I'd rather do this via email, but email to your address bounced.

As you may recall, some time ago, in a thread about 'Intelligent
Design'
in rec.woodworking you wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


You mean like the "mumbo jumbo" that suggests Everything appeared at the
Big Bang out of Nothing and we are *certain* that this materialist/mechanical
POV is correct? All systems of knowledge have unprovable starting points -
this includes Science.


Jason, Fletis Humplebacker, and Mark or Juanita all also had similar
comments about the Big Bang Model, and all in OT threads about
'Intelligent Design' making the introduction of the remarks doubly
off-topic at.

I remain curious as to where you obtained your criticisms.

Can you direct me to your source?

--

FF

writes:
I'd rather do this via email, but email to your address bounced.

As you may recall, some time ago, in a thread about 'Intelligent
Design'
in rec.woodworking you wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


You mean like the "mumbo jumbo" that suggests Everything appeared at the
Big Bang out of Nothing and we are *certain* that this materialist/mechanical
POV is correct? All systems of knowledge have unprovable starting points -
this includes Science.


Jason, Fletis Humplebacker, and Mark or Juanita all also had similar
comments about the Big Bang Model, and all in OT threads about
'Intelligent Design' making the introduction of the remarks doubly
off-topic at.

I remain curious as to where you obtained your criticisms.

Can you direct me to your source?

George C. Deutsch, a 24 year old college dropout GWB political
appointee.

see http://blogs.salon.com/0002874/2006/02/04.html#a2120

scott

Scott Lurndal wrote:

writes:


I remain curious as to where you obtained your criticisms.

Can you direct me to your source?


George C. Deutsch, a 24 year old college dropout GWB political
appointee.

see http://blogs.salon.com/0002874/2006/02/04.html#a2120

scott

Not even close - I, for one, have never even heard of him.

I already replied to Fred privately and had not intend to
respond here at all. But since the Professionally Snide
have raised their heads once again, allow me to show you
the real basis of my claims - It's *my* thread, after all.
(If you need help with the Really Big Words, feel free to ask):


Tim Daneliuk wrote:


You mean like the "mumbo jumbo" that suggests Everything appeared at
the Big Bang out of Nothing and we are *certain* that this
materialist/mechanical POV is correct? All systems of knowledge have
unprovable starting points - this includes Science.


Fred asked:

I remain curious as to where you obtained your criticisms.

Can you direct me to your source?


I am not entirely sure what you are asking. If you want a source for
the claim that all systems of knowledge have unprovable starting
points (I *think* that's what you're asking), pretty much any decent
book on covering epistemology would do. Here is sort of the
Cliff Notes:

What you "know" depends on what you accept as being "truth". But if you
induct backwards to your primary or foundational "truth" (the premise(s)
from which your system of knowledge proceeds) you can never "prove" them
in the absolute sense. It is analogous to a system of mathematics (which
is one example of a very narrow epistemology). You begin with a starting
axiom or premise. This premise is not absolutely demonstrable as "true",
it is just the jumping off point for your new system of math. You
proceed to then build theorems from that starting axiom. A theorem is
"proven" only in the sense that it is demonstrated to follow logically
from the axiom and perhaps other subsidiary theorems. In general this is
the only context in which "proof" is meaningful - as a test of a theorem
against a premise. Even then, there is a sort of implicit assumption
baked in - that "logic" or "reason" is a meaningful mechanism for
apprehending things.


All systems of epistemology begin with some basic assertion like
"There is a God that has revealed himself" or "Reality exists and
can be observed" or "The best outcome for a human is self-indulgence",
and so on. In the particular case of science, the foundational
premises are something like this :

1. The physical universe is real.
2. We can reliably observe it by harnessing our observations
by means of the scientific method. i.e. Logic/Reason work.
3. We can further derive information about the workings of the
physical world by taking the results of our "harnessed"
observations and applying further induction and deduction to
them (i.e., by applying logic).
4. Everything we can ever know about the physical world
can be understood in purely mechanical/material terms.
i.e., While there may or may not be a larger cause or "purpose"
to the world we observe (it's "teleology") understanding
such a purpose (if any) is not necessary to the practice of
science. Science need only concern itself with the physical
parts and can disregard the possibility of a metaphysical whole.

There's more here, and I am definitely doing a handwaving description -
a real philosopher would no doubt cringe at the liberties I've taken.

Now then, my original claim is that you cannot "prove" any of 1-4
above. The best you can do is demonstrate their _utility_ value.
That is, you can show useful, practical results from presuming them
to be true, but there is no objective standard by which to check them.
For instance, it is possible that the universe is an illusion and
we don't really exist at all - sort of the "Matrix" view of the world.
We have absolutely no way of determining whether this is so or not.

In short, we *assume* certain starting points (because they make sense
to us, they bring us practical results, they are consistent with
other things we believe, and so forth). Once those starting points
are established, we build a system (our "theorems" about knowledge)
upon them. This exact situation exists for _every_ system of
knowledge (epistemology). The axioms of any system can never be
"proven" only tested on two dimensions: Do the consequent "theorems"
proceed logically from the starting axiom? And, do the "theorems"
provide some utility value?

The specific contention of the IDers in their critique of science
thus falls in a number of areas. Before noting these, let me
take care to make three important points:

1) The measure of any system cannot and should not be
judged on the merits of its practioners. Just because
some scientist fudged his cloning data does not mean
that science is invalid in method or result. Just because
there are lazy, stupid preachers in no way speaks to the
merits of Theism. Similarly a brilliant, consistent
scientist/preacher does not _validate_ their system.

2) IDers do not have an agenda to invalidate science.
They do not see their work as undermining or eliminating
science, but rather as enhancing/augmenting it to more
completely be able to understand the universe. Yes,
there are the Rev. Billybob Swampwaters of the world
who see this as a prime opportunity to get their
particular brand of Faith plugged into the culture,
but see 1) above.

3) ID is *not* the equivalent of Creationism. Many
IDers flatly renounce any notion of a "Young Earth".
They are concerned with what they believe is a
hole in science as currently construed. Notwithstanding
their personal religious Faiths, they are not specifically
trying to "religionize" science as one would believe
if you listen to the current culture wars on the matter.


So, here, as I understand it, are the main ID claims:


1) The currently regnant philosophy of science is fundamentally
inadequate. Its assumptions are incomplete and thus
unnecessarily self-limiting. Today's science is thus
not completely wrong, it is merely incomplete.

2) The assumption that the mechnical/material view is
sufficient is wrong. That is, to understand the physical
universe, you have to look at more than just the parts.
You have to investigate the telelogical questions - _Where_
did the parts come from? _Why_ do they work the way they
do? In sum, you have to look at the whole house, not just
the bricks, and when you do, you are inexorably driven
to the conclusion it had a builder.

3) There is some evidence, using just _today's_ formulation
of science, that natural selection/evolution cannot
completely account for what we observe. In particular,
it is claimed, there are biological constructs that could
not survive in a less complex form (irreducable complexity).
If so, this means that no precedent (less complex) biological
form could survive long enough to evolve into what we see
today.

For a very good summary of all this, written by the leading lights
in the ID movement, see:

http://tinyurl.com/9dfpp

This is a set of essays written by practicing scientists, philosophers,
and other interested parties. Each of these essays is interesting in
its own right, but the last chapter by Bruce Gordon (a philsopher of
Physics educated at Northwestern University) is flat out brilliant.
He makes a compelling case that the very foundations of today's
philosophy of science are fundamentally broken and that the proposals
of ID *enhance* science, not destroy it. Whether you agree or not,
the book generally and this essay particularly are well worth your
time.




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Other facts:
The universe revolved around the earth.
The earth is flat.
Sound barrier can not be broached.
ECT.

I, for one, choose to accept ID as a reasonable premise.

Dave



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

"TeamCasa" wrote in message
...
Other facts:
The universe revolved around the earth.
The earth is flat.
Sound barrier can not be broached.
ECT.

I, for one, choose to accept ID as a reasonable premise.

Dave

Nothing like a non-sequitor to prove your point.

todd

TeamCasa wrote:

I, for one, choose to accept ID as a reasonable premise.

....that some "intelligent" being sat down one day and figured
EVERYTHING out. It just seems so incomprehensible.

To me it has to be an all or nothing proposition. Either he figured
EVERYTHING out or he (or nobody) figured NOTHING out. The alternative
is an intelligent being that sat down one day and decided to figure
out SOME things. Maybe like in the movie Oh God! he just figured out
the "big things" and left the rest up to chance and to us.

If he figured EVERYTHING out, then one of the things he figured out is
what I'm typing right now... and what I'll be typing in 3 minutes...
and what every atom in my body will be doing every milisecond of every
day. Sounds silly I'm sure. If that's the case then he only figured
out SOME things. THEN the question is, WHICH things? And more
importantly, what accounts for the stuff that he HASN'T figured out?
And even MORE importantly, if being left to chance is good enough for
SOME things, why is it so impossible to suppose it's good enough for
ALL things?

Joe Barta

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

[snip]

Positivism is *dead*, Jim!

For quite some time. Read up on Wittgenstein, Karl Popper, Rudolph
Carnap, and (your friend, the atheist positivist) Bertrand Russell if
you want to know where that argument went.

It's funny you'd use such a modern argument, the fundamental limits and
uncertainty of our perceptive powers, to attack an old idea, and advance
a creationist ideology (I know you already denied it's creationism... I
disagree, having seen that it is well spun creationism.)

The troubles with ID are that they (you) first claim that idea (of
limits to knowledge) as their (your) own to discredit science, then
propose to do away with it entirely by attributing anything unknown to
the Invisible Diddler. Something you can't verify. Yes, so until we
sharpen our vision to the degree that that (one at a time, slowly)
question can then be answered fully and completely with a precise and
unbroken timeline of events, the IDers will step in to say "here, this
gray area here, is where the Invisible Diddler shows his miraculous
handiwork." Science has for many years already been agonizing over the
problems of proof, and exploiting that to advance what amounts to a
whimsical thought experiment is... low.

