcJRO »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri Feb 11, 2022 3:13 pm
alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Feb 11, 2022 1:41 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Feb 10, 2022 3:15 pm

See here:
According to Robert Priddy, all scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that cannot be tested by scientific processes;[31] that is, that scientists must start with some assumptions as to the ultimate analysis of the facts with which it deals.
From: Naturalism.

If you're still confused just reach out to me.

By the way, I've been meaning to ask, is your name David Hedison by any chance?

Image Image
I like how you quoted mined to look something else. So funny how creationists love to do that.

"Some claim that naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists, and that the following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method:"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

Claiming does not entail truth.

Q: Who is Robert Priddy?

Some claim that those are problems for scientific method and that there are scientific assumptions when they don’t understand that axioms/rules and assumptions only exist in the mathematics and logic which science uses.

Science uses induction(inductive reasoning) to go about and find axioms/rules about “reality” may it be simulated or not. Axioms are the rules that are contained within a context. Again, the rules are only part of the context, but like the rest of the context, are utterly contrived. They are fabrications of human minds, with no necessary linkage to the natural world. Context can change, our contrived things can change based upon new findings, experimentations.
A simulated universe/ “reality” still obey certain rules one can discover them the same way.

A child uses inductive reasoning and informal scientific method to investigate their world. They do it without any formal mathematical framework.
One can do science without mathematics. The essence of math is to express things precisely so that one can expand and test the consequences implied by them.
Scientists can also expand on those rules(mathematics) and figure new possible aspects about reality(ex: black holes derived out of Einstein field equations ). They go and try to find evidence to support the mathematics which off course may be wrong and not congruent with reality.

One can use mathematics and logic to imagine all kinds of possible worlds, concepts and phenomena.

The scientific method comes as a useful tool to determined things about the reality we live in.

Positing imaginary problems like meaningless, incoherent concepts like solipsism(for anything to have meaning one must compare it self relative to something else: “I” without “not I” cannot exist) is laughable and have no practical use.

Frustrated creationists can complain all they want, but the inescapable truth remains: so far the scientific method has been useful and it works, has worked.
You type so much on and on, ad nauseum and complain talking down on science on a PC, using the Internet and electricity. Things that were invented using the scientific method.
The irony is superb. :P

Also its so absurd and inconsistent how Creationists talk of doubting objective reality(solipsism), the past(fake memories) and so on which is extraordinary skeptical but they are not skeptical of things like gods for which the evidence is basically non-existent or very weak(anecdotal personal unfalsifiable experience and testimonials).
I don’t understand.
They(ex:Sye Ten Bruggencate) can be more skeptical then the skeptics but at the same time many times more credulous.
The contradiction is so apparent is baffling.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Feb 10, 2022 3:15 pm By the way, I've been meaning to ask, is your name David Hedison by any chance?
Q: I thought you were against name calling, talking about the person one debates? What is this, hypocrisy?
Q: The pot calling the kettle black? :)

Sherlock Holmes: “That's ad hominem, talking about me…”

Sherlock Holmes: “By the way, I've been meaning to ask, is your name David Hedison by any chance?”
Not at all, it struck me how your avatar bears a striking resemblance to David Hedison, I see now he passed away in 2019 so, my mistake.
It's baffling laughable how you ignored the relevant part of my post and focused to continue talking only about the irrelevant nonsense you started.
Q:Why? Why do you love irrelevant nonsense and a continuous game of ignoring? :confused2:
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #697

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 1:54 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri Feb 11, 2022 3:13 pm
alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Feb 11, 2022 1:41 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Feb 10, 2022 3:15 pm

See here:
According to Robert Priddy, all scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that cannot be tested by scientific processes;[31] that is, that scientists must start with some assumptions as to the ultimate analysis of the facts with which it deals.
From: Naturalism.

If you're still confused just reach out to me.

By the way, I've been meaning to ask, is your name David Hedison by any chance?

Image Image
I like how you quoted mined to look something else. So funny how creationists love to do that.

"Some claim that naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists, and that the following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method:"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

Claiming does not entail truth.

Q: Who is Robert Priddy?

Some claim that those are problems for scientific method and that there are scientific assumptions when they don’t understand that axioms/rules and assumptions only exist in the mathematics and logic which science uses.

