Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-02-2016, 05:35 PM (This post was last modified: 12-02-2016 08:02 PM by true scotsman.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(11-02-2016 01:11 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(10-02-2016 10:09 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Would you call archeopteryx a bird or a dinosaur?

I call archeopteryx a prehistoric BIRD that had teeth. Point blank, period.

Well scientists classify it as a dinosaur and since that classification is based on anatomical traits and not simply arbitrarily assigned, I'll go with the scientists.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2016, 05:38 PM (This post was last modified: 12-02-2016 07:02 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Saying "point blank, period" does not change crap into pearls.
It just revels how stubbornly ignorant COTW is.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
12-02-2016, 06:13 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(11-02-2016 01:11 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(10-02-2016 10:09 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I'd call it a species of dinosaur which is very bird like and also a bird that is very dinosaur like. In other words, in between a dinosaur and a bird.

Do you know why you think that way?
Yes Call of the Wild, I do know why I think the way I do. It's called the objective method of knowledge. You should try it sometime.
(11-02-2016 01:11 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Because you are an atheist/naturalist.
I prefer to identify myself as an Objectivist, though it is true that I reject the idea of the supernatural in all its various forms. So it is fine to call me a naturalist in that sense. However naturalism does not describe my philosophy, it is far to narrow.
(11-02-2016 01:11 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  God doesn't exist, on your view
True. And I've demonstrated that I have a perfectly rational justification for rejecting the idea of gods, specifically that the idea of God violates the primacy of existence.
(11-02-2016 01:11 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  ...so for you, evolution is the only game in town.
Not true. This is a false dichotomy. I recognize that the TOE is the best explanation of the diversity of life on Earth and one that has been thoroughly confirmed by evidence, But I'm not wedded to it. If a better, more parsimonious theory is presented I'll consider it.
(11-02-2016 01:11 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  You have to find some way to explain the diversity in life/species...and evolution is all you have.
Actually, I'm under no obligation to explain the diversity in life/ species. That's a job for the special sciences, should they choose to undertake to explain it. I am not a scientist.
(11-02-2016 01:11 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  So when you look at archeopteryx, you interpret what it was by using your presuppositions regarding evolution...and that is why you think archeo is a transitional fossil.

Actually no, this is not true. I think that all fossils are transitional. I think that all species are transitional, since evolution is a continuous process. I think I'm a transitional species, in between my ancestors and what Humans will eventually evolve into. Someday I might be a fossil in a museum and creationists will be denying that I am a transitional fossil. Just as long as they don't name my fossil Lucy. I prefer a more masculine name like Hank or Duke.

(11-02-2016 01:11 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Me, on the other hand, I can believe in theistic evolution...so in other words, I can accept evolution while still embracing theism. However, regardless of my view towards theism, I just don't see any evidence for evolution, PERIOD. So no, I don't accept it...and even if I did accept evolution, I'd still be smart enough to conclude that God orchestrated the entire thing.
Wait a minute. You seem to be saying here that you both accept evolution and don't accept evolution.
(11-02-2016 01:11 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Evolution, whether true or false, in no way negates the existence of God.
I don't believe I've ever cited evolution as my reason for rejecting the idea of gods. I've not claimed that it negates the existence of God. I don't think the two issues are related at all. Gods are imaginary. The diversity of life on Earth however is very real.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
12-02-2016, 06:34 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(12-02-2016 09:14 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 01:52 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Or even billions.

Yeah, "even billions"...because the idea is , "over the course of a billion years, anything can happen", right?

Wrong. You don't know much about Objectivism, do you? Only those things which are possible can happen. In other words, there can be no contradictions. Square circles can't happen, no matter how many years pass, and things which violate the primacy of existence can't happen. So no, gods and square circles are equally impossible.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2016, 06:47 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(12-02-2016 09:14 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 01:52 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Whether anyone finds it convenient or not is irrelevant because reality does not conform to our feeling states.

It doesn't conform to the observational evidence, either.
I'm tempted to agree with you here. Reality does not conform to our conscious activity such as observing. So I'm tempted to give you a thumbs up here, but I don't think this is what you mean. Evidence is the facts of reality. What you seem to be saying here is that reality does not conform to the facts of reality. Or am I misinterpreting what you are saying here?
(12-02-2016 09:14 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 01:52 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  It is what it is regardless of what we think about it. A is A whether we like it or not, remember?

Of course but the question is, "Is it A?" Consider

Since the A in my statement is meant to represent reality, then yes, reality is reality. Or do you deny this?

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2016, 07:08 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(11-02-2016 01:11 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Me, on the other hand, I can believe in theistic evolution...so in other words, I can accept evolution while still embracing theism. However, regardless of my view towards theism, I just don't see any evidence for evolution, PERIOD.

There you go again. Having your "period".
Facepalm

You wouldn't know what evidence for Evolution was, if it slapped you upside the head.
EVERY major university in the entire world teaches it. The fact you know nothing about it, or the evidence for it, demonstrates your profound ignorance. Every time you go to the doctor and get an antibiotic, you are BUYING Evolution. Of course you don't know what that means.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
12-02-2016, 07:31 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(12-02-2016 09:14 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 01:52 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  On your view, probably because you have no theory of concepts to speak of, if we can't see something, we can't know about it, unless it is your God (special pleading anyone?).