The trouble with ID is that it proposes to attack one area of science
using lack of a theory in quite another one.

There has never been a question regarding evolution that could not be
answered with a reasonable scenario, without having to sketch the
outlines of an Invisible Diddler.

"The assumption that the mechnical/material view is sufficient" is a red
herring. We have a much more sophisticated view (today) of emergent
systems and complexity that arise from the physical world than the
worldview being attacked by the IDers. It's still not necessary to rely
upon an Invisible Diddler*.

Another red herring is that evolution has ever claimed to describe the
genesis of life. It doesn't. We haven't learned enough about *the
past* yet to be able to *extend* evolution to such an alien landscape.
But equating our ignorance of eras long past to "holes in evolution"
is... a red herring.

If there is a God/Alien/SpaghettiMonster (and notice I've never said
there's not) and I could face him/her/it to ask "was that you they were
talking about?" [[s]he|it]'d say no. Then he'd touch me with his noodly
appendage, and I'd be enlightened.

That book you posted... haven't read it but I have read Behe, and every
thing he said was either a lie or omitted contradictory evidence.
There's plenty of material online about his smears and about his
failures to admit or remove his omissions from his rhetoric--I'll look
for commentary on that book.

*I just made it up and am infatuated with the phrase, so I'm going to
enjoy it for awhile...

er
--
email not valid

"Joe Barta" wrote in message
.. .
TeamCasa wrote:

I, for one, choose to accept ID as a reasonable premise.

...that some "intelligent" being sat down one day and figured
EVERYTHING out. It just seems so incomprehensible.

And because you can't comprehend it, it can't be true, right? 500 years
ago, the idea of particle physics might have been incomprehensible to
scholars, but that didn't make the principles of particle physics false. IF
there is a designer, it will be so advanced that we will probably not be
able to comprehend it with our human minds. It seems arrogant to me to say
that there is no possibility of a designer because science says so. Go back
as far as you want in the scientific process, and you'll find a trail of
scientists being wrong as far as the eye can see. But now we have a
complete understanding of everything, right?

To me it has to be an all or nothing proposition. Either he figured
EVERYTHING out or he (or nobody) figured NOTHING out. The alternative
is an intelligent being that sat down one day and decided to figure
out SOME things. Maybe like in the movie Oh God! he just figured out
the "big things" and left the rest up to chance and to us.

Sounds like you have an excellent start to a false premise going here.

If he figured EVERYTHING out, then one of the things he figured out is
what I'm typing right now... and what I'll be typing in 3 minutes...
and what every atom in my body will be doing every milisecond of every
day. Sounds silly I'm sure. If that's the case then he only figured
out SOME things. THEN the question is, WHICH things? And more
importantly, what accounts for the stuff that he HASN'T figured out?
And even MORE importantly, if being left to chance is good enough for
SOME things, why is it so impossible to suppose it's good enough for
ALL things?

This will be an imperfect example, but do you have children? If you do, do
you control each and every aspect of their lives or do you control a few
things, set some ground rules, and let them figure out the rest?

You can't prove there is no designer no more than I could prove there is (if
I wanted to). Which is kind of the point of Tim's long post, that in the
end, nothing can be proven in an absolute sense.

Joe Barta

todd

Bones McCoy wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

[snip]

Positivism is *dead*, Jim!

For quite some time. Read up on Wittgenstein, Karl Popper, Rudolph
Carnap, and (your friend, the atheist positivist) Bertrand Russell if
you want to know where that argument went.

SNIP ad infinitum ad nausem

I could refute about 90% of what you wrote simply by explaining
point-by-point how you've subtly misrepresented what I said and/or
mean knowing full well the actual intention of what I wrote. Your
commentary is full of straw.

But I won't. I have a much simpler refutation: If what I described
is so transparently foolish, why does it annoy you so much given
your self-described intimations of sophistication? Methinks
thou protesteth way too much ...


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

todd wrote:

You can't prove there is no designer no more than I could prove there is (if
I wanted to). Which is kind of the point of Tim's long post, that in the
end, nothing can be proven in an absolute sense.

That, in a nutshell, is the problem with ID.

But you can find *evidence* supporting the theory of evolution. You can
create testable hypotheses. This brings it down from the level of
metaphysical whimsy.

er
--
email not valid

todd wrote:

"Joe Barta" wrote in message
.. .
TeamCasa wrote:

I, for one, choose to accept ID as a reasonable premise.

...that some "intelligent" being sat down one day and figured
EVERYTHING out. It just seems so incomprehensible.

And because you can't comprehend it, it can't be true, right?

I probably should have said "illogical". Bad choice of words on my
part.

500
years ago, the idea of particle physics might have been
incomprehensible to scholars,

I'd imagine that you could take a reasonably bright scientific minded
person from 500 years ago, and after a little bringing up to speed,
get him to have a basic understanding of particle physics. Maybe 500
years from now someone in this group will be able to say the same for
Intelligent Design. I rather doubt it though.

but that didn't make the principles
of particle physics false. IF there is a designer, it will be so
advanced that we will probably not be able to comprehend it with
our human minds. It seems arrogant to me to say that there is no
possibility of a designer because science says so. Go back as far
as you want in the scientific process, and you'll find a trail of
scientists being wrong as far as the eye can see. But now we have
a complete understanding of everything, right?

I agree with you in saying that we humans don't know everything, and
much science has been wrong (though how much it's been right and how
science has contributed to our way of life is a discussion we'll save
for another day) I'll take it a step further and say that there is
much we are utterly incapable of understanding just as a dog is
utterly incapable of understanding algebra.

To me it has to be an all or nothing proposition. Either he
figured EVERYTHING out or he (or nobody) figured NOTHING out. The
alternative is an intelligent being that sat down one day and
decided to figure out SOME things. Maybe like in the movie Oh
God! he just figured out the "big things" and left the rest up to
chance and to us.

Sounds like you have an excellent start to a false premise going
here.

If he figured EVERYTHING out, then one of the things he figured
out is what I'm typing right now... and what I'll be typing in 3
minutes... and what every atom in my body will be doing every
milisecond of every day. Sounds silly I'm sure. If that's the
case then he only figured out SOME things. THEN the question is,
WHICH things? And more importantly, what accounts for the stuff
that he HASN'T figured out? And even MORE importantly, if being
left to chance is good enough for SOME things, why is it so
impossible to suppose it's good enough for ALL things?

This will be an imperfect example, but do you have children? If
you do, do you control each and every aspect of their lives or do
you control a few things, set some ground rules, and let them
figure out the rest?

So you're suggesting that the "Oh God!" scenario is the Intelligent
Design position or your position? That the designer set out a few
ground rules, then let the rest play out? Seems a little loose to me.

You can't prove there is no designer no more than I could prove
there is (if I wanted to). Which is kind of the point of Tim's
long post, that in the end, nothing can be proven in an absolute
sense.

Well, some things are a little hard to prove one way or the other. But
with the limited mental faculties that this human being has at his
disposal, it just seems that it's *probable* that there is no
intelligent designer calling some, most or all of the shots.

I could say the world was put together as it is now in 60 seconds by a
handful of spirits some time last week and all memory you think you
have of time before that is just an illusion. Like Tim said, nothing
can be proven in an absolute sense... but some things I feel pretty
safe in dismissing.

And while some in the movement may not have a religious agenda, ID
does seem to me suspiciously like warmed over Creationism.

Joe Barta

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Bones McCoy wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

[snip]

Positivism is *dead*, Jim!

For quite some time. Read up on Wittgenstein, Karl Popper, Rudolph
Carnap, and (your friend, the atheist positivist) Bertrand Russell if
you want to know where that argument went.


SNIP ad infinitum ad nausem

I could refute about 90% of what you wrote simply by explaining
point-by-point how you've subtly misrepresented what I said and/or
mean knowing full well the actual intention of what I wrote. Your
commentary is full of straw.

How could you ever prove that, given your metaphysical stance? Do you mean:

Your outdated notions of the state of philosophy? You were arguing
against an old school (The Vienna School) of thought, not Science as
methodology.

Your unreasonable expectation that Science adopt the doubts of
philosophy, rather than use it as a guide and warning, and inspiration?
Science is a practical endeavor to understand the world. It's
limitations are well-known, but they don't distinguish it from, say ID.
It's actually the strengths of Science, its predictive value, that
distinguish it from flights of fancy like ID.

Your implication that ID might be, somehow, immune to the same
limitations of the theory of evolution? Even while lacking its strengths?

Your use of our ignorance of the origin of life as an attack on our
(well-established) theories of the origin of species?

Your flat-out wrong assertion that when I examine where "parts" come
from and why they "work" will drive me inexorably to the conclusion
there is a builder? If you were a biochemist (I am) conversant in
genetics (I am) and population variation (I am) do you think that would
be sufficient *background* with which to make this examination? Do you
think having such a background would be helpful to such an examination?

But I won't. I have a much simpler refutation: If what I described
is so transparently foolish, why does it annoy you so much given
your self-described intimations of sophistication? Methinks
thou protesteth way too much ...

You are all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

er

Joe Barta wrote:

...

And while some in the movement may not have a religious agenda, ID
does seem to me suspiciously like warmed over Creationism.


You mean like the way an early draft of _Of People and Pandas_
was created by globally replacing 'Creation Science" with
"Intelligent Design"?

--

FF

wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


You mean like the "mumbo jumbo" that suggests Everything appeared at the
Big Bang out of Nothing and we are *certain* that this materialist/mechanical
POV is correct? All systems of knowledge have unprovable starting points -
this includes Science.



Jason, Fletis Humplebacker, and Mark or Juanita all also had similar
comments about the Big Bang Model, and all in OT threads about
'Intelligent Design' making the introduction of the remarks doubly
off-topic at.