Science uses induction(inductive reasoning) to go about and find axioms/rules about “reality” may it be simulated or not. Axioms are the rules that are contained within a context. Again, the rules are only part of the context, but like the rest of the context, are utterly contrived. They are fabrications of human minds, with no necessary linkage to the natural world. Context can change, our contrived things can change based upon new findings, experimentations.
A simulated universe/ “reality” still obey certain rules one can discover them the same way.

A child uses inductive reasoning and informal scientific method to investigate their world. They do it without any formal mathematical framework.
One can do science without mathematics. The essence of math is to express things precisely so that one can expand and test the consequences implied by them.
Scientists can also expand on those rules(mathematics) and figure new possible aspects about reality(ex: black holes derived out of Einstein field equations ). They go and try to find evidence to support the mathematics which off course may be wrong and not congruent with reality.

One can use mathematics and logic to imagine all kinds of possible worlds, concepts and phenomena.

The scientific method comes as a useful tool to determined things about the reality we live in.

Positing imaginary problems like meaningless, incoherent concepts like solipsism(for anything to have meaning one must compare it self relative to something else: “I” without “not I” cannot exist) is laughable and have no practical use.

Frustrated creationists can complain all they want, but the inescapable truth remains: so far the scientific method has been useful and it works, has worked.
You type so much on and on, ad nauseum and complain talking down on science on a PC, using the Internet and electricity. Things that were invented using the scientific method.
The irony is superb. :P

Also its so absurd and inconsistent how Creationists talk of doubting objective reality(solipsism), the past(fake memories) and so on which is extraordinary skeptical but they are not skeptical of things like gods for which the evidence is basically non-existent or very weak(anecdotal personal unfalsifiable experience and testimonials).
I don’t understand.
They(ex:Sye Ten Bruggencate) can be more skeptical then the skeptics but at the same time many times more credulous.
The contradiction is so apparent is baffling.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Feb 10, 2022 3:15 pm By the way, I've been meaning to ask, is your name David Hedison by any chance?
Q: I thought you were against name calling, talking about the person one debates? What is this, hypocrisy?
Q: The pot calling the kettle black? :)

Sherlock Holmes: “That's ad hominem, talking about me…”

Sherlock Holmes: “By the way, I've been meaning to ask, is your name David Hedison by any chance?”
Not at all, it struck me how your avatar bears a striking resemblance to David Hedison, I see now he passed away in 2019 so, my mistake.
It's baffling laughable how you ignored the relevant part of my post and focused to continue talking only about the irrelevant nonsense you started.
Q:Why? Why do you love irrelevant nonsense and a continuous game of ignoring? :confused2:
You tell me, after all I'm just a product of evolution, natural forces are all that exists all I do what nature causes me to do.

Can a machine do anything other than act according to the laws of nature?

When you argue with me what are you arguing with? a large collection of biological cells, so what are you arguing with nature for? against nature?

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #698

Post by alexxcJRO »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 1:51 pm
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 1:54 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri Feb 11, 2022 3:13 pm
alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Feb 11, 2022 1:41 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Feb 10, 2022 3:15 pm

See here:
According to Robert Priddy, all scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that cannot be tested by scientific processes;[31] that is, that scientists must start with some assumptions as to the ultimate analysis of the facts with which it deals.
From: Naturalism.

If you're still confused just reach out to me.

By the way, I've been meaning to ask, is your name David Hedison by any chance?

Image Image
I like how you quoted mined to look something else. So funny how creationists love to do that.

"Some claim that naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists, and that the following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method:"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

Claiming does not entail truth.

Q: Who is Robert Priddy?

Some claim that those are problems for scientific method and that there are scientific assumptions when they don’t understand that axioms/rules and assumptions only exist in the mathematics and logic which science uses.

Science uses induction(inductive reasoning) to go about and find axioms/rules about “reality” may it be simulated or not. Axioms are the rules that are contained within a context. Again, the rules are only part of the context, but like the rest of the context, are utterly contrived. They are fabrications of human minds, with no necessary linkage to the natural world. Context can change, our contrived things can change based upon new findings, experimentations.
A simulated universe/ “reality” still obey certain rules one can discover them the same way.

A child uses inductive reasoning and informal scientific method to investigate their world. They do it without any formal mathematical framework.
One can do science without mathematics. The essence of math is to express things precisely so that one can expand and test the consequences implied by them.
Scientists can also expand on those rules(mathematics) and figure new possible aspects about reality(ex: black holes derived out of Einstein field equations ). They go and try to find evidence to support the mathematics which off course may be wrong and not congruent with reality.

One can use mathematics and logic to imagine all kinds of possible worlds, concepts and phenomena.

The scientific method comes as a useful tool to determined things about the reality we live in.

Positing imaginary problems like meaningless, incoherent concepts like solipsism(for anything to have meaning one must compare it self relative to something else: “I” without “not I” cannot exist) is laughable and have no practical use.

Frustrated creationists can complain all they want, but the inescapable truth remains: so far the scientific method has been useful and it works, has worked.
You type so much on and on, ad nauseum and complain talking down on science on a PC, using the Internet and electricity. Things that were invented using the scientific method.
The irony is superb. :P

Also its so absurd and inconsistent how Creationists talk of doubting objective reality(solipsism), the past(fake memories) and so on which is extraordinary skeptical but they are not skeptical of things like gods for which the evidence is basically non-existent or very weak(anecdotal personal unfalsifiable experience and testimonials).
I don’t understand.
They(ex:Sye Ten Bruggencate) can be more skeptical then the skeptics but at the same time many times more credulous.
The contradiction is so apparent is baffling.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Feb 10, 2022 3:15 pm By the way, I've been meaning to ask, is your name David Hedison by any chance?
Q: I thought you were against name calling, talking about the person one debates? What is this, hypocrisy?
Q: The pot calling the kettle black? :)

Sherlock Holmes: “That's ad hominem, talking about me…”

Sherlock Holmes: “By the way, I've been meaning to ask, is your name David Hedison by any chance?”
Not at all, it struck me how your avatar bears a striking resemblance to David Hedison, I see now he passed away in 2019 so, my mistake.
It's baffling laughable how you ignored the relevant part of my post and focused to continue talking only about the irrelevant nonsense you started.
Q:Why? Why do you love irrelevant nonsense and a continuous game of ignoring? :confused2:
You tell me, after all I'm just a product of evolution, natural forces are all that exists all I do what nature causes me to do.

Can a machine do anything other than act according to the laws of nature?
That was mostly a rhetorical question.
I understand very well the whole reason for your loving of irrelevant nonsense and your continuous game of ignoring.

Your arguments are mostly just convoluted incoherent nonsense dressed in a intentional coat of vagueness so to make possible at any moment for them to weasel out if the S really HTF. :dizzy:
You will never engage in honest debate but always have predetermined paths that you will never go off course.
If I force you of course you will obfuscate, ignore, avoid, invent an imaginary offense to play the professional victim card.
Its so obvious and clear.
You have to attack the strongest guy in town: science in a pathetic attempt to gave some (false)legitimacy to your position.
You can't create legitimacy for your position in a independent way without resorting to attack something else.
Your inherent dishonesty comes from the fact you are forced to defend a very weak position which rests on a very strong foundation of ignorance and falsehood.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #699

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 1:56 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 1:51 pm
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 1:54 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri Feb 11, 2022 3:13 pm
alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Feb 11, 2022 1:41 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Feb 10, 2022 3:15 pm

See here:
According to Robert Priddy, all scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that cannot be tested by scientific processes;[31] that is, that scientists must start with some assumptions as to the ultimate analysis of the facts with which it deals.
From: Naturalism.

If you're still confused just reach out to me.

By the way, I've been meaning to ask, is your name David Hedison by any chance?

Image Image
I like how you quoted mined to look something else. So funny how creationists love to do that.

"Some claim that naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists, and that the following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method:"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

Claiming does not entail truth.

Q: Who is Robert Priddy?

Some claim that those are problems for scientific method and that there are scientific assumptions when they don’t understand that axioms/rules and assumptions only exist in the mathematics and logic which science uses.

Science uses induction(inductive reasoning) to go about and find axioms/rules about “reality” may it be simulated or not. Axioms are the rules that are contained within a context. Again, the rules are only part of the context, but like the rest of the context, are utterly contrived. They are fabrications of human minds, with no necessary linkage to the natural world. Context can change, our contrived things can change based upon new findings, experimentations.
A simulated universe/ “reality” still obey certain rules one can discover them the same way.

A child uses inductive reasoning and informal scientific method to investigate their world. They do it without any formal mathematical framework.
One can do science without mathematics. The essence of math is to express things precisely so that one can expand and test the consequences implied by them.
Scientists can also expand on those rules(mathematics) and figure new possible aspects about reality(ex: black holes derived out of Einstein field equations ). They go and try to find evidence to support the mathematics which off course may be wrong and not congruent with reality.

