Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 10:59:07 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
God is one such postulate, by including power of infinite dimension to
Him, and making him subject to no rules except His own, any time we fail
to find evidence for him can simply be explained as his desire to remain
hidden.
That assumes that that is how you define Him.
If you're sticking an upper case G or H in there I don't think you have much
option.

The use of the upper case simply suggests uniqueness as far as I'm
concerned. Nothing more than that. Others may have a different
perspective.

Oooh!. Thats a meta weasel and a humpty dumpty* all in one!

*words mean what I want them to mean.

Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:36:57 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:


Second. Does science *always* throw away the more complex theory in
favour of the simpler one?

Yes. Unless the more complex one allows of results that the simpler one
does not.

The classic case is relativity versus Newtonian mechanics. Its far more
complex, but it explains things that are wrong with the Newtoinan.

However it is accepted that what is 'more simple' and what is 'greater
explanatory power' are relative to the knowledge of the day.

For the medieval mind, God is an overwhelmingly simple explanation, and
solves everything at a stroke. It does not however have the detailed
explanatory power of science. Therefore reluctantly it was junked in its
original form.


Leaving aside that this is somewhat insulting to people from the
medieval era,

Ad hominem, appeal to PC and straw man. They don't care, the ****ers are
dead.

it does suggest that new knowledge and understanding can
replace existing.

But not new logic. Weak attempt to straw man. Must try harder Jones, and
stop playing with yourself under the desk.



If that is true, it does open up the possibility that future
understanding may replace current and make that look simplistic in the
medieval sense.

The current generation does not have the monopoly on understanding for
all time. History doesn't support that.

Straw man and very weak. The issue was whether the rules of logic could
change. Not new knowledge Logic is not knowledge.



One may say that the probability is extremely low - to the extent that
for practical purposes it is impossible.


No. We are not talking about things that are subject to what data we may
or may not have in the future. Like actually finding a unicorn.

We are talking about a class of postulates that can never ever be
falsified, because the lack of falsifiability is inherent in the
definition of them.

God is one such postulate, by including power of infinite dimension to
Him, and making him subject to no rules except His own, any time we fail
to find evidence for him can simply be explained as his desire to remain
hidden.
That assumes that that is how you define Him.
Indeed, but I have yet to find a religious person who defines Him any
other way.

If you look at the definition of "religious" in a selection of places,
you will find that it is all over the map.

Definite INDIRECT humpty-dumpty there. Plus a straw man. We are not
talking about the definition of religion, we were specifically talking
about how a religious person defines God, if (assuming their religion
includes such: If not they wouldn't be defining Him would they)

In effect, this means that it is a label that will have different
meanings for different people according to which definitions or mix of
definitions they consider is correct.

Pompous straw man. Definite hamming it up for a non existent audience.
And another logically empty proposition.

Very weak, very very weak. You will have to do better than that. Stay in
for extra prep.



If he is limited in scope and context, he ceases to be God..and becomes
at best *a* god. Or at worst, some natural law..

That is entirely possible.

aha...a counter attack..

Thats the point - the same point that you fail to accept.

I wasn't specific about any definition. You introduced that.

And then quick flip to a Bliar.




If you define
something in a way, then you are responsible for the implications of
that definition.

Certainly.


Ooh., I am going to enjoy this

Changing the definition to suit the actuality results
in a worthless definition in the first place. At some point the four
elements of the alchemists, and phlogiston, get so bent out of shape
that we have w1hat - 130 of them now, and something called energy. Its
convenient to replace the basic words to avoid confusion with the older
words that are still tainted by outmoded ways of thinking.

If you want to redefine God as something limited and tangible, be my guest.

I already said that I am not making specific definitions.

aha. A petard, a veritable petard..and all in a recursive wealsel
statement too!

write out 100 times:

"A statement that declares the author to be making no clear statement is
a classic example of an undecidable statement, and has no logical
meaning whatsoever"

Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 15:01:58 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 23:16:45 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
It's a mistake to assume that as soon as somebody talks about creation
that they automatically have a fundamentalist perspective.
And if they talk about ID?

Then they may do.


Weasel.

Empty statement.


Empty comment, I think you mean.


very poor ad hominem.

Pigs may fly.
But I have yet to see them.

Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 13:49:20 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 16:33:04 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:29:09 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

The point where reason ends and faith begins depends depends, as far
as I am concerned, on the individual and their perspective of what is
reasonable and what is not.