I remain curious as to where you obtained your criticisms.

Can you direct me to your source?

That was a very nice question. An opportunity to criticize the Big Bang
Theory, and offer sources, cites.

I would have been very interested in knowing how that would undermine
the theory of evolution or support ID seeing as how it's, as you say,
irrelevant^Wofftopic.

By the way, I found your posts in the Jimmy Carter thread to be really
well done.

and offtopic.

er
--
email not valid

Enoch Root wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


I could refute about 90% of what you wrote simply by explaining
point-by-point how you've subtly misrepresented what I said and/or
mean knowing full well the actual intention of what I wrote. Your
commentary is full of straw.


How could you ever prove that, given your metaphysical stance?

And the misdirection and intellectual prestidigitation begins.
I guess I can't avoid swatting flies tonight:

I never said I could "prove" anything, merely that I could
refute the previous post's dishonesty by disclosing it as such.
Your cavalier introduction of the notion of "proof" is not binding
upon me to defend because it is *your* idea, not mine.

If you're going to play with the Grownups, you have to learn to think
and speak as one and not just pout because you don't like the content of
the conversation.


Do you mean:
Your outdated notions of the state of philosophy? You were arguing
against an old school (The Vienna School) of thought, not Science as
methodology.

I was arguing *against* nothing. I was attempting to describe
why no system of knowledge can prove its premises. At no point did
I attack science or its methodology.

If you're going to play with the Grownups, you have to learn to think
clearly and parse sentences for what they mean not invent subtle
misrepresentations thereof more ammenable to your inadequate rhetorical
and reasoning skills.


Your unreasonable expectation that Science adopt the doubts of
philosophy, rather than use it as a guide and warning, and inspiration?

I expressed none of my own expectations about science. I tried to
articulate the claims of the IDers as collateral to a larger question I
was asked. Moreover, philosophy is not expressing "doubt" (what a cute
way to trivialize thousands of years of thoughtful discourse).
Philosophy is naming very specific limitations about what we can even
know. It takes a religious person to ignore those limitations and
proceed anyway.

If you're going to play with the Grownups, you have to accept that you
are just a religious as the most devout Theist, you're just less honest
about it and your (purely mechanical) god is less interesting. It's
considered Bad Form to try and hide this sort of thing.


Science is a practical endeavor to understand the world. It's

I said this from the outset. Go back and look for the word "utility"
in my previous post. I'm glad you agree with me on this.

limitations are well-known, but they don't distinguish it from, say ID.

Agreement again, surely there must be a God! The limitations in question
are common across *all* systems of knowledge ... which I said in
the first place.

If you're going to play with the Grownups, be sure you're not
actually parroting what you are putatively arguing against. It
makes you look very silly.

It's actually the strengths of Science, its predictive value, that
distinguish it from flights of fancy like ID.

To the extent that it is predictive that's true. However, not every part
of contemporary science is predictive. For instance, current
evolutionary theory is no such thing - at least not at any fine grained
level of detail. Todays "science" embraces far more than just those
portions of disciplines that are predictive. There is lots of induction
and deduction taking place far beyond the boundaries of being able to be
predictive. Oh, and by the way ... "predictive" is nothing more than
science demonstrating utility value. It does not make the premises of
science inherently more valid than the premises of other systems of
thought.

If you want to play with the Grownups, you can't get convenient
amnesia about the parts of your system that don't fit your own
line of argument.


Your implication that ID might be, somehow, immune to the same
limitations of the theory of evolution? Even while lacking its strengths?

"Thou shalt not bear false witness." Where in my original post
did I even _hint_ that "ID might be, somehow, immune to the same
limitations"? I realize it was a long post, but after all, I did
start out by describing at some length how all epistemologies
have *common* limitations and boundaries.

Grownups do no lie about each other - well civil ones don't anyway.
Lying about your rhetorical opponent's position is a political
tactic, is the sign of a weak argument, and a personal moral failing
on the part of the liar.


Your use of our ignorance of the origin of life as an attack on our
(well-established) theories of the origin of species?

The theories are not "well established". Science has at least
a 2500 year tradition (and perhaps more) of which less than 150
have held some version on the origin of the species you espouse.
Moreover, the arguments for that theory a a) All indirect - they
cannot be verified by direct experiment and b) Are missing key
supporting elements (like transition fossils). Since this is so,
that theory has to be logically seen as being *weaker* than one
that has experimental confirmation.

This is not to say the theory is wrong, merely not as strong ... and
therefore far from being "well-established". Unless, of course, you
choose to believe it absent those things. Such a position is fine with
me, but let's call it what it really is: Faith.

Grownups who really treasure their own Faith don't try and pretend
it does not exist, they celebrate it.


Your flat-out wrong assertion that when I examine where "parts" come
from and why they "work" will drive me inexorably to the conclusion
there is a builder?

It was not "my" assertion. That sentence comes from an attempt on my
part to catalog the current position of IDers. They are, in fact, wrong
about this one. You are an existence proof that some people rebel at the
idea of a builder no matter how elegantly designed the building is
because your Faith precludes the possibility that you are not at the top
of the knowledge food chain.

Grownups do not make transparent attempts to tar their rhetorical
opposition with sentences taken out of context so far as to
entirely twist the point beyond recognition.

If you were a biochemist (I am) conversant in genetics (I am) and
population variation (I am) do you think that would be sufficient
*background* with which to make this examination? Do you think having
such a background would be helpful to such an examination?

Tsk, tsk. This sounds suspiciously like an argument from Authority - how
very Vatican of you. I was under the impression that the science
was a discipline in which this was never done.

So now we've come full circle. Your fulminations demonstrate my very
first point in the earlier post: What you "know" depends entirely on
what you accept as being "true". You haven't refuted me even slighly -
you've served as an example of what I wrote. The only real difference
between you and the most devout Theist or one of the IDers, is that the
latter admit their Faith and their God. You have both and pretend they
don't exist.


But I won't. I have a much simpler refutation: If what I described
is so transparently foolish, why does it annoy you so much given
your self-described intimations of sophistication? Methinks
thou protesteth way too much ...


You are all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

And you are angry, strident, and defensive signifying self-doubt and fear ...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Enoch Root wrote:

wrote:


Tim Daneliuk wrote:



You mean like the "mumbo jumbo" that suggests Everything appeared at the
Big Bang out of Nothing and we are *certain* that this materialist/mechanical
POV is correct? All systems of knowledge have unprovable starting points -
this includes Science.



Jason, Fletis Humplebacker, and Mark or Juanita all also had similar
comments about the Big Bang Model, and all in OT threads about
'Intelligent Design' making the introduction of the remarks doubly
off-topic at.

I remain curious as to where you obtained your criticisms.

Can you direct me to your source?


That was a very nice question. An opportunity to criticize the Big Bang
Theory, and offer sources, cites.

I would have been very interested in knowing how that would undermine
the theory of evolution or support ID seeing as how it's, as you say,
irrelevant^Wofftopic.

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



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"TeamCasa" wrote in message
...
"TeamCasa" wrote in message
...
Other facts:
The universe revolved around the earth.
The earth is flat.
Sound barrier can not be broached.
ECT.

I, for one, choose to accept ID as a reasonable premise.

Dave

Nothing like a non-sequitor to prove your point.

todd

Don't you mean non sequitur?
But yes, there are just to many things yet to be determined.
Dave

Don't you mean "too many"?

todd

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Enoch Root wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


I could refute about 90% of what you wrote simply by explaining
point-by-point how you've subtly misrepresented what I said and/or
mean knowing full well the actual intention of what I wrote. Your
commentary is full of straw.



How could you ever prove that, given your metaphysical stance?


And the misdirection and intellectual prestidigitation begins.
I guess I can't avoid swatting flies tonight:

I never said I could "prove" anything, merely that I could
refute the previous post's dishonesty by disclosing it as such.
Your cavalier introduction of the notion of "proof" is not binding
upon me to defend because it is *your* idea, not mine.

You wriggle and squirm, but you can't escape your own words:

refute:
To disprove and overthrow by argument, evidence, or
countervailing proof; to prove to be false or erroneous; to
confute; as, to refute arguments; to refute testimony; to
refute opinions or theories; to refute a disputant.

A "disproof" is a proof of a negative. You're logic is slippery and
disingenuous. It's also untrue.

I said that as a joke about your attempting to "refute" something when
after all that blather you regurgitated about the futility of proofs.
You get it? It's a joke about your apparent inability to keep track of
your own arguments. It's an amusing geeky joke, at your argument's
expense. Get it? Hahah!

[stupid arrogant ad hominem, snipped]

Do you mean:

Your outdated notions of the state of philosophy? You were arguing
against an old school (The Vienna School) of thought, not Science as
methodology.


I was arguing *against* nothing. I was attempting to describe
why no system of knowledge can prove its premises. At no point did
I attack science or its methodology.

You did this (describe undecidability in a pomo populist
science/philosophy ignorant way) to explain your source of criticisms.
You assert ID's "views": "The assumption that the mechnical/material
view is sufficient is wrong." Who's argument is that? That went out
years ago, and in fact complexity theory is still in its infancy. So if
that isn't science (seems "utilitarian" enough to me, so I assume you're
asserting the inadequacy thereof) then is it philosophy? 'Cause it's
old and crusty in that field too, my little poseur. Are you going to
back away from that statement as well?

Look, if you *are* going to state an argument and back it up, you really
*must* make an effort to keep things clear, alright? If you aren't
making an argument against outdated notions of the state of philosophy,
don't include it in your response! A please remember to maintain a
distinction between philosophy and science as it's very important.

[another attempt to smear and annoy, snipped]


Your unreasonable expectation that Science adopt the doubts of
philosophy, rather than use it as a guide and warning, and inspiration?