Actually, it isn't special pleading, because there is a certain methodology that is used when it comes finding truth value when it comes to empirical things..and that is the scientific method.

Here Call of the Wild invokes the analytic/ synthetic dichotomy again, even though I've shown that it is deeply flawed. It is based on an improper understanding of concepts, specifically it confuses a concept with its definition. This dichotomy is a direct result of the inconsistent and contradictory metaphysics that he holds. He divides knowledge into two categories with two different methods of validation. This is a variation of the analytic/ synthetic dichotomy. It is the empiriscism/ rationalism dichotomy. It holds that some truths can be validated without experience and another type of truth can be validated only by experience. This is the crux of his claim that he is not committing the fallacy of special pleading here. If we take away this false dichotomy, and just apply reason informed by logic then we will see that he is indeed special pleading.
(12-02-2016 09:14 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Science is supposed to be based on observation, repeated experiement, and predictions.

Then there's no problem. Evolution is change in genetics over time. We observe that this happens. We can do experiment after experiment and we find over and over again that genomes change over time. We observe this both in the lab and in the field. And we can make predictions such as that we should see a nested hierarchy in the fossil record and low and behold, that is exactly what we find. We can make the prediction that our closest relatives will share more of our same DNA sequences than more distantly related, and indeed this is exactly what we find. Instance we share much more of our genome with the Chimpanzee than we do with jelly fish.

(12-02-2016 09:14 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  You've never observed macroevolution, there is no experiment that will get you macro results, and there is no way to predict when the next "change" will occur.
This term "macroevolution" is a term invented by creationists. I don't recognize it as a valid term. Evolution is descent with modification. It stands to reason that over a longer time, more modifications will occur. Over a very long time, a whole lot of modifications will occur. There's no macro vs. micro. There is just descent with modification. Would you say that a Chihuahua could mate with a Wolf. Although my Chihuahua would definitely try, he's one horny son of a bitch, he'd end up as lunch, well maybe a snack before lunch. Sure they can technically have offspring but so can a Tiger and a Lion. Yet they are considered different species because they don't mate naturally. How much longer before Chihuahuas are so different from Wolves that their genomes no longer match enough to technically be able to have offspring, Say if two of their chromosomes fuse like what happened with Humans. They are still descended from Wolves but they aren't Wolves any longer.

(12-02-2016 09:14 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Now sure, you can believe whatever the hell you want, it just isn't "science" No

Excuse me? The theory of evolution is not science? What have you been smoking, and can I have some? Of course the TOE is science, proposed by scientists, confirmed by science. Somebody better tell all of those mistaken biologists that they aren't doing science because COTW says its not science. Won't they be surprised. Won't they be devastated to find out they are all psudo-scientists like so called creation scientists.

And again, you don't know anything about my philosophy. I have a very strict method to decide what I accept as true and what I reject. So no, I can't believe "whatever the hell" I want to. That would only be true on a view which is premised on the primacy of consciousness, such as theism. Only on such a metaphysical basis could one believe that the Earth was created in six days, the moon and the stars are lights placed in a dome over the Earth, a snake talked a woman into eating a forbidden fruit and condemned all future generations to punishment, that a flood wiped out all the people on Earth and covered the highest mountain on Earth even though there is no evidence of such a flood, that a man lived inside a whale, That a man rose from the grave, etc.

My philosophy is premised exclusively and consistently on the primacy of existence, so no, I can't believe whatever I want. I must believe what is objectively true.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like true scotsman's post
13-02-2016, 12:16 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.



Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
13-02-2016, 02:04 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(12-02-2016 05:23 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  A theory in science is a set of principles based on and confirmed by evidence. I never said that they were the same. No hypothesis can rise to the level of a theory unless it has a good deal of evidential support.

And what is the evidential support for macroevolution? The fossil record is terrible evidence for evolution and even with DNA, you can't rule out intelligent design. Those are the two main pieces of evidence for your theory, and they both fall flat with in comes to absolutes/truth value.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2016, 03:09 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(13-02-2016 02:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(12-02-2016 05:23 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  A theory in science is a set of principles based on and confirmed by evidence. I never said that they were the same. No hypothesis can rise to the level of a theory unless it has a good deal of evidential support.

And what is the evidential support for macroevolution? The fossil record is terrible evidence for evolution and even with DNA, you can't rule out intelligent design. Those are the two main pieces of evidence for your theory, and they both fall flat with in comes to absolutes/truth value.

I don't recognize macro evolution as a valid term. The whole macro vs. micro is another false dichotomy. It is completely unjustified in reason. Evolution is change in genomes over time. It is a part of the nature of DNA to change with each new generation. What is your evidence to support your dichotomy. Is it that it hasn't been observed? I've already addressed this. human beings are not limited in our knowledge to what we can perceive directly. We have reason and logic as a guide to inference. So long as we can show the logical connections between that which is not perceptually self evident to that which is, we are on solid ground. Scientists have done it.

Can you do this with creationism? Can you show us the logical progression from what we can directly perceive to "God". Go ahead and show us your work and remember that in order to be true your steps must be in accordance with the primacy of existence principle.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: