[Gem Windcaster]

Adjutant Stormy, on 13 November 2009 - 01:14 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 04 November 2009 - 03:01 AM, said:

It is why I have brought formal logic into the discussion, because it squarely shows what I mean when I say that evolution cannot be properly tested and therefore it's a futile theory. Copy|paste x 10.

My dear Gem. In order for us to adequately assess Evolution, we haveto agree on the standards by which it is to be judged, and therationale of its formulation. The capital-T Truth in logic and philosophy has a very different meaning from scientific lower-case-t truth, and so we need to reconcile that point. 95% certainty, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is sufficient for science to call it lower-case-t truth. Capital-T-Truth is something that is formally unattainable. So CI is right, it is a provable lower-case-truth. And so are you, it is formally unprovable as capital-T-Truth.

If CI ever had said that he meant that evolution is not capital-T-truth, then he would inadvertently agree with me, and we would then not have this discussion. But CI seems to be saying that his lower-case-truth, as you call it, is the only possible lower-case-truth and inherently making it the capital-T-truth. And btw as to this: "In order for us to adequately assess Evolution, we have to agree on the standards by which it is to be judged, and the rationale of its formulation." The problem I have had with for instance CI's stance is that he doesn't have the same standards as me with which to judge the theory and the rationale of its formulation. It's impossible to discuss rationale when the opponent claims full truth and can't see his own beliefs for what they are.

Adjutant Stormy, on 13 November 2009 - 01:14 AM, said:

Quote

Cold Iron, on 02 November 2009 - 10:21 PM, said:

This is a brilliant finding but it is completely irrelevant to this argument. It adds no value to our attempts to understand the natural world. It does not rule out or discredit classical logic in any way. It does not alter the required rigidity and repeatability of the supporting evidence for a theory before it is considered to be proven. It certainly has no impact on reason or rationality. Using Gödel's incompleteness theorems as an argument against evolution is like using relativity as an argument for Chinese traditional medicine - just because energy and matter are interchangeable does not mean your chi is going to heal your hearing when i stick needles into your foot.

I am not bashing on classical logic, I am using formal logic to explain the problem I have with the theory of evolution.

Cold Iron, on 02 November 2009 - 10:21 PM, said:

The circular argument lies in the fact that Gödel's theorems are themselves not formally provable: "Belief in your theory is not rational because my theory says no theory can be proven"

It is only a circular argument if you don't take into account belief and consider it a valid segment in a theory. You don't accept it as a part of the theory, so for you it becomes a circular argument. I on the other hand, as we have already established, do take belief into account - in fact I think belief is essential for any human theory. We're different that way.

You seriously lost me. Care to clarify? It seems to say something along the lines of "belief in all other theories is irrational."

Where do you get the 'all other theories' from? There is no such thing in my posts. You have to specify what you think is confusing.

Adjutant Stormy, on 13 November 2009 - 01:14 AM, said:

Quote

Cold Iron, on 02 November 2009 - 10:21 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 01 November 2009 - 03:13 AM, said:

Summary: It requires something more than data, logic, mathematics etc. to form evidence. A thinking, believing human is needed. So go on and believe you have the truth. I commend you. But stop claiming the absolute objective truth, because it's an intellectual abomination.

You say that like the phrase "absolute objective truth" should have a standardised formal meaning that I should be aware of? All I'm saying is that evolution is a proven theory and it is thus the rational belief to hold.

No, no, and no. For you it is the rational belief to hold, but that doesn't make it proven. You could bet your life on it, and it still wouldn't be proven.

It seems to me that you think that your view is the only possible rational view that anyone could hold. You should consider the fact that your assigned meaning of the world is not necessarily the same as other people's assigned meaning. And they have as much meaning assigning powers as you do.

Meaning assignment has properties of rationality, too, realize.

Yes, exactly!

Adjutant Stormy, on 13 November 2009 - 01:14 AM, said:

Two plus two generally equals four, but it could equal 'butter,' it would be no less valid, but it would be more irrational (unless there was some associated system that made the assignment of 'butter' rigorous and coherent).

Problem is, rationality is subjective, because our minds are subjective. We use 3 things to determine rationality - our senses, our minds, and the input of other people (their senses & minds). Senses as in our brains - brains and minds as two different things. As for butter being less rational, that depends on the view of the person - I assume you mean the act of switching 'four' for 'butter'. If you do it for no reason then it's irrational, but if there's a reason for it, then it's not. You see, rationality lies in the eyes of the beholder, because the beholder compares the act to what is rational in his mind/what his senses say/what is socially acceptable. But I digress. Your point is invalid. Because how would you know that you're the one equaling 2+2 with 4 and not the person equaling it with butter? Consider two people - one says 2+2=4 and the other equally strong believes 2+2=butter. What is rational depends on the system, and if you change the system, you change what is rational. Now, we know 2+2=4, because that is the system humans created. But to determine what is rational in a system that we didn't create is a whole other matter.

What CI claims is that he knows the system - but how could know it if he didn't create it? This is where belief comes in.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 13 November 2009 - 07:28 PM

[stone monkey]

Oh good grief woman! I can't believe you've just dived headfirst into platonism vs constructionism...

You would appear to be a pure constructionist; I'm not sure that's even a defensible position...

[Gem Windcaster]

stone monkey, on 13 November 2009 - 09:43 PM, said:

Oh good grief woman! I can't believe you've just dived headfirst into platonism vs constructionism...

You would appear to be a pure constructionist; I'm not sure that's even a defensible position...

I am pleased I shocked you. But I'm not sure I am pure anything, actually. And I'm not sure I am a big fan of defensible positions. What's the fun in that?

But on a more serious note, I am intrigued nonetheless; what are you thinking; care to elaborate?

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 13 November 2009 - 09:51 PM

[Cause]

Gem Windcaster, on 13 November 2009 - 09:49 PM, said:

And I'm not sure I am a big fan of defensible positions.

No need to tell us we know!

[stone monkey]

You didn't shock me in a good way. I had assumed you were brighter than that...

Okay; well, the pure constructionist position would be that all mathematics is a human invention whereas the pure platonist position would be that all mathematics somehow pre-exists "out there" I would argue that a mixed position on this is the only defensible one. The relationships obviously have to exist without human acknowledgement (i.e. platonically) We, as humans, label the concepts and therefore ascribe the relationships between them (in the constructionist vein).

As you can see I'm closer to the platonist position myself. In the example 2+2=4; the labels "two", "four", "plus" and "equals" are all human constructs. Humans create the labels, they don't create the system the labels apply to. I'd argue that in your example; "butter" and "four" are simply the same thing; that's fine, but for the labels to be of any utility, in order to help communicate our thoughts to others, we have to agree on them. A human who chooses the label "butter" for "four" is doing so either out of ignorance or perversity and not because they think they're two different things (and if they do, they're wrong)

The set of labels created by non-humans (or by someone who is ignorant of all mathematics outside of their own construction) is still going to be a set of labels for those same things; they'll still use Peano's Postulates or ZFS or VNB (or whatever) to define the relationships between those labels, they'll simply call them different things. And making sense of them is simply a matter of translation, not worldview. I'm sure alien mathematicians would (and probably do) have as vehement arguments about say, the use of what we call the Axiom of Choice, as human ones do...

As for defensible positions; what's the point in having any position at all if you don't think it's defensible? And if you choose not to have a position that you can defend, even to yourself, how you can you get anything useful done? I'd argue that you believe that all your positions are defensible, you wouldn't have them if you didn't. Unless you go through life not knowing what you think...

I did promise myself I'd stay out of this thread; it's just too bloody annoying...

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 13 November 2009 - 11:15 PM

[Adjutant Stormy~]

[quote name='Gem Windcaster' date='13 November 2009 - 11:25 AM' timestamp='1258140327' post='700767']
If CI ever had said that he meant that evolution is not capital-T-truth, then he would inadvertently agree with me, and we would then not have this discussion. But CI seems to be saying that his lower-case-truth, as you call it, is the only possible lower-case-truth and inherently making it the capital-T-truth. And btw as to this: "In order for us to adequately assess Evolution, we have to agree on the standards by which it is to be judged, and the rationale of its formulation." The problem I have had with for instance CI's stance is that he doesn't have the same standards as me with which to judge the theory and the rationale of its formulation. It's impossible to discuss rationale when the opponent claims full truth and can't see his own beliefs for what they are. [/quote]

You guys both need to make concessions, not just CI. And yes, until you agree on the standards and assumptions it's just a shouting match.