Then you are indeed a total relativist.
I'm not a total anything.


Hmm. Not even a total human being by the sounds of it.
Do you *have* to reduce the discussion to that level?


It seems the most apt comment to make. You are denying the efficacy of
your logic and experience in qualifying the nature of it.

That makes you less than a human can be.

You really are spouting nonsense.


Ad hominem AND a mirror!

weak. My 6 year old niece has got past that.

Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:47:41 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 12:49:43 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:
And the others have told you that you have failed to take critical matters
into account,
The matters may have been critical to you in how you wished to frame
the discussion - they weren't in mine.

If you want acceptance in the realms of philosophy and science, you have
to pass the tests.

I have sought no such acceptance. That was your idea.


YOU may think that because you have a vote, and did O level pottery and
metal work, that makes you an expert on philosophy and science.

I don't, but I suspect that you do.



that you don't know what you are talking about (and you have
admitted that),
If you are referring here to the specific topic of ID, I told you at
the outset that I had not studied it specifically and it was not part
of the point that I was making.

Once again you are attempting to bend what was said.

Well if you didn't come here to talk about the class of so called
theories of which ID is one, what hell are you doing here? Trolling?

I already explained that. It is very typical in a newsgroup thread
that a particular point is picked up and sparks a separate side
discussion. The main discussion may well have been about ID. It
wasn't the focus of what I was saying.



Ah. Thats a classic Melanie*!

*And you can relate in full detail, what we already know"

And a straw man.



and the scope of your proposals is eaither larger than you
presupposed (and the whole thing is a nonsense) or is less (and your
intervention in this whole discussion is inappropriate).
You extrapolated what I actually said into what you thought it should
mean.

The scope that I gave was quite specific and I was also specific that
it was not directed specifically towards ID.

Well, if it was neither directed to ID, not yet to the set of theories
of similar unscientific nature, I suggest you simply shut up and go away.

Because your comments at that point are simply irrelevant to the subject
under discussion,

They were entirely relevant to the point that I was making. You know
very well that newsgroup threads spread into discussion branches on
specific points.

Oooh. he's rattled. Its a bugger isn't it, trying to win an argument by
claiming you were arguing about something else after all. When every
post you made is clear evidence that you were indeed not.

Detention for you my lad. Thats a fundamental Bliar there.



It was and is completely appropriate for me to comment on that basis.
So YOU say.
Objective fact makes you a liar though

Unfortunately not. You have been presenting material which may or may
not be objective fact as far as you are concerned and trying to
suggest that this is what I was discussing. Had you taken the
trouble to look before jumping into that, you would have realised that
this was the case.


Ooh! Get you! Nasty little ad hominem followed up by repetition and
deviation.

A double weasel and an ad hominem, plus a pure Bliar. Tsk Tsk. Letter to
your parents here I feel.



I don't have to do so based on some imagined set of rules that happen
to suit you. Sorry.
hahahaha. Then we don't have to listen to you based on some imagined set
of rules that happen to suit you. sorry.

You really are a bit of a dick aren't you?

Oh please. Is that really the best that you can manage?


Actually I thought it was rather accurate.

Do you mind me laughing at you?

Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 13:49:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 16:52:42 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 09:28:06 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
You're asking to accept any idea as science.
I haven't said that at all.
You have. That's why you need to do some background research.
No I haven't. That was what you chose to deduce from what I said.


Yes you have, it was implicit in your statements.
No deduction was required.

It was not implicit at all.


It was, but you're in denial..

For goodness sake, play another tune.


Weak mirror. But you are at the class bottom anyway. Not much point in
subtracting more points.
Sdd, truly sad.

Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 10:54:45 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Sorry, but it won't work.
You are correct. You need to get the books out and read them first.

I'll read which books that I choose and when I choose to do so,
thanks.


Ah. Rebellion - teenage rebellion no less.

And a denial of validity of others ideas.
Mmm. I think we need the school behavioral psychologist in here..

Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 13:50:32 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 12:46:34 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
It is you who has been attempting to position what I have said in ways
to suit your argument, including this.

Sorry, but it won't work.

It won't stop you being in denial. It will work to show that you are.
To others.


The only denial going on here is yours that you took the points that I
made, related them to a topic that was specifically stated not to be
part of them, and have since tried to embellish them way beyond the
original propositions.