I expressed none of my own expectations about science. I tried to
articulate the claims of the IDers as collateral to a larger question I
was asked. Moreover, philosophy is not expressing "doubt" (what a cute
way to trivialize thousands of years of thoughtful discourse).
Philosophy is naming very specific limitations about what we can even
know. It takes a religious person to ignore those limitations and
proceed anyway.

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

[another childish name calling, snipped]

Science is a practical endeavor to understand the world. It's

I said this from the outset. Go back and look for the word "utility"
in my previous post. I'm glad you agree with me on this.

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

limitations are well-known, but they don't distinguish it from, say ID.

Agreement again, surely there must be a God! The limitations in question
are common across *all* systems of knowledge ... which I said in
the first place.

Ahem. This is relevant to your explanation of critique of the Big Bang
Theory as it pertains to your disregard for evolution viz. ID, how?

[asinine wannabe childish arrogance, gone!]

It's actually the strengths of Science, its predictive value, that
distinguish it from flights of fancy like ID.

To the extent that it is predictive that's true.

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

However, not every part
of contemporary science is predictive. For instance, current
evolutionary theory is no such thing - at least not at any fine grained
level of detail. Todays "science" embraces far more than just those
portions of disciplines that are predictive. There is lots of induction
and deduction taking place far beyond the boundaries of being able to be
predictive. Oh, and by the way ... "predictive" is nothing more than
science demonstrating utility value. It does not make the premises of
science inherently more valid than the premises of other systems of
thought.

Here my little poseur friend, I can say that you are clearly out of your
depth and foundering in your own ideology.

Billions of dollars are invested each year in the predictive value of
the mechanics of evolution and natural selection. Trillions of dollars
a year are made using the predictive value of the mechanics behind
evolution and natural selection. Trillions.

I'm the one that used practice to demonstrate Science's value, not you.

You try to validate ID putting it above Science, by saying that because
positivism has been debunked that anything goes. Well that works in
philosophy, Buttercup, but science isn't philosophy. Science is
influenced by philosophy, but ID isn't philosophy, and it aint science.
It's a mental exercise.

Also predictive is *considerably* more than a demonstration of utility
value. You measure your ideas against the world my little poseur, and
if they match, you have a healthy world view.

[stupid little non-sequitur ad hominem (and a falsehood), snipped]

Your implication that ID might be, somehow, immune to the same
limitations of the theory of evolution? Even while lacking its
strengths?

"Thou shalt not bear false witness." Where in my original post
did I even _hint_ that "ID might be, somehow, immune to the same
limitations"? I realize it was a long post, but after all, I did
start out by describing at some length how all epistemologies
have *common* limitations and boundaries.

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

[stupid ad hominem, blah blah...]

Your use of our ignorance of the origin of life as an attack on our
(well-established) theories of the origin of species?

The theories are not "well established". Science has at least
a 2500 year tradition (and perhaps more) of which less than 150
have held some version on the origin of the species you espouse.
Moreover, the arguments for that theory a a) All indirect - they
cannot be verified by direct experiment and b) Are missing key
supporting elements (like transition fossils). Since this is so,
that theory has to be logically seen as being *weaker* than one
that has experimental confirmation.

How much development has occurred in the last 150 years. Yup.

Somewhere is a proof that you CANNOT GO BACKWARDS IN TIME, involving
dT/dT as an impossibility. Sometimes the best you can do is make
inference. That isn't a weakness in Science, it's a limitation of our
own abilities that spans all our observation. Nobody has ever bounced a
perfectly elastic star off another. Does that mean stars don't follow
normal newtonian physics? No, we make inferences between them and
earthly objects.

Missing fossils is NOT a refutation either. That's very simple to
explain if you just look at the amount of change to the geography over
the years. And guess what, Buttercup: there have been many, many
instances where there *were* no transitional fossils, BUT THEN THEY
FOUND SOME. Isn't that amazing! In one instant they were an
intervention by an Invisible Diddler, and the next, just another entry
in the fossil record.

These are really weak arguments, poseur, that exploit exactly that
uncertainty of the Philosophy of science (and the honest appraisal of
that) against the endeavor. Philosophy of science acknowledges that,
and science tries to overcome it by the means available.

This is not to say the theory is wrong, merely not as strong ... and
therefore far from being "well-established". Unless, of course, you
choose to believe it absent those things. Such a position is fine with
me, but let's call it what it really is: Faith.

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

[more pretending to be a grownup (with an argument), snipped]

Your flat-out wrong assertion that when I examine where "parts" come
from and why they "work" will drive me inexorably to the conclusion
there is a builder?

It was not "my" assertion. That sentence comes from an attempt on my
part to catalog the current position of IDers. They are, in fact, wrong
about this one. You are an existence proof that some people rebel at the
idea of a builder no matter how elegantly designed the building is
because your Faith precludes the possibility that you are not at the top
of the knowledge food chain.

You are the one right here making the argument. Take responsibility for
your own actions, young man. It was your task to demonstrate an
argument for why The Big Bang was nothing more than a lot of hot air as
far as theories go, and then explain why that would demonstrate that ID
was better'n evolution. Oh wait... we already established that you
don't have one. You've backed away from everything thus far.

I make no professions of faith. Quite the opposite. Actually, in my
own mind I do regarding how to treat people, community responsibilities,
and life choices like that. Those are irrelevant here, though.

There is no assertion in anything I said that I am at the top of the
"knowledge food chain". You're all alone, teetering up there, Buttercup.

[silly child prattling, snipped]

If you were a biochemist (I am) conversant in genetics (I am) and
population variation (I am) do you think that would be sufficient
*background* with which to make this examination? Do you think having
such a background would be helpful to such an examination?

Tsk, tsk. This sounds suspiciously like an argument from Authority - how
very Vatican of you. I was under the impression that the science
was a discipline in which this was never done.

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

So now we've come full circle. Your fulminations demonstrate my very
first point in the earlier post: What you "know" depends entirely on
what you accept as being "true". You haven't refuted me even slighly -
you've served as an example of what I wrote. The only real difference
between you and the most devout Theist or one of the IDers, is that the
latter admit their Faith and their God. You have both and pretend they
don't exist.

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

You were going to provide us with an argument, but you back away from
everything when you get your nose rubbed in your fallacies.

And you are angry, strident, and defensive signifying self-doubt and
fear ...

Is it a habit of yours, to provoke people with your snide little
arrogant **** comments, and then turn it against their argument? You
are a pathetic little monster of a boy, Buttercup. And dishonest. You
have succeeded in annoying me. That was your intention precisely so
that you could pull this little dagger out, and turn my annoyance
against me. Slimey.

er
--
email not valid

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Enoch Root wrote:

wrote:


Tim Daneliuk wrote:



You mean like the "mumbo jumbo" that suggests Everything appeared at
the
Big Bang out of Nothing and we are *certain* that this
materialist/mechanical
POV is correct? All systems of knowledge have unprovable starting
points -
this includes Science.



Jason, Fletis Humplebacker, and Mark or Juanita all also had similar
comments about the Big Bang Model, and all in OT threads about
'Intelligent Design' making the introduction of the remarks doubly
off-topic at.

I remain curious as to where you obtained your criticisms.

Can you direct me to your source?



That was a very nice question. An opportunity to criticize the Big Bang
Theory, and offer sources, cites.

I would have been very interested in knowing how that would undermine
the theory of evolution or support ID seeing as how it's, as you say,
irrelevant^Wofftopic.


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

You keep confusing science with philosophy, that's your problem. You
know the word epistemology, but you don't understand it. (there's a
(very) little joke there, if you look)

don't trip while you backpeddle away from your statements.

er
--
email not valid

TeamCasa wrote:

I, for one, choose to accept ID as a reasonable premise.

So your decision isn't influenced by the Creationist conspiracy
surrounding IDs birth?

You aren't concerned with the Genie In The Bottle problem associated
with it (the "builder" is also so complex he must have also had a
"builder")?

You aren't concerned that it merely shifts the complexity to
unverifiable causes when there is a plausible, testable, and evident
alternative (it seems to allow speciation to occur but attributes the
selection process among the variants to a "builder" rather than a
"natural" mechanism.)?

You aren't concerned that many of the "arguments" made against evolution
by ID's proponents appear to attack problems that aren't associated with
it (the "genesis" issue, origin of life vs. origin of species)?

You don't grow suspicious of motive when you notice that it is in many
ways indistinguishable from evolution *except* that it requires there be
an intelligence at work controlling the machinery?

You aren't upset that many of the arguments attack problems with human
thought, verifiability, and logic, that are endemic to all thought (ID
included) and as such aren't relevant to science, but to broader
questions of philosophy?

You aren't surprised that an idea is being advanced that rightly belongs
to a metaphysical discussion, not one of practice, and therefore is
orthogonal to a critique on the validity of a theory of speciation?

These are some of the problems I have with Intelligent Design. I'd be
interested in knowing how you overcome these.

er
--
email not valid

Enoch Root wrote:


I never said I could "prove" anything, merely that I could
refute the previous post's dishonesty by disclosing it as such.
Your cavalier introduction of the notion of "proof" is not binding
upon me to defend because it is *your* idea, not mine.


You wriggle and squirm, but you can't escape your own words:

Ah Watson lives ...


refute:
To disprove and overthrow by argument, evidence, or
countervailing proof; to prove to be false or erroneous; to
confute; as, to refute arguments; to refute testimony; to
refute opinions or theories; to refute a disputant.

A "disproof" is a proof of a negative. You're logic is slippery and
disingenuous. It's also untrue.

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


I said that as a joke about your attempting to "refute" something when
after all that blather you regurgitated about the futility of proofs.

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

SNIP

I was arguing *against* nothing. I was attempting to describe
why no system of knowledge can prove its premises. At no point did
I attack science or its methodology.


You did this (describe undecidability in a pomo populist
science/philosophy ignorant way) to explain your source of criticisms.
You assert ID's "views": "The assumption that the mechnical/material
view is sufficient is wrong." Who's argument is that? That went out

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

years ago, and in fact complexity theory is still in its infancy. So if
that isn't science (seems "utilitarian" enough to me, so I assume you're
asserting the inadequacy thereof) then is it philosophy? 'Cause it's
old and crusty in that field too, my little poseur. Are you going to
back away from that statement as well?

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


Look, if you *are* going to state an argument and back it up, you really
*must* make an effort to keep things clear, alright? If you aren't

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

making an argument against outdated notions of the state of philosophy,
don't include it in your response! A please remember to maintain a
distinction between philosophy and science as it's very important.

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

Your unreasonable expectation that Science adopt the doubts of
philosophy, rather than use it as a guide and warning, and inspiration?

I expressed none of my own expectations about science. I tried to
articulate the claims of the IDers as collateral to a larger question I
was asked. Moreover, philosophy is not expressing "doubt" (what a cute
way to trivialize thousands of years of thoughtful discourse).
Philosophy is naming very specific limitations about what we can even
know. It takes a religious person to ignore those limitations and
proceed anyway.


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

Explanation For The Churlish & Feeble

1. I got asked a question
2. I attempted to answer the question in two parts:

a) A discussion on the limitations of what can be "proven"
b) A catalog of what I understand ID's claims are

3. You trivialized 2a) by reducing it to "doubt"
(Probably because you didn't understand it)

4. You repeatedly tried to hang 2b) on me as if it were *my*
stated position.
(Because you're lonely and need someone to argue with.)

/Explanation For The Churlish & Feeble


Science is a practical endeavor to understand the world. It's

I said this from the outset. Go back and look for the word "utility"
in my previous post. I'm glad you agree with me on this.


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

Certainly not one simple enough for you to grasp.



limitations are well-known, but they don't distinguish it from, say ID.

Agreement again, surely there must be a God! The limitations in question
are common across *all* systems of knowledge ... which I said in
the first place.


Ahem. This is relevant to your explanation of critique of the Big Bang
Theory as it pertains to your disregard for evolution viz. ID, how?

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


It's actually the strengths of Science, its predictive value, that
distinguish it from flights of fancy like ID.

To the extent that it is predictive that's true.


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

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




However, not every part
of contemporary science is predictive. For instance, current
evolutionary theory is no such thing - at least not at any fine grained
level of detail. Todays "science" embraces far more than just those
portions of disciplines that are predictive. There is lots of induction
and deduction taking place far beyond the boundaries of being able to be
predictive. Oh, and by the way ... "predictive" is nothing more than
science demonstrating utility value. It does not make the premises of
science inherently more valid than the premises of other systems of
thought.


Here my little poseur friend, I can say that you are clearly out of your
depth and foundering in your own ideology.

Billions of dollars are invested each year in the predictive value of
the mechanics of evolution and natural selection. Trillions of dollars
a year are made using the predictive value of the mechanics behind
evolution and natural selection. Trillions.

That's right - the mathematics of it all have relevance and demonstrable
utility. And I was clearly not specific/simple enough in language
to make sure you understood what I meant. So I will try one last time.
Instead of "current evolutionary theory is no such thing", I should
have been more precise and said:

Biological evolutionary theory as understood today is not
predictive. One cannot look at a given species, and using this
theory, reliably predict anything about how that species will
evolve. Moreover, the biological theory of evolution is inferred
from observation but cannot be repeated or demonstrated
*in the large* (macro evolution).

The underlying mathematical foundations, however, have value
in their own right and have found utility value in other
disciplines.

I'm the one that used practice to demonstrate Science's value, not you.

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

You try to validate ID putting it above Science, by saying that because
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

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


positivism has been debunked that anything goes. Well that works in
philosophy, Buttercup, but science isn't philosophy. Science is
influenced by philosophy, but ID isn't philosophy, and it aint science.
It's a mental exercise.

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


Also predictive is *considerably* more than a demonstration of utility
value.

Really. Do grace us with more of your sophisticated expositions
on the matter. Beyond utility, just what does prediction
"demonstrate" for science?

You measure your ideas against the world my little poseur, and
if they match, you have a healthy world view.

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


Your implication that ID might be, somehow, immune to the same
limitations of the theory of evolution? Even while lacking its
strengths?

"Thou shalt not bear false witness." Where in my original post
did I even _hint_ that "ID might be, somehow, immune to the same
limitations"? I realize it was a long post, but after all, I did
start out by describing at some length how all epistemologies
have *common* limitations and boundaries.


Because I inferred it from your inclusion of these limitations for
evolution, as a part of your (still upcoming... hopefully soon now)
expose of how the BBT is crap and why that shows ID Evo as a theory?

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

Because you are using these arguments against evolution? Because it

Not once have I done so. Show me.

doesn't leave you with an argument for ID if you disown it? Because

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

your apparent task was to show us why ID was valid, where evolution is a
big lie? Are you not arguing for ID? Am I to take it from this that

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

you are just making lots of noise and my "sound and fury" theory was right?

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


Your use of our ignorance of the origin of life as an attack on our
(well-established) theories of the origin of species?

The theories are not "well established". Science has at least
a 2500 year tradition (and perhaps more) of which less than 150
have held some version on the origin of the species you espouse.
Moreover, the arguments for that theory a a) All indirect - they
cannot be verified by direct experiment and b) Are missing key
supporting elements (like transition fossils). Since this is so,
that theory has to be logically seen as being *weaker* than one
that has experimental confirmation.


How much development has occurred in the last 150 years. Yup.

Somewhere is a proof that you CANNOT GO BACKWARDS IN TIME, involving
dT/dT as an impossibility. Sometimes the best you can do is make
inference. That isn't a weakness in Science, it's a limitation of our
own abilities that spans all our observation. Nobody has ever bounced a
perfectly elastic star off another. Does that mean stars don't follow
normal newtonian physics? No, we make inferences between them and
earthly objects.

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


Missing fossils is NOT a refutation either. That's very simple to

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

explain if you just look at the amount of change to the geography over
the years. And guess what, Buttercup: there have been many, many
instances where there *were* no transitional fossils, BUT THEN THEY
FOUND SOME. Isn't that amazing! In one instant they were an
intervention by an Invisible Diddler, and the next, just another entry
in the fossil record.

But the overwhelming body of animal fossil variety is Cambrian -
a relatively short 100 Million years or so. Certainly not enough
for macro evolution to take place.

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


These are really weak arguments, poseur, that exploit exactly that
uncertainty of the Philosophy of science (and the honest appraisal of
that) against the endeavor. Philosophy of science acknowledges that,
and science tries to overcome it by the means available.


This is not to say the theory is wrong, merely not as strong ... and
therefore far from being "well-established". Unless, of course, you
choose to believe it absent those things. Such a position is fine with
me, but let's call it what it really is: Faith.


Ah, another find! It's not wrong because of that. I'm glad we agree
the theory is not wrong. At least, I think we do. You'll probably deny
that. When did we start talking about faith and belief? I was talking
about validity of theories. Evolution has validity and is
well-established as a theory. There is huge amounts of data to support

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


it: in the fossil record, in breeding of livestock, in biology, in
population studies....

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

ID on the other hand is spaghetti monsterism.
Whimsy. Wishful thinking. A philosophical puzzle. There's no way to

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

begin to establish it even as a theory. The best you can hope for is
that thing you seem so disdainful of: faith. There's nothing wrong
with it, but it has no place in the establishment of a theory of speciation.

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


[more pretending to be a grownup (with an argument), snipped]


Your flat-out wrong assertion that when I examine where "parts" come
from and why they "work" will drive me inexorably to the conclusion
there is a builder?

It was not "my" assertion. That sentence comes from an attempt on my
part to catalog the current position of IDers. They are, in fact, wrong
about this one. You are an existence proof that some people rebel at the
idea of a builder no matter how elegantly designed the building is
because your Faith precludes the possibility that you are not at the top
of the knowledge food chain.


You are the one right here making the argument. Take responsibility for
your own actions, young man. It was your task to demonstrate an
argument for why The Big Bang was nothing more than a lot of hot air as
far as theories go, and then explain why that would demonstrate that ID
was better'n evolution. Oh wait... we already established that you
don't have one. You've backed away from everything thus far.

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


I make no professions of faith. Quite the opposite. Actually, in my

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


own mind I do regarding how to treat people, community responsibilities,
and life choices like that. Those are irrelevant here, though.

There is no assertion in anything I said that I am at the top of the
"knowledge food chain". You're all alone, teetering up there, Buttercup.
SNIP

So now we've come full circle. Your fulminations demonstrate my very
first point in the earlier post: What you "know" depends entirely on
what you accept as being "true". You haven't refuted me even slighly -
you've served as an example of what I wrote. The only real difference
between you and the most devout Theist or one of the IDers, is that the
latter admit their Faith and their God. You have both and pretend they
don't exist.


I don't get an answer to my question, then. I don't get a clarification
of an argument? I just get spurious accusations of fallacious
arguments? I was expecting something demonstrable from you, some way to

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

legitimize ID as a theory that would somehow put it in contention with
evolution as a theory. And I was willing and ready to put up my

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

SNIP

And you are angry, strident, and defensive signifying self-doubt and
fear ...


Is it a habit of yours, to provoke people with your snide little
arrogant **** comments, and then turn it against their argument? You
are a pathetic little monster of a boy, Buttercup. And dishonest. You
have succeeded in annoying me.
Then my work is done


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Enoch Root wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Enoch Root wrote:


wrote:



Tim Daneliuk wrote:




You mean like the "mumbo jumbo" that suggests Everything appeared at
the
Big Bang out of Nothing and we are *certain* that this
materialist/mechanical
POV is correct? All systems of knowledge have unprovable starting
points -
this includes Science.