[/quoteWhere do you get the 'all other theories' from? There is no such thing in my posts. You have to specify what you think is confusing. [/quote]

I'm sorry, not being familiar with Godel's theory, it seemed as though your rebuttal was one of your belief provides the exception to the theory.

[quote]
[quote name='Adjutant Stormy' date='13 November 2009 - 01:14 AM' timestamp='1258074864' post='700578']

Meaning assignment has properties of rationality, too, realize.[/quote]
Yes, exactly!
[quote name='Adjutant Stormy' date='13 November 2009 - 01:14 AM' timestamp='1258074864' post='700578'] Two plus two generally equals four, but it could equal 'butter,' it would be no less valid, but it would be more irrational (unless there was some associated system that made the assignment of 'butter' rigorous and coherent).
[/quote]
Problem is, rationality is subjective, because our minds are subjective. We use 3 things to determine rationality - our senses, our minds, and the input of other people (their senses & minds). Senses as in our brains - brains and minds as two different things. As for butter being less rational, that depends on the view of the person - I assume you mean the act of switching 'four' for 'butter'. If you do it for no reason then it's irrational, but if there's a reason for it, then it's not. You see, rationality lies in the eyes of the beholder, because the beholder compares the act to what is rational in his mind/what his senses say/what is socially acceptable. But I digress. Your point is invalid. Because how would you know that you're the one equaling 2+2 with 4 and not the person equaling it with butter? Consider two people - one says 2+2=4 and the other equally strong believes 2+2=butter. What is rational depends on the system, and if you change the system, you change what is rational. Now, we know 2+2=4, because that is the system humans created. But to determine what is rational in a system that we didn't create is a whole other matter.
[/quote]

Perhaps you mean to say that the validity is irrespective of person, since all interpretations are equally valid, but not all formulations are equally rational. We are agreeing here. Were the assignment of 'butter' a choice of a given system, and thus being rationally justifiable, it would be equally valid and equally rational. For any other reason, its rationality is up for grabs.

This post has been edited by Adjutant Stormy: 14 November 2009 - 12:05 AM

[Gem Windcaster]

Cause, on 13 November 2009 - 10:48 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 13 November 2009 - 09:49 PM, said:

And I'm not sure I am a big fan of defensible positions.

No need to tell us we know!

Dude, I was being facetious.

stone monkey, on 13 November 2009 - 11:10 PM, said:

You didn't shock me in a good way. I had assumed you were brighter than that...

Okay; well, the pure constructionist position would be that all mathematics is a human invention whereas the pure platonist position would be that all mathematics somehow pre-exists "out there" I would argue that a mixed position on this is the only defensible one. The relationships obviously have to exist without human acknowledgement (i.e. platonically) We, as humans, label the concepts and therefore ascribe the relationships between them (in the constructionist vein).

No I am not a pure constructionist. The system is human built, but the rules that the system is built to explain exists without human interpretation.

stone monkey, on 13 November 2009 - 11:10 PM, said:

As you can see I'm closer to the platonist position myself. In the example 2+2=4; the labels "two", "four", "plus" and "equals" are all human constructs. Humans create the labels, they don't create the system the labels apply to. I'd argue that in your example; "butter" and "four" are simply the same thing; that's fine, but for the labels to be of any utility, in order to help communicate our thoughts to others, we have to agree on them. A human who chooses the label "butter" for "four" is doing so either out of ignorance or perversity and not because they think they're two different things (and if they do, they're wrong)

I don't define 'system' the way you do here. Many different systems can be built to describe the same thing, so yes, 'butter' and 'four' are the same thing. I am not saying that you think I am saying, read my post again.

stone monkey, on 13 November 2009 - 11:10 PM, said:

The set of labels created by non-humans (or by someone who is ignorant of all mathematics outside of their own construction) is still going to be a set of labels for those same things; they'll still use Peano's Postulates or ZFS or VNB (or whatever) to define the relationships between those labels, they'll simply call them different things. And making sense of them is simply a matter of translation, not worldview. I'm sure alien mathematicians would (and probably do) have as vehement arguments about say, the use of what we call the Axiom of Choice, as human ones do...