*shakes in in deep sorrow*

It won't cut it Pandy, your weaselling is repetitious, and its getting
very boring. I can't help it if you want to make a fool of yourself in
front of the whole class. I've enjoyed helping you, in a mildly sadistic
way, but its past your bedtime, and you are getting tired and irritable.
I think you had better have some warm milk and ovaltine, or some
'bitty', and take a bit of a rest. Why not say a prayer to Jesus, and he
can come and kiss you better?

Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 13:51:57 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 12:15:32 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:


Yes you are. If you think you are not then by all means state clearly what the
absolute maximum change could be - and still define it all as science.
Once again. I am not. That's clearly as impossible to do for the
future as it was, beforehand, in the past.
Ah, at last the admission that there can be eternal certainties..that
some things will be as true today as they were yesterday, and as true
tomorrow

I didn't say that there couldn't be eternal certainties.
Weasel


I simply said that those which you deem to be so, may or may not be.

Empty statement.

What a ****ing hypocrite you are, to be sure.

That's a rather pathetic thing to say.

ROFLMAO!! :-)
I have to say you are a funny little chap sometimes.

Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:03:21 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 16:23:08 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


You are.
If you feel that perhaps at some future date ID and creationism be
considered 'scientific'

Which point you have been belaboring all along.
I have not said that at all.


All that I have said is that it may be possible that phenomena or
tests discovered in the future could be used to prove/disprove some of
the points.

And all we have said is that it isn't a question of phenomena or tests.
Its a question of logic and definition and utility.


There is noting wrong at all with logic and definition.

I have simply pointed out that your definitions of absolute
certainties may well not be those of others.



It is you who has taken the extreme perspective and extrapolated it
into saying that this means that *all* of it could be.

Of course. Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly acceptable tool of logic.
If the logical consequence of a proposition is absurd, so is the
proposition. If you fail to accept that point, we are at an end of the
discussion. You are not arguing a rational case. Ergo, rational argument
is pointless.

The case is perfectly rational. You are suggesting that your set of
definitions are absolutes. I am unconvinced by that.


Fools are only ever convinced of their folly.
I expected nothing less.



This is a very long way from saying that they should be considered as
part of science.

It is not, It is exactly saying that they should be considered part of
science. By using the phrase 'examined in the context of science
education.' you are immediately declaring them to be worthy of
scientific consideration, and ipso facto part of science.

Again you are extrapolating. I have not said that I consider that
they are *worthy* of scientific examination in the sense that they
should be considered part of it and given a lot of air time.

poor weasel. very poor. Sometimes admitting you are completely and
utterly wrong, can save you needless repetitive defenses against a
superior opponent armed with weapons he knows how to use?

No?

Ok...on we go..

The very clear point that I made was that they should be tested using
scientific methods. If they fail at the first or second hurdle, so
be it. I have no problem with that. The whole purpose is to show
why that is the case (if it is).


But there is no point in showing you further, since you do not ascribe
to any principles of logic known to man.

At this point one is tempted to issue a red card..its only deep
compassion for your witlessness that holds me back..

...and the fun of watching you make a total utter arse of yourself. I
feel one should never deny oneself the keen edge of Shadenfreude, don't you?

Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 13:40:42 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

It's not comparable.

Circles can be measured and defined mathematically. We already
discussed the principles of mathematics in this context.

There are probably few scientific tests that can be applied to the
principles of creationism today.

We are not talking about scientific tests, we are talking about
philosophical tests.

Actually we're talking about both.



Weasel and a straw man. We aren't.


It fails. It will always fail. Unless the theory is presented in a more
critically precise way. It failed because it is INHERENTLY untestable.
Not because the tests we have can't be done, but because no test could
be done ever.

Fine. However, you have used a very specific set of definitions (e.g.
in relation to gods/God) and then suggested that these cannot ever be
tested. That may be true. However, if you were to look at a range
of material, you would realise that the definitions and understandings
vary considerably from culture to culture and person to person.

Weasel and a poor retreat under heavy fire. Multiple casualties.



It is not impossible for further phenomena and tests to be discovered
in the future which could support or disprove some of the aspects of
creationism or perhaps assign more or less probability to them


Indeed. but it would cease to be creationism as we know it, or ID as we
know it.

Probably. I am not concerned about that.

I know - I have realised that the only reason you are still here is on
account of your inflated sense of self importance.

Sheldrake's theory of morphogenetic fields is a much more interesting
theory..one that birders on the edge of what is scientifically
acceptable. He proposes a sort of group pooled 'collective unconscious'
for the species..such that adaptations made by a single member can
propagate through tis field to allow rapid acquisition of survival
traits by all members of the same (or even other) species.