Jason, Fletis Humplebacker, and Mark or Juanita all also had similar
comments about the Big Bang Model, and all in OT threads about
'Intelligent Design' making the introduction of the remarks doubly
off-topic at.

I remain curious as to where you obtained your criticisms.

Can you direct me to your source?



That was a very nice question. An opportunity to criticize the Big Bang
Theory, and offer sources, cites.

I would have been very interested in knowing how that would undermine
the theory of evolution or support ID seeing as how it's, as you say,
irrelevant^Wofftopic.


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


You keep confusing science with philosophy, that's your problem. You

I am entirely clear on the distinction and have no conqsequent problem:

1) The philosophy of science requires "faith" in certain unprovable
starting points about the nature and efficacy of the methods of science.

2) The practice of science is built upon the philosophy of science.

3) By Transitive Closure, the practice of science is thus built
(ultimately, subtlely) on a kind of "faith". That fact that this
belief is non-religious does not make it any less "faith".

know the word epistemology, but you don't understand it. (there's a
(very) little joke there, if you look)

You're right, it's very little.


don't trip while you backpeddle away from your statements.

I won't, I affirm them more strongly.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

In article , "TeamCasa" wrote:

Don't you mean non sequitur?

Oh, looky, a spelling fLame.
But yes, there are just to many things yet to be determined.

ROTFLMAO! You correct *his* spelling, then make a spelling error of your own.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On 2/10/2006 11:37 PM mumbled something about
the following:
Joe Barta wrote:
...

And while some in the movement may not have a religious agenda, ID
does seem to me suspiciously like warmed over Creationism.


You mean like the way an early draft of _Of People and Pandas_
was created by globally replacing 'Creation Science" with
"Intelligent Design"?


Seems the ID people didn't even have any credible people to speak on ID
in PA when it went to court there.

--
Odinn - I have not problems with religion being taught in the classroom,
as long as it is an elective and they teach ALL religions, not just one.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

There
are problems with ID as currently proposed, but you haven't nailed
a single one of them.

Maybe I missed them, but could you briefly explain these problems?

Joe Barta

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. com...
In article , "TeamCasa"
wrote:

Don't you mean non sequitur?

Oh, looky, a spelling fLame.
But yes, there are just to many things yet to be determined.

ROTFLMAO! You correct *his* spelling, then make a spelling error of your
own.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Nobody is perfect~!
Dave



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

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Enoch Root wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Enoch Root wrote:


wrote:



Tim Daneliuk wrote:




You mean like the "mumbo jumbo" that suggests Everything appeared at
the
Big Bang out of Nothing and we are *certain* that this
materialist/mechanical
POV is correct? All systems of knowledge have unprovable starting
points -
this includes Science.



Jason, Fletis Humplebacker, and Mark or Juanita all also had similar
comments about the Big Bang Model, and all in OT threads about
'Intelligent Design' making the introduction of the remarks doubly
off-topic at.

I remain curious as to where you obtained your criticisms.

Can you direct me to your source?




That was a very nice question. An opportunity to criticize the Big
Bang
Theory, and offer sources, cites.

I would have been very interested in knowing how that would undermine
the theory of evolution or support ID seeing as how it's, as you say,
irrelevant^Wofftopic.



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



You keep confusing science with philosophy, that's your problem. You


I am entirely clear on the distinction and have no conqsequent problem:

1) The philosophy of science requires "faith" in certain unprovable
starting points about the nature and efficacy of the methods of science.

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

2) The practice of science is built upon the philosophy of science.

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

3) By Transitive Closure, the practice of science is thus built
(ultimately, subtlely) on a kind of "faith". That fact that this
belief is non-religious does not make it any less "faith".

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

know the word epistemology, but you don't understand it. (there's a
(very) little joke there, if you look)


You're right, it's very little.


don't trip while you backpeddle away from your statements.


I won't, I affirm them more strongly.

er
--
email not valid

Spin Denyalot wrote:
Enoch Root wrote:


I never said I could "prove" anything, merely that I could
refute the previous post's dishonesty by disclosing it as such.
Your cavalier introduction of the notion of "proof" is not binding
upon me to defend because it is *your* idea, not mine.



You wriggle and squirm, but you can't escape your own words:


Ah Watson lives ...


refute:
To disprove and overthrow by argument, evidence, or
countervailing proof; to prove to be false or erroneous; to
confute; as, to refute arguments; to refute testimony; to
refute opinions or theories; to refute a disputant.

A "disproof" is a proof of a negative. You're logic is slippery and
disingenuous. It's also untrue.


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

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

I said that as a joke about your attempting to "refute" something when
after all that blather you regurgitated about the futility of proofs.

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


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

You have the order wrong... I didn't start the ad hominems. You did.

And if the proofs of theorems against axioms are against axioms whose
proofs are impossible, can one not deduce that all proofs are on shaky
ground? That is the state of the art, Buttercup. Nothing idiotic about
it.

SNIP

I was arguing *against* nothing. I was attempting to describe
why no system of knowledge can prove its premises. At no point did
I attack science or its methodology.



You did this (describe undecidability in a pomo populist
science/philosophy ignorant way) to explain your source of criticisms.
You assert ID's "views": "The assumption that the mechnical/material
view is sufficient is wrong." Who's argument is that? That went out


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

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

years ago, and in fact complexity theory is still in its infancy. So if
that isn't science (seems "utilitarian" enough to me, so I assume you're
asserting the inadequacy thereof) then is it philosophy? 'Cause it's
old and crusty in that field too, my little poseur. Are you going to
back away from that statement as well?


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

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

Look, if you *are* going to state an argument and back it up, you really
*must* make an effort to keep things clear, alright? If you aren't


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

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

making an argument against outdated notions of the state of philosophy,
don't include it in your response! A please remember to maintain a
distinction between philosophy and science as it's very important.


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

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

Your unreasonable expectation that Science adopt the doubts of
philosophy, rather than use it as a guide and warning, and inspiration?


I expressed none of my own expectations about science. I tried to
articulate the claims of the IDers as collateral to a larger question I
was asked. Moreover, philosophy is not expressing "doubt" (what a cute
way to trivialize thousands of years of thoughtful discourse).
Philosophy is naming very specific limitations about what we can even
know. It takes a religious person to ignore those limitations and
proceed anyway.



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


Explanation For The Churlish & Feeble

1. I got asked a question
2. I attempted to answer the question in two parts:

a) A discussion on the limitations of what can be "proven"
b) A catalog of what I understand ID's claims are

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

3. You trivialized 2a) by reducing it to "doubt"
(Probably because you didn't understand it)

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

4. You repeatedly tried to hang 2b) on me as if it were *my*
stated position.
(Because you're lonely and need someone to argue with.)

/Explanation For The Churlish & Feeble

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

Science is a practical endeavor to understand the world. It's


I said this from the outset. Go back and look for the word "utility"
in my previous post. I'm glad you agree with me on this.



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


Certainly not one simple enough for you to grasp.

Or one relevant to the original question.

limitations are well-known, but they don't distinguish it from, say ID.


Agreement again, surely there must be a God! The limitations in
question
are common across *all* systems of knowledge ... which I said in
the first place.



Ahem. This is relevant to your explanation of critique of the Big Bang
Theory as it pertains to your disregard for evolution viz. ID, how?


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

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

It's actually the strengths of Science, its predictive value, that
distinguish it from flights of fancy like ID.


To the extent that it is predictive that's true.



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


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

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

However, not every part
of contemporary science is predictive. For instance, current
evolutionary theory is no such thing - at least not at any fine grained
level of detail. Todays "science" embraces far more than just those
portions of disciplines that are predictive. There is lots of induction
and deduction taking place far beyond the boundaries of being able to be
predictive. Oh, and by the way ... "predictive" is nothing more than
science demonstrating utility value. It does not make the premises of
science inherently more valid than the premises of other systems of
thought.



Here my little poseur friend, I can say that you are clearly out of your
depth and foundering in your own ideology.

Billions of dollars are invested each year in the predictive value of
the mechanics of evolution and natural selection. Trillions of dollars
a year are made using the predictive value of the mechanics behind
evolution and natural selection. Trillions.


That's right - the mathematics of it all have relevance and demonstrable
utility. And I was clearly not specific/simple enough in language
to make sure you understood what I meant. So I will try one last time.
Instead of "current evolutionary theory is no such thing", I should
have been more precise and said:

Biological evolutionary theory as understood today is not
predictive. One cannot look at a given species, and using this
theory, reliably predict anything about how that species will
evolve. Moreover, the biological theory of evolution is inferred
from observation but cannot be repeated or demonstrated
*in the large* (macro evolution).

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

The underlying mathematical foundations, however, have value
in their own right and have found utility value in other
disciplines.

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

I'm the one that used practice to demonstrate Science's value, not you.


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

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

You try to validate ID putting it above Science, by saying that because

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

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

Above as in the field of philosophical and metaphysical endeavors,
Buttercup, where things have a different way of unfolding.

Sorry if I didn't make that clear, but you want to give a metaphysical
exploration the wrappings of Science. But with the strictures of
Metaphysics. All muddled up.

positivism has been debunked that anything goes. Well that works in
philosophy, Buttercup, but science isn't philosophy. Science is
influenced by philosophy, but ID isn't philosophy, and it aint science.
It's a mental exercise.


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

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

Also predictive is *considerably* more than a demonstration of utility
value.


Really. Do grace us with more of your sophisticated expositions
on the matter. Beyond utility, just what does prediction
"demonstrate" for science?

You measure your ideas against the world my little poseur, and

if they match, you have a healthy world view.


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

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

Your implication that ID might be, somehow, immune to the same
limitations of the theory of evolution? Even while lacking its
strengths?