One can use mathematics and logic to imagine all kinds of possible worlds, concepts and phenomena.

The scientific method comes as a useful tool to determined things about the reality we live in.

Positing imaginary problems like meaningless, incoherent concepts like solipsism(for anything to have meaning one must compare it self relative to something else: “I” without “not I” cannot exist) is laughable and have no practical use.

Frustrated creationists can complain all they want, but the inescapable truth remains: so far the scientific method has been useful and it works, has worked.
You type so much on and on, ad nauseum and complain talking down on science on a PC, using the Internet and electricity. Things that were invented using the scientific method.
The irony is superb. :P

Also its so absurd and inconsistent how Creationists talk of doubting objective reality(solipsism), the past(fake memories) and so on which is extraordinary skeptical but they are not skeptical of things like gods for which the evidence is basically non-existent or very weak(anecdotal personal unfalsifiable experience and testimonials).
I don’t understand.
They(ex:Sye Ten Bruggencate) can be more skeptical then the skeptics but at the same time many times more credulous.
The contradiction is so apparent is baffling.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Feb 10, 2022 3:15 pm By the way, I've been meaning to ask, is your name David Hedison by any chance?
Q: I thought you were against name calling, talking about the person one debates? What is this, hypocrisy?
Q: The pot calling the kettle black? :)

Sherlock Holmes: “That's ad hominem, talking about me…”

Sherlock Holmes: “By the way, I've been meaning to ask, is your name David Hedison by any chance?”
Not at all, it struck me how your avatar bears a striking resemblance to David Hedison, I see now he passed away in 2019 so, my mistake.
It's baffling laughable how you ignored the relevant part of my post and focused to continue talking only about the irrelevant nonsense you started.
Q:Why? Why do you love irrelevant nonsense and a continuous game of ignoring? :confused2:
You tell me, after all I'm just a product of evolution, natural forces are all that exists all I do what nature causes me to do.

Can a machine do anything other than act according to the laws of nature?
That was mostly a rhetorical question.
I understand very well the whole reason for your loving of irrelevant nonsense and your continuous game of ignoring.

Your arguments are mostly just convoluted incoherent nonsense dressed in a intentional coat of vagueness so to make possible at any moment for them to weasel out if the S really HTF. :dizzy:
Did you say "my" arguments? There is no "my" I am a product of the forces of nature.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 1:56 pm You will never engage in honest debate but always have predetermined paths that you will never go off course.
I - or rather the large collection of biological cells that comprise me - have no choice, what I do is determined by the laws of nature.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 1:56 pm If I force you of course you will obfuscate, ignore, avoid, invent an imaginary offense to play the professional victim card.
I cannot choose to ignore or not ignore, there is no choice option, how can a machine act against itself? why do you expect or want me to violate the laws that govern me?
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 1:56 pm You have to attack the strongest guy in town: science in a pathetic attempt to gave some (false)legitimacy to your position.
I have to do what the laws of nature dictate, do you not agree?
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 1:56 pm You can't create legitimacy for your position in a independent way without resorting to attack something else.
Your inherent dishonesty comes from the fact you are forced to defend a very weak position which rests on a very strong foundation of ignorance and falsehood.
How can one cell be dishonest? if it cannot then how can ten, a hundred or a billion cells act dishonestly?

You advocate a universe governed by the laws of nature, forces, fields matter yet argue with a machine that is just doing what those laws dictate, you do not make sense.

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #700

Post by alexxcJRO »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 2:13 pm
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 1:56 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 1:51 pm
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 1:54 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri Feb 11, 2022 3:13 pm
alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Feb 11, 2022 1:41 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Feb 10, 2022 3:15 pm

See here:
According to Robert Priddy, all scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that cannot be tested by scientific processes;[31] that is, that scientists must start with some assumptions as to the ultimate analysis of the facts with which it deals.
From: Naturalism.

If you're still confused just reach out to me.

By the way, I've been meaning to ask, is your name David Hedison by any chance?

Image Image
I like how you quoted mined to look something else. So funny how creationists love to do that.

"Some claim that naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists, and that the following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method:"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

Claiming does not entail truth.

Q: Who is Robert Priddy?

Some claim that those are problems for scientific method and that there are scientific assumptions when they don’t understand that axioms/rules and assumptions only exist in the mathematics and logic which science uses.

Science uses induction(inductive reasoning) to go about and find axioms/rules about “reality” may it be simulated or not. Axioms are the rules that are contained within a context. Again, the rules are only part of the context, but like the rest of the context, are utterly contrived. They are fabrications of human minds, with no necessary linkage to the natural world. Context can change, our contrived things can change based upon new findings, experimentations.
A simulated universe/ “reality” still obey certain rules one can discover them the same way.

A child uses inductive reasoning and informal scientific method to investigate their world. They do it without any formal mathematical framework.
One can do science without mathematics. The essence of math is to express things precisely so that one can expand and test the consequences implied by them.
Scientists can also expand on those rules(mathematics) and figure new possible aspects about reality(ex: black holes derived out of Einstein field equations ). They go and try to find evidence to support the mathematics which off course may be wrong and not congruent with reality.

One can use mathematics and logic to imagine all kinds of possible worlds, concepts and phenomena.

The scientific method comes as a useful tool to determined things about the reality we live in.

Positing imaginary problems like meaningless, incoherent concepts like solipsism(for anything to have meaning one must compare it self relative to something else: “I” without “not I” cannot exist) is laughable and have no practical use.

Frustrated creationists can complain all they want, but the inescapable truth remains: so far the scientific method has been useful and it works, has worked.
You type so much on and on, ad nauseum and complain talking down on science on a PC, using the Internet and electricity. Things that were invented using the scientific method.
The irony is superb. :P

Also its so absurd and inconsistent how Creationists talk of doubting objective reality(solipsism), the past(fake memories) and so on which is extraordinary skeptical but they are not skeptical of things like gods for which the evidence is basically non-existent or very weak(anecdotal personal unfalsifiable experience and testimonials).
I don’t understand.
They(ex:Sye Ten Bruggencate) can be more skeptical then the skeptics but at the same time many times more credulous.
The contradiction is so apparent is baffling.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Feb 10, 2022 3:15 pm By the way, I've been meaning to ask, is your name David Hedison by any chance?
Q: I thought you were against name calling, talking about the person one debates? What is this, hypocrisy?
Q: The pot calling the kettle black? :)

Sherlock Holmes: “That's ad hominem, talking about me…”

Sherlock Holmes: “By the way, I've been meaning to ask, is your name David Hedison by any chance?”
Not at all, it struck me how your avatar bears a striking resemblance to David Hedison, I see now he passed away in 2019 so, my mistake.
It's baffling laughable how you ignored the relevant part of my post and focused to continue talking only about the irrelevant nonsense you started.
Q:Why? Why do you love irrelevant nonsense and a continuous game of ignoring? :confused2:
You tell me, after all I'm just a product of evolution, natural forces are all that exists all I do what nature causes me to do.

Can a machine do anything other than act according to the laws of nature?
That was mostly a rhetorical question.
I understand very well the whole reason for your loving of irrelevant nonsense and your continuous game of ignoring.

Your arguments are mostly just convoluted incoherent nonsense dressed in a intentional coat of vagueness so to make possible at any moment for them to weasel out if the S really HTF. :dizzy:
Did you say "my" arguments? There is no "my" I am a product of the forces of nature.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 1:56 pm You will never engage in honest debate but always have predetermined paths that you will never go off course.
I - or rather the large collection of biological cells that comprise me - have no choice, what I do is determined by the laws of nature.
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 1:56 pm If I force you of course you will obfuscate, ignore, avoid, invent an imaginary offense to play the professional victim card.
I cannot choose to ignore or not ignore, there is no choice option, how can a machine act against itself? why do you expect or want me to violate the laws that govern me?
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 1:56 pm You have to attack the strongest guy in town: science in a pathetic attempt to gave some (false)legitimacy to your position.
I have to do what the laws of nature dictate, do you not agree?
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 1:56 pm You can't create legitimacy for your position in a independent way without resorting to attack something else.
Your inherent dishonesty comes from the fact you are forced to defend a very weak position which rests on a very strong foundation of ignorance and falsehood.
How can one cell be dishonest? if it cannot then how can ten, a hundred or a billion cells act dishonestly?

You advocate a universe governed by the laws of nature, forces, fields matter yet argue with a machine that is just doing what those laws dictate, you do not make sense.
Sir I am agnostic to the idea of full determinism.
I assume we have free will.
I already told you that.

Q: Why do you bore me always spewing irrelevant nonsense? Are you trying to pull a Sye Ten Bruggencate pathetic manoeuvre on me?
Last edited by alexxcJRO on Sun Feb 13, 2022 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

Post Reply