Now this does indeed go a little way to explaining some things..but it
is a huge leap to make to introduce this new entity, and it it doesn't
really produce any answers that CAN'T be produced by normal Darwinism.

I happen to think there is something in it, for reasons of my own, but I
fully accept that it fails to meet the criteria of science and is
therefore, not CURRENTLY scientific.

Fine. I have suggested nothing beyond this notion.

haha. Elephant trap.
You think that a quick weasel will save you...bet it won;t, Bet you you
will stick your foot in it ..

However it is of the class that you espouse.

I haven't espoused anything.

...and there you go WUMP,Straight into the heffalump trap.

.a theory that is
sufficiently detailed to be falsifiable, and at this point in time
undecided..but not intrinsically undecidable, nor yet unfalsifiable. It
fails on Occam's razor..because on balance it does not yet add enough
(if anything) to warrant the added complexity.


Fine. So are you introducing the idea that falsifiability and
decidability can change with time.

No. Read carefully,. I said 'undecided at this point in time, but NOT
intrinsically undecidable, not yet unfalsifiable' QUITE different.

In your haste, you appear to have read what you wanted to read..Tsk Tsk.
Patience my boy. You are not even up to a basic reverse chandelle yet,
let alone a graceful double weasel with a stylish double humpty.

Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 10:48:48 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 11:50:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

I can also understand the point that theories without evidence and
explanation not be accepted. However, that is from the perspective
of, and with the qualifier that the evidence and explanation is scoped
by current scientific understanding.

I don't believe that that has to remain fixed for all time.

Well thats because you are embroiled in belief.
Where you get that from, I have no idea.

From the evidence of my senses, as evinced in your posts.

Since when was imagination a sense?


Let me demonstrate ONE last time a hypothesis that can NEVER be
scientific, no matter HOW much the scope of science changes.


There exists an entity, whose effect on any thing you can ever detect is
immeasurable, such that this entity - although the cause of everything -
can never ever be detected actually doing anything that could not be
explained in some alternative way.

When framed in the way that you have here, of course I have to agree
and willingly do so.

However, that is to suggest that such an entity *could* never be
detected in a measurable way. I am not so bold as to think that
that is an abolute certainty.

That is not true. Because its imlicit in the definition that it can't be
detected. Ever.

It may be implicit in *your* definition.

No THE definition. oh dear.

Bandar log and a mirror..or is it a reverse humpty?



Therefore I am uncomfortable with the idea of explicitly excluding
theories, even if one finds them lacking in evidence (on one's own
principles) or distasteful.

Once again, its not the lack of evidence, its the impossibility of
falsification, that marks the theory out as unscientific. Its a logical,
not a data, flaw.
What happens when there are competing theories within the realms of
science as currently understood?

You apply the criteria, Occam's Razor, Poppers criteria, and in the
limit - as with the wave/particle issue with photons, you let two
distinct and separate theories coexist because both add something to the
mix, although they seemingly contradict each other.


Exactly. You also allow for the possibility that either or both might
be right or wrong or the reality at a different place (taking pieces
of both).

Indeed, because BOTH PASS ALL the TESTS.

Don't get over confident now and pretend you actually understand,
because you don't..



Now I know you have trouble thinking logically, but please try and see
the point here.
I have no difficulty at all. I am simply not excluding
possibilities, however small the probability.

In logic, there are certainties. Either you scrap logic, or you don't.

Once you scrap logic, science is meaningless. Thats all I am saying.


Fine. I don't disagree.




Science cannot be in the business of speculation about things it can
logically never ever have any chance of disproving. It has enough
trouble with things it can disprove.
This makes the assumption that there will never be any means to prove
or disprove.


Yes, thats right. The rules of logic are inflexible and immutable and
eternal. Thats the assumption that science has to make to be science.

When we state that A is A, that does not mean that there exists a finite
probability that A one day will be NOT A.



That's true. However, if A was not A in the first place because
there are multiple definitions of it, then there isn't a basis to say
that it is immutable in the first place.

Straw man/weasel. But you held your ground reasonably well there. I
won't penalise you for that. Anyway, you can't sink any lower can you?

Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 11:18:29 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 11:57:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

And as for testing evolution under RE's rules, its bound to fail innit?

because God is DEFINED to have created the world in 5 days flat.
No. That is only what is stated in Genesis.

If you are describing this from the perspective of somebody who
accepts verbatim/literally what is written in the old and new
testaments that is the closest to a "definition" that there is -
essentially fundamentalism.

But its the creationists and their snake oil version called ID that are
requiring their version to be taught in Science classes.

That is what this thread is all about.

Quite possibly, but as I already pointed out, threads can branch into
several sub-discussions and frewquently do.

I certainly was not suggesting that ID or creationism be taught as
though they are equivalent, only that they be tested and the
differences and bases contrasted.

Trying to weasel ID back in under the guise its not creationism, won't work.


I'm sure it won't

Ohh,. Ju jitsu now is it?



However, it is incorrect to suggest that that is the *only*
perspective that it is possible to take.


Sometimes only one perspective exists. Then it is the only perspective
one can take.

Sometimes that is true. However when something has a number of
possible definitions that is not possible.


and then you spoiled it with an ineffective simple weasel and basic
obfuscation.


End of
story. Evolution is simply impossible. Anything that looks like
evolution is simply a mistake in understanding.
????

Again that can only be from a certain fundamentalist viewpoint. There
are people who believe in divine creation, but not in 5 days followed
by evolution and people who believe in evolution taking place because
of divine influence. Those are not incompatible views and there are
a myriad of others.

It's a mistake to assume that as soon as somebody talks about creation
that they automatically have a fundamentalist perspective.


I think not. Creationism is the fundmentalist fundamental principle.

I said "creation" not "creationism".

Oh dear..Someone who talks about Creation, is indulging in creationism.

Very poor weasel.


I posted a poll on an international web site asking how many people
believed in the utter and complete historical truth of the bible
30% of the US respondents said they did.


They also elected Bush.


Indeed, and you would find actually, that even you might win an argument
with some of them. I wouldn't have believed that you actually had any
intellectual inferiors, but hey, every dog has its day..I think Texas
would suit you.



And in fact anything at all other than ditching your rational mind and
acting purely on faith, is a mistake in understanding...god doesn't
require that you do anything other than trust and believe.

There is nothing incompatible between taking some issues or aspects of
issues in the context of faith and looking at others analytically.
There is, in the sense that you cannot mix and match the methodologies
and get a picture that is free from errors, contradictions and hypocrises.

When you put on the Christian faith hat, you take off the science hat.

If you do not, you are not a true scientists or a true Christian.


I'm not putting on any particular hat, but I don't agree that there is
necessarily the incompatibility that you are suggesting.

You couldn't resist that one could you?

You really are a tedious little **** you know. Can't you come up with
something better than:

"maybe..one day..its possible that..things could be completely
different..i don't believe that..things are always..the same
...yesterday..as they will be ..tomorrow" as a justification for
refuting any argument, any time, on any subject?

I mean, honestly, in the end you haven't actually got ANYTHING to say at
all have you?

Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 16:35:53 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

You still misunderstand. The boundaries of science - ie what category of thing
can rightly be considered to be science - are not influenced by information.
The boundaries are set by philosophical considerations that are independent of
information.

That depends on what you mean by "information". If it's only within
the bounds of science then obviously.

What he means by information is what everyone but you means by information.

If the information relates to philosophical considerations then the
boundaries can certainly change.


Philosophical considerations do not involve external information.

Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 16:38:14 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I have told you repeatedly that I do not have a position on ID.
NP may be wrong to assume that you 'have a position' - but your words still
bring comfort to the marauding army of creationists.

That's up to them. I am not going to say or not say what I think
based on whether or not there is a marauding army of creationists.


Aiding and abetting
through ignorance is one thing - but you're still doing it after being
informed.

That sounds very much like a typical IMM arrogance statement.


weak..very weak.Straw man and indirect ad hominem.

John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I very clearly stated all the way along that a number of them were
floated as ideas and possibilities, and I also made clear that I was
not taking a personal position.

And you were told why they were wrong.

Bold stroke. Direct and to the point. However the carapace is too dense
for penetration I fear.

I think the mace rather than the rapier is indicated.

He appears to be too dense to notice the net. The trap however, may serve..

John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
My attitude is fine thanks, but I have grave concerns when people
attempt to incorrectly extrapolate from what is said and meant.

The extrapolation was into the inevitable effects of your ideas. You simply
hadn't thought them through.

Well thought out stroke, but I fear somewhat over the head...

I feel that you may have underestimated the opponent. There is no direct
evidence that he is capable of thinking anything through.

However, with fresh data, no doubt this hypothesis may, at some future
date, be subject to re examination?

Or do you feel that this quality of idiocy is time invariant, and we can
safely walk away secure in the knowledge that the beast is clearly
marked as something that science, and mankind, can safely ignore as
being completely irrelevant?

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

Red card for interrupting the game and committing a foul by actually
providing a sane, relevant and on-topic comment.

Banned for five posts.;-)

Bugger. I'll go back to spouting ********.
--

Dave

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in
message ...
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

Red card for interrupting the game and committing a foul by actually
providing a sane, relevant and on-topic comment.

Banned for five posts.;-)

Bugger. I'll go back to spouting ********.

G Well I hope the thread hasn't ended.. I enjoyed that

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
How then, would you define "religion"?

Simplistically; a belief system that involves blind faith and a deity
somewhere playing with humans.

I did already reply to this via google but it seems to have disappeared
into the ether. Oh well...
I would question your definition. "Blind faith" implies a faith which
has no substantiating evidence. I don't think that applies to any of
the major world faiths. For example, there is a huge body of evidence
to suggest that there was a man called Jesus Christ who lived about 2k
yrs ago in the region of Galilee/Jerusalem, and that he was killed by
the Romans. Clearly something then happened that caused his small band
of followers to tell everyone they possibly could about him. I don't
think any of the monotheistic faiths require adherents to believe
anything with no evidence whatsoever. Of course, there's no proof
because it's impossible to prove anything in history. Faith yes; blind
faith no.

I would also question whether a religion requires a deity as such.
Buddhism does not require adherents to believe in a god/God, although
many do.

I still maintain that everyone has a religion whether it be secular
humanism, atheism or something much less structured. The ardent
football fan lives for football. His life revolves around match days.
Every week he goes to the cathederal of the terraces, and every day he
bows before the altar of the sports pages. His god is football, and his
religion is his favourite team.

The things we place at the centre of our lives are effectively our
religion, even if its not a particularly structured belief system.

Moral codes are a different thing; although some very good moral codes
have sprung out of religion(s) they are more a result of attempts at
social control (and the safeguarding of property) than any inherent
general goodness of that religion or its adherents.

I'm interested in this idea of social control. As an example, would you
say the following are attempts at social control, or just inherently
good? And why?

Paraphrase of 4-10 of the Ten Commandments:
Keep one day a week special
Respect your parents
Don't hate
Be faithful in your relationships, especially marriage
Don't steal
Don't lie
Don't envy what isn't yours

And what's wrong with social control anyway? Without it we'd have
anarchy and historical examples of anarchy are not pretty.

Regards,

Jon.

Huge wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 07:20:21 -0800, Tournifreak wrote:

I don't think any of the
monotheistic faiths require adherents to believe anything with no
evidence whatsoever.

You're wrong. Read up about the Ascencion of Mary before you make a fool
of yourself in public.

You're right about the Ascension of Mary and I was rather rash in my
claim. (Although in fairness, I did say "I don't _think_ ..." There are
a few clearly made-up-by-a-pope things in Catholicism. What I should
have said is, "I don't think any of the monotheistic faiths require
adherents to believe anything with no evidence whatsoever and I'm sure
mainstream Christianity doesn't."

I still maintain that everyone has a religion
You're wrong, *again*. Atheism is not a religion.
Well that depends on your definition doesn't it? Which, unhelpfully,
you haven't given.
If it looks like a banana, tastes like a banana, smells like a banana,
you have to have a pretty good reason it's something else. I would
maintain that atheism holds all the characteristics of a religion. It's
a from of belief system based around the idea that there is no god. How
is that not a religion? What makes it distinctive from other religions
that should cause it to be defined seperately?

The things we place at the centre of our lives are effectively our
religion,

Garbage.
That's not much of an argument is it? Care to expand?

Regards,
Jon.

In article .com,
Tournifreak wrote:
What makes it distinctive from other religions that should cause it to be
defined seperately?

Collective worship?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 04:19:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


.a theory that is
sufficiently detailed to be falsifiable, and at this point in time
undecided..but not intrinsically undecidable, nor yet unfalsifiable. It
fails on Occam's razor..because on balance it does not yet add enough
(if anything) to warrant the added complexity.


Fine. So are you introducing the idea that falsifiability and
decidability can change with time.

No. Read carefully,. I said 'undecided at this point in time, but NOT
intrinsically undecidable, not yet unfalsifiable' QUITE different.

Obviously. So please be clear about which you mean,.



In your haste, you appear to have read what you wanted to read..Tsk Tsk.
Patience my boy. You are not even up to a basic reverse chandelle yet,
let alone a graceful double weasel with a stylish double humpty.


What a lot of rubbish,


--

..andy

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 02:47:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

Fine. The trouble is that as soon as one talks about everyday
language, the scope of definition can become quite vague and it
becomes possible to fudge the issues.

we have seen you amply demonstrate this over the last few days, it
doesn't need restating.



Actually it was you and John who have been doing this,

--

..andy

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 02:48:27 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 13:41:42 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 12:10:39 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:


Yes you have, you have proposed extending the definition of science to
include the redefinition of science on an ad hoc basis.be
No I didn't. I simply suggested that it could be considered. I didn't say
when, that it should or to what degree.
OK You *considered* the possibility of redefining science to turn it into
something else.
I didn't say anything about redefining science to turn it into
something else either.
You did, it was simply said in a roundabout way to confuse the simple
minded non scientist..


I did not, and the comments were made completely clearly.

The embellishment came later as you tried to deduce my position on
various issues and got it completely wrong.

Bandar log AND weasel.

Mornington Crescent?


You tell me. You're the one who is dancing around the mulberry bush.


--

..andy

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 03:02:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I have told you repeatedly that I do not have a position on ID.

NP may be wrong to assume that you 'have a position' - but your words still
bring comfort to the marauding army of creationists. Aiding and abetting
through ignorance is one thing - but you're still doing it after being
informed.

I am not sure its possible to speak except from a position, no matter
how temporary.

You may not be able to do so. I certainly can. Perhaps that accounts
for your limited outlook.


--

..andy

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 04:33:53 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 16:35:53 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

You still misunderstand. The boundaries of science - ie what category of thing
can rightly be considered to be science - are not influenced by information.
The boundaries are set by philosophical considerations that are independent of
information.

That depends on what you mean by "information". If it's only within
the bounds of science then obviously.

What he means by information is what everyone but you means by information.

Rubbish.


If the information relates to philosophical considerations then the
boundaries can certainly change.


Philosophical considerations do not involve external information.


Of course they can.



--

..andy

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 02:47:41 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 15:00:58 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 23:40:06 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I didn't say anything about redefining science to turn it into
something else either. I simply suggested the possibility that
definitions might be extended or changed in the future. I didn't say
when or to what degree.
Your comment was an irrelevant load of ******** unless it was in context - and
the context was ID pretending to be science.
That was your context. It wasn't mine.



Weasel.

If you look at the start of the thread, you will see that that is not
the case

weasel.

Ok, so you don't have anything sensible to say...

--

..andy

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 04:34:43 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 16:38:14 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I have told you repeatedly that I do not have a position on ID.
NP may be wrong to assume that you 'have a position' - but your words still
bring comfort to the marauding army of creationists.

That's up to them. I am not going to say or not say what I think
based on whether or not there is a marauding army of creationists.


Aiding and abetting
through ignorance is one thing - but you're still doing it after being
informed.

That sounds very much like a typical IMM arrogance statement.


weak..very weak.Straw man and indirect ad hominem.


That really is rich coming from somebody who suggests that the person
with whom he is discussing something is any one of a number of emotive
labels.


--

..andy


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 02:47:18 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

Fine. The trouble is that as soon as one talks about everyday
language, the scope of definition can become quite vague and it
becomes possible to fudge the issues.

we have seen you amply demonstrate this over the last few days, it
doesn't need restating.


It wouldn't have done had you understood the issues the first time.

--

..andy


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 02:48:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 10:42:54 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I simply suggested that it may be in the future that the boundaries of
science will change, as they have in the past, when new information or
ways of looking at the issues become available.
You are confusing the boundaries of science with the boundaries of a specific
scientific idea. New information cannot change the boundaries of science.


It certainly can and has done so in the past.


Bandar log. You are slipping.


This is simply a nonsense remark,.


--

..andy


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 02:54:15 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Your proposition amountst to the simple clear statement

"At some point in the future, science could be extended to cater for the
non scientific"

I didn't say that either.

I didn't say you did, I said that your propsition amounted to it.

Straw man.

You mean clutching at straws on your part.

If you are suggesting that my proposition amounted to something that
was neither stated nor intended, then you own the deviation - not me.





If you can't see the inherent recursive paradox (absurdity for the
simple minded)in that statement, I feel deeply sorry for you.