"Thou shalt not bear false witness." Where in my original post
did I even _hint_ that "ID might be, somehow, immune to the same
limitations"? I realize it was a long post, but after all, I did
start out by describing at some length how all epistemologies
have *common* limitations and boundaries.



Because I inferred it from your inclusion of these limitations for
evolution, as a part of your (still upcoming... hopefully soon now)
expose of how the BBT is crap and why that shows ID Evo as a theory?


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

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

Because you are using these arguments against evolution? Because it


Not once have I done so. Show me.

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

doesn't leave you with an argument for ID if you disown it? Because


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

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

your apparent task was to show us why ID was valid, where evolution is a
big lie? Are you not arguing for ID? Am I to take it from this that


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

So, just a big recitation? No point?

you are just making lots of noise and my "sound and fury" theory was
right?


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

A question that exists only in your head.

Your use of our ignorance of the origin of life as an attack on our
(well-established) theories of the origin of species?


The theories are not "well established". Science has at least
a 2500 year tradition (and perhaps more) of which less than 150
have held some version on the origin of the species you espouse.
Moreover, the arguments for that theory a a) All indirect - they
cannot be verified by direct experiment and b) Are missing key
supporting elements (like transition fossils). Since this is so,
that theory has to be logically seen as being *weaker* than one
that has experimental confirmation.



How much development has occurred in the last 150 years. Yup.

Somewhere is a proof that you CANNOT GO BACKWARDS IN TIME, involving
dT/dT as an impossibility. Sometimes the best you can do is make
inference. That isn't a weakness in Science, it's a limitation of our
own abilities that spans all our observation. Nobody has ever bounced a
perfectly elastic star off another. Does that mean stars don't follow
normal newtonian physics? No, we make inferences between them and
earthly objects.


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

You are confusing Science and Metaphysics again. Stop it.

Missing fossils is NOT a refutation either. That's very simple to


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

I know, you never said anything beyond a recitation.

explain if you just look at the amount of change to the geography over
the years. And guess what, Buttercup: there have been many, many
instances where there *were* no transitional fossils, BUT THEN THEY
FOUND SOME. Isn't that amazing! In one instant they were an
intervention by an Invisible Diddler, and the next, just another entry
in the fossil record.


But the overwhelming body of animal fossil variety is Cambrian -
a relatively short 100 Million years or so. Certainly not enough
for macro evolution to take place.

There's geological/climatic explanations for that. They're worthy of study.

How would you propose to embark on a study of ID explanations for that?

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

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

These are really weak arguments, poseur, that exploit exactly that
uncertainty of the Philosophy of science (and the honest appraisal of
that) against the endeavor. Philosophy of science acknowledges that,
and science tries to overcome it by the means available.

Here again I am trying to clarify the problem with your... recitation.

Draw a line between philosophy and science, and decide where ID lies.

This is not to say the theory is wrong, merely not as strong ... and
therefore far from being "well-established". Unless, of course, you
choose to believe it absent those things. Such a position is fine with
me, but let's call it what it really is: Faith.



Ah, another find! It's not wrong because of that. I'm glad we agree
the theory is not wrong. At least, I think we do. You'll probably deny
that. When did we start talking about faith and belief? I was talking
about validity of theories. Evolution has validity and is
well-established as a theory. There is huge amounts of data to support


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

Yes, but competing theories that actually had a basis in the physical
world upset old theories of the earth.

Your non-defense of ID, and your non-criticism of evolution seem to be
an attempt to defend ID against evolution, but as you are merely
reciting but don't have an actual position I understand that you are
merely making noise.

it: in the fossil record, in breeding of livestock, in biology, in
population studies....


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

Macro-evolution. please define macro-evolution clearly and in terms a
mere scientist can understand. I don't think that
ooze-fish-yourobsession really cuts it.

And while we're at it Buttercup, I know it's offtopic, but how does that
guy end up in EVERY one of your discussions?

ID on the other hand is spaghetti monsterism.
Whimsy. Wishful thinking. A philosophical puzzle. There's no way to


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

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

begin to establish it even as a theory. The best you can hope for is
that thing you seem so disdainful of: faith. There's nothing wrong
with it, but it has no place in the establishment of a theory of
speciation.


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

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

[more pretending to be a grownup (with an argument), snipped]


Your flat-out wrong assertion that when I examine where "parts" come
from and why they "work" will drive me inexorably to the conclusion
there is a builder?


It was not "my" assertion. That sentence comes from an attempt on my
part to catalog the current position of IDers. They are, in fact, wrong
about this one. You are an existence proof that some people rebel at the
idea of a builder no matter how elegantly designed the building is
because your Faith precludes the possibility that you are not at the top
of the knowledge food chain.



You are the one right here making the argument. Take responsibility for
your own actions, young man. It was your task to demonstrate an
argument for why The Big Bang was nothing more than a lot of hot air as
far as theories go, and then explain why that would demonstrate that ID
was better'n evolution. Oh wait... we already established that you
don't have one. You've backed away from everything thus far.


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

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

I make no professions of faith. Quite the opposite. Actually, in my


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

This isn't email, Buttercup. I've not done that, only assessed the
validity of various explanations of the world *as* *theories*. I've not
said *I* *believe* anything, but evolution has much more of my attention
as a valid theory than... well you're just reciting and denial, and
conflating Physik with Metaphysik.

If I discard a contrary position it is because there is no evidence to
support it, or it's not testable as a theory. If you want to have a
metaphysical discussion leave Evolution and Science vs. ID alone because
that's muddying it up with practice.

own mind I do regarding how to treat people, community responsibilities,
and life choices like that. Those are irrelevant here, though.

There is no assertion in anything I said that I am at the top of the
"knowledge food chain". You're all alone, teetering up there, Buttercup.

SNIP

So now we've come full circle. Your fulminations demonstrate my very
first point in the earlier post: What you "know" depends entirely on
what you accept as being "true". You haven't refuted me even slighly -
you've served as an example of what I wrote. The only real difference
between you and the most devout Theist or one of the IDers, is that the
latter admit their Faith and their God. You have both and pretend they
don't exist.



I don't get an answer to my question, then. I don't get a clarification
of an argument? I just get spurious accusations of fallacious
arguments? I was expecting something demonstrable from you, some way to


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

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

legitimize ID as a theory that would somehow put it in contention with
evolution as a theory. And I was willing and ready to put up my


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

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

SNIP

And you are angry, strident, and defensive signifying self-doubt and
fear ...



Is it a habit of yours, to provoke people with your snide little
arrogant **** comments, and then turn it against their argument? You
are a pathetic little monster of a boy, Buttercup. And dishonest. You
have succeeded in annoying me.

Then my work is done

Ah, the point at last. Thank you for being honest about *that*.

er
--
email not valid

Enoch Root wrote:

didn't you buttercup

In a debate, I usually know when the other guy has run out of worthy
argument and it's time to move on...

Joe Barta

Joe Barta wrote:
Enoch Root wrote:


didn't you buttercup


In a debate, I usually know when the other guy has run out of worthy
argument and it's time to move on...

Say, didn't you just the other day say that silence implies consent?



er
--
email not valid

Enoch Root wrote:

In a debate, I usually know when the other guy has run out of
worthy argument and it's time to move on...

Say, didn't you just the other day say that silence implies
consent?




No, I think it was something about being silent and thought a fool ;-)

Joe Barta

Joe Barta wrote:
Enoch Root wrote:


In a debate, I usually know when the other guy has run out of
worthy argument and it's time to move on...

Say, didn't you just the other day say that silence implies
consent?

No, I think it was something about being silent and thought a fool ;-)

Ouch. I was thinking of Fredfigher, now I peruse google's groups.

er
--
email not valid

Spin Denyalot wrote:
Enoch Root wrote:

TeamCasa wrote:


I, for one, choose to accept ID as a reasonable premise.



So your decision isn't influenced by the Creationist conspiracy
surrounding IDs birth?


And science was built on the foolishness of Tyco Brache who
was utterly wrong. Guilt By Association.

Hi Spin. This wasn't directed at you.

You are wrong. Brahe was a colorful element of the development of
science. He took a position that turned out to be wrong. But he took a
testable position. He also was no doubt influenced by external
religious/politial pressure (sounds familiar). Saying he was "wrong" is
to discount the extremely valuable contributions he made to the
development of astronomy. Comparing him to ID also is the very Guilt By
Association you seem to be accusing me of, and discounts the actual
validity and testability of his theory, wrong or right.

You aren't concerned with the Genie In The Bottle problem associated
with it (the "builder" is also so complex he must have also had a
"builder")?

This isn't remotely a problem for anyone who has ever done an
inductive proof or integrated over a discontinuity in math -
at least not if they sit down and thing about it for any length
of time. Baseless Argument.

Why is it baseless, just because there are discontinuities in some
equations? How does that follow? That's utter nonesense.
Discontinuities have distinct properties and causes, and induction over
them has actual results that can be compared to well-defined behaviors.
To liken the Genie in the Bottle to this is to trivialize the problems
inherent to such a proposition.

You aren't concerned that it merely shifts the complexity to
unverifiable causes when there is a plausible, testable, and evident
alternative (it seems to allow speciation to occur but attributes the
selection process among the variants to a "builder" rather than a
"natural" mechanism.)?

The current theory found in the scientific community is full of
unverifiable causes which are not testable. False Dichotomy.

Oh please, do more than assert and give me an argument. There must be
something you can give me, but really I think you are spitting a party
line. What current theory? Are we still talking about evolution, the
theory of speciation? Are you going to talk about transitional fossils
again, or do you have something beter? Be specific!

You aren't concerned that many of the "arguments" made against evolution
by ID's proponents appear to attack problems that aren't associated with
it (the "genesis" issue, origin of life vs. origin of species)?

One does not measure the merits of a system on the basis of
that systems' bad practicioners. Ad Hominem.

You don't know what an ad hominem is, either. A bad argument is a bad
argument, not an attacked personage.

Well, I think you raised that yourself... oh wait. You were reciting
an ID view... you were reciting a "bad ID practitioners" view?

ID pretends to be practical if it makes claim to merit... but ID has
nothing testable or verifiable to it that isn't a simulacrum of Evo
ending with a whispering "as though there were a builder". This is the
failure of ID: an attempt to descend into practice by what is rightly a
metaphysical discussion.

You don't grow suspicious of motive when you notice that it is in many
ways indistinguishable from evolution *except* that it requires there be
an intelligence at work controlling the machinery?

This is not inherently a problem. It may be evidence both parties
are onto something. Overstated.

There is when you presume to descend from the realm of metaphysical
discussion into science. It's a problem inherent to ID. What ID has to
offer that Evolution doesn't is the essence of ID. And that lies in
another area of discussion than science.

You aren't upset that many of the arguments attack problems with human
thought, verifiability, and logic, that are endemic to all thought (ID
included) and as such aren't relevant to science, but to broader
questions of philosophy?

You cannot seperate the practice of science from its epistemic roots.
Bad Dualism.

No, *you* can't. Because you refuse to recognize the separateness of
physik and metaphysik, of knowledge and epistemology. You wish to
confound all meaning for the purposes of your argument (well, if you had
one. You offer (spurious) strengths of one, and criticisms of t'other,
you exploit the fundamentally metaphysical questions of one against the
practical considerations of t'other, but you only claim to be reciting
the party line.)

You aren't surprised that an idea is being advanced that rightly belongs
to a metaphysical discussion, not one of practice, and therefore is
orthogonal to a critique on the validity of a theory of speciation?

Utter baloney. Do this though experiment: Say that the IDers
were able to establish just their philosophical claims. Do you
seriously believe this would have no consequence to the practice of
science and its currently-held theories? More Bad Dualism.

Only if it offers something to practice beyond awed whispers.

These are some of the problems I have with Intelligent Design. I'd be
interested in knowing how you overcome these.

Since every single one of your "problems" are artifical, overstated,
or flatly bogus, you can "overcome" them by applying some small
modicum of honesty to your internal discourse. There are problems
with ID as currently proposed, but you haven't nailed a single one
of them.

This question was directed at someone I believe can give me an honest
and heartfelt explanation of his views. Not you.

er
--
email not valid

Joe Barta wrote:

Enoch Root wrote:


didn't you buttercup


In a debate, I usually know when the other guy has run out of worthy
argument and it's time to move on...

Joe Barta

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

(I will respond to your earlier question when I have a moment...)

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Enoch Root wrote:

Spin Denyalot wrote:

Enoch Root wrote:

SNIP of an endless barage of half truths, political argument, appeal
to scientific authority, and all the rest of the shrill squealing
by a deeply-frightened ER

You have squealed on and on about what I do and don't believe in
some vain attempt to discredit what you *think* I believe. So
let me clear it up for you. Unlike the previous post that got
your garters snapped (where I was trying to define the position of
*a third party*) here is *MY* take on things. You're free to attack
it all you like and I will read it with great merriment. Squealing
is always the sign that someone poked a nerve. So put your garters
back in order, read this in direct simple English and try not to
foam too much:

I am personally a Theist, but not necessarily an IDer - I think the jury
is still out on ID, partly because the orthodox science establishment
has dug in its heels so hard and refuses to hear them, and partly
because the IDers have conflated philosophy and science and they are
hard to understand when you do hear them.

In any case, I do not subscribe to a young earth, evolution, miro- or
macro- does not threaten me, and I am willing to hear new evidence for
any of this. I do have suspicions macro-evolution/speciation via natural
selection is at least somewhat wrong and perhaps profoundly so as I do
not see compelling evidence for it. But even if it is shown to be
incontrovertibly true, this has no bearing one way or the other on my
Theist beliefs.

I am trained in Computer Science at the graduate level and have a
passing familiarity with complexity theory, and perhaps an advanced
layman's appreciation for the physical sciences. I do not worship
science as the highest form of human knowledge - it is one of many
such sources of knowledge. Logic is not more valid than Faith - they
address different kinds of knowledge. And, finally, I do not worship
my own intellect. As a Theist, I acknowledge that my intellect - indeed
everything in the Universe - is bestowed upon me by the original
Author of it all - I am steward of what I have been given. I am not
arrogant or presumptuous enough to believe that I am the source of
my own knowledge.

You will note that *none* of this correlates to any of the attacks you've
attempted to launch my way in the past several days. Despite the
strong tone of my responses, I am not in the slightest bit angry or
irritated with you. I mostly feel sorry for you. Your god is your own
intellect and you will always find it an unsatisfying deity.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Enoch Root wrote:

wrote:


Tim Daneliuk wrote:



You mean like the "mumbo jumbo" that suggests Everything appeared at the
Big Bang out of Nothing and we are *certain* that this materialist/mechanical
POV is correct? All systems of knowledge have unprovable starting points -
this includes Science.



Jason, Fletis Humplebacker, and Mark or Juanita all also had similar
comments about the Big Bang Model, and all in OT threads about
'Intelligent Design' making the introduction of the remarks doubly
off-topic at.

I remain curious as to where you obtained your criticisms.

Can you direct me to your source?


That was a very nice question. An opportunity to criticize the Big Bang
Theory, and offer sources, cites.

I would have been very interested in knowing how that would undermine
the theory of evolution or support ID seeing as how it's, as you say,
irrelevant^Wofftopic.

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

However, as I pointed out in email and as was implied by my
comments at the time, the criticisms were not directed at the
Big Bang model. Rather they were directed at a straw man,
a misrepresentation of the Big Bang model, essentially the
'dumbed down' version such as one might see presented on
PBS.

IMHO, the weakest part of the Big Bang model is the underlying
assumption that physical law was always the same as our current
understanding of physical law.

As we have learned in the 20th century, physical law, as it was
understood in the 19th century, was proven to be incorrect regarding
conditions significantly different from everyday macroscopic
phenomena. When we explored the physics of the very small,
the very fast, and the very massive we found that physical law,
as it was previousl understood was a 'special cases' of more
general physical law. It should not surprise us if we find that
20th century physics is incorrect IRT the early universe--what
we observe to be physical law in the present univers is a special
case of more general physical law.

In fact, ID is built on Faith and so
is Science.


I suppose by that you mean that Science is based on faith in the
scientific method. On that point I have no issue.

However, the scientific method pwer se, is based on doubt.

--

FF

Spin Denyalot wrote:
Enoch Root wrote:
Spin Denyalot wrote:
Enoch Root wrote:

SNIP of an endless barage of half truths, political argument, appeal
to scientific authority, and all the rest of the shrill squealing
by a deeply-frightened ER

You have squealed on and on about what I do and don't believe in
some vain attempt to discredit what you *think* I believe.

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

So
let me clear it up for you. Unlike the previous post that got
your garters snapped (where I was trying to define the position of
*a third party*) here is *MY* take on things. You're free to attack
it all you like and I will read it with great merriment. Squealing
is always the sign that someone poked a nerve. So put your garters
back in order, read this in direct simple English and try not to
foam too much:

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

I am personally a Theist, but not necessarily an IDer - I think the jury
is still out on ID, partly because the orthodox science establishment
has dug in its heels so hard and refuses to hear them, and partly
because the IDers have conflated philosophy and science and they are
hard to understand when you do hear them.

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

In any case, I do not subscribe to a young earth, evolution, miro- or
macro- does not threaten me, and I am willing to hear new evidence for
any of this. I do have suspicions macro-evolution/speciation via natural
selection is at least somewhat wrong and perhaps profoundly so as I do
not see compelling evidence for it. But even if it is shown to be
incontrovertibly true, this has no bearing one way or the other on my
Theist beliefs.

Young earth is not all of creationism:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

Please refrain from equating macro-evolution and speciation, as inferred
with your forward slash, until someone has seen fit to define
macro-evolution sufficiently as to warrant a comparison. Thanks.

I'm glad your Theist beliefs don't depend upon Evo being false. Nothing
wrong with that.

I am trained in Computer Science at the graduate level and have a
passing familiarity with complexity theory, and perhaps an advanced
layman's appreciation for the physical sciences.

CS/Business Information Systems?

I do not worship
science as the highest form of human knowledge - it is one of many
such sources of knowledge.

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

Logic is not more valid than Faith - they
address different kinds of knowledge.

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

And, finally, I do not worship
my own intellect.

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

As a Theist, I acknowledge that my intellect - indeed
everything in the Universe - is bestowed upon me by the original
Author of it all - I am steward of what I have been given.

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

I am not
arrogant or presumptuous enough to believe that I am the source of
my own knowledge.

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

You will note that *none* of this correlates to any of the attacks you've
attempted to launch my way in the past several days.

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

Despite the
strong tone of my responses, I am not in the slightest bit angry or
irritated with you.

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

I mostly feel sorry for you.

That's because you are so compassionate, huh?

Your god is your own
intellect and you will always find it an unsatisfying deity.

There's that embittered little boy ending, again. I almost thought you
were rehabilitating, Spin.

er
--
email not valid

Enoch Root wrote:

SNIP

I am trained in Computer Science at the graduate level and have a
passing familiarity with complexity theory, and perhaps an advanced
layman's appreciation for the physical sciences.


CS/Business Information Systems?

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

Enoch Root wrote:

SNIP

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



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

I mostly feel sorry for you.


That's because you are so compassionate, huh?

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


Your god is your own
intellect and you will always find it an unsatisfying deity.


There's that embittered little boy ending, again. I almost thought you
were rehabilitating, Spin.

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

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Enoch Root wrote:

SNIP

I am trained in Computer Science at the graduate level and have a
passing familiarity with complexity theory, and perhaps an advanced
layman's appreciation for the physical sciences.



CS/Business Information Systems?


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

Just a guess...

er
--
email not valid