It is you who has described the scenario. That's up to you. I didn't
propose it and neither do I subscribe to it.


Straw man. You did.

Dear, dear.


--

..andy


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 02:52:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
..

I have told you repeatedly that I do not have a position on ID.

Words contradicted by Actions.
Its an Alistair Campbell this time.


There is no contradiction at all other than that you have attempted to
assign a position to somebody else and it hasn't worked.

It isn't going to work, however much you try to obfuscate what you
have done.


--

..andy


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 00:45:31 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:


That depends on what you mean by "information". If it's only within the
bounds of science then obviously.

I'm using the everyday and technical use of the word. I cannot cope with
Humpty Dumpty.

Which one? They can be quite different


If the information relates to philosophical considerations then the
boundaries can certainly change.

No.

Yes.


--

..andy

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 02:55:31 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:20:12 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 16:32:43 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Some is not all. And that was the point of the anecdote.

Exactly.

The only true statements in the conversation were

"Because they can"

and

"No, they won't. There isn't enough water or money in South Africa for
that to happen"



And they were true because of factors outside of what people considered
was the truth, or wanted to be the truth.

QED.

There I agree with you.


Dear me, then that contradicts the whole argument that you have been
making, that anything can be anything given time enough.


I haven't been making that argument at all. That's your idea.


--

..andy


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 16:46:21 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
My attitude is fine thanks, but I have grave concerns when people
attempt to incorrectly extrapolate from what is said and meant.

The extrapolation was into the inevitable effects of your ideas. You simply
hadn't thought them through.


That isn't for you to judge.

I was very clear about what I said and the boundaries of that and the
intent.

If you want to extrapolate that into something else, then you are
welcome to do so. However, you then own the extrapolation, not me.


--

..andy

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 02:59:01 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 11:01:03 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 23:14:03 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I think that you are thinking in black and white extremes. There are
a whole spectrum of views in between.
And you're choosing to turn white into black.
That is not what I was suggesting at all.
It's what you were doing.
I know you don't understand what you are doing and
saying but we're only dealing with your words - not your intentions.

I would suggest to you that the boot is most firmly on the other foot.

I made a set of fairly straightforward comments.

Injured innocence and the mirror game. Attempt to project your own
failings into someone who threatens you.

It is you who embellished them and then attempted to suggest that I
subscribe to all manner of ideas that you then chose to discredit.

Weasel. You make statements like 'all black people are bad, and 'all
afro carribeans are black' and then deny that you said that 'all afro
carribeans are bad'.
Tsk Tsk.


Where on earth did you get that nonsense from?




By all means discredit the ideas, but don't say that I subscribe to
them when I don't.

Weasel. Advocacy of ideas is supporting them in any book.


The only weasel here is you.

Advocacy can be on behalf of oneself or of a third party.


I haven't done either



I very clearly stated all the way along that a number of them were
floated as ideas and possibilities, and I also made clear that I was
not taking a personal position.

Cowardice.

You really are scraping the barrel now.


If you can't tell the differencem then I would suggest that you don't
know what you are doing.


Ad hominem

I see. So it's perfectly OK for you to make ad hominem remarks, but
if anybody else does, then it's a different matter?






--

..andy

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 16:45:00 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I very clearly stated all the way along that a number of them were
floated as ideas and possibilities, and I also made clear that I was
not taking a personal position.

And you were told why they were wrong.

According to your limited perspective.



--

..andy

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 03:12:15 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:





I have simply said that it is possible that that which is not
considered to be reality today could become so in the future.


Actually, you didn't. Say anything like that.

Actually I did. It's simply that you were spending so much time
adding rubbish and trying to debate that, that you missed to simple
points being made.





Because that statement is always true. Tomorrows reality will be real
and will never be the same as todays.

We never were talking about that though. What you said was that things
that were considered unscientific today, could be considered scientific
tomorrow.

That may be, if the boundaries of what is included change



--

..andy

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 04:23:16 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


No THE definition. oh dear.

Bandar log and a mirror..or is it a reverse humpty?

You can restate as many times as you like. However, this does not
make it other than *your* definition.


That's true. However, if A was not A in the first place because
there are multiple definitions of it, then there isn't a basis to say
that it is immutable in the first place.

Straw man/weasel. But you held your ground reasonably well there. I
won't penalise you for that. Anyway, you can't sink any lower can you?

Can you really do no better than that?





--

..andy