As I said you're missing my point. I am talking about the rationality in the translation, not the translation per se, I am talking about who has the authority to judge whether something is objectively rational, when all our rational views are in fact subjective.

stone monkey, on 13 November 2009 - 11:10 PM, said:

As for defensible positions; what's the point in having any position at all if you don't think it's defensible? And if you choose not to have a position that you can defend, even to yourself, how you can you get anything useful done? I'd argue that you believe that all your positions are defensible, you wouldn't have them if you didn't. Unless you go through life not knowing what you think...

For crying out loud, how could you not notice my sarcasm?

stone monkey, on 13 November 2009 - 11:10 PM, said:

I did promise myself I'd stay out of this thread; it's just too bloody annoying...

Yes, because I bloody keep nagging at your bloody defensible positions.

[Gem Windcaster]

Adjutant Stormy, on 14 November 2009 - 12:04 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 13 November 2009 - 07:25 PM, said:

If CI ever had said that he meant that evolution is not capital-T-truth, then he would inadvertently agree with me, and we would then not have this discussion. But CI seems to be saying that his lower-case-truth, as you call it, is the only possible lower-case-truth and inherently making it the capital-T-truth. And btw as to this: "In order for us to adequately assess Evolution, we have to agree on the standards by which it is to be judged, and the rationale of its formulation." The problem I have had with for instance CI's stance is that he doesn't have the same standards as me with which to judge the theory and the rationale of its formulation. It's impossible to discuss rationale when the opponent claims full truth and can't see his own beliefs for what they are.

You guys both need to make concessions, not just CI. And yes, until you agree on the standards and assumptions it's just a shouting match.

Yes, but I don't really need to make concessions, since i don't really claim anything. But yes, you are right.

Adjutant Stormy, on 14 November 2009 - 12:04 AM, said:

Quote

Where do you get the 'all other theories' from? There is no such thing in my posts. You have to specify what you think is confusing.

I'm sorry, not being familiar with Godel's theory, it seemed as though your rebuttal was one of your belief provides the exception to the theory.

I'm not following you - my belief is a belief, I don't claim any objective truth. I thought that was obvious?

Adjutant Stormy, on 14 November 2009 - 12:04 AM, said:

Quote

Adjutant Stormy, on 13 November 2009 - 01:14 AM, said:

Meaning assignment has properties of rationality, too, realize.

Yes, exactly!

Adjutant Stormy, on 13 November 2009 - 01:14 AM, said:

Two plus two generally equals four, but it could equal 'butter,' it would be no less valid, but it would be more irrational (unless there was some associated system that made the assignment of 'butter' rigorous and coherent).

Problem is, rationality is subjective, because our minds are subjective. We use 3 things to determine rationality - our senses, our minds, and the input of other people (their senses & minds). Senses as in our brains - brains and minds as two different things. As for butter being less rational, that depends on the view of the person - I assume you mean the act of switching 'four' for 'butter'. If you do it for no reason then it's irrational, but if there's a reason for it, then it's not. You see, rationality lies in the eyes of the beholder, because the beholder compares the act to what is rational in his mind/what his senses say/what is socially acceptable. But I digress. Your point is invalid. Because how would you know that you're the one equaling 2+2 with 4 and not the person equaling it with butter? Consider two people - one says 2+2=4 and the other equally strong believes 2+2=butter. What is rational depends on the system, and if you change the system, you change what is rational. Now, we know 2+2=4, because that is the system humans created. But to determine what is rational in a system that we didn't create is a whole other matter.

Perhaps you mean to say that the validity is irrespective of person, since all interpretations are equally valid, but not all formulations are equally rational. We are agreeing here. Were the assignment of 'butter' a choice of a given system, and thus being rationally justifiable, it would be equally valid and equally rational. For any other reason, its rationality is up for grabs.

Yes, exactly, it is such a relief to have somebody finally understand what I am saying.

[Cold Iron]

Gem Windcaster, on 04 November 2009 - 03:01 AM, said:

You realize that formal logic is a more pure form of logic? That formal logic was built on classical logic and math? Formal logic confines a system even more than classical logic. In this pure form of logic, theories are proven by the possibility of being disproved. In fact it has the same essence as science - namely that until another better theory comes along, and a theory is not disproved, it is counted as a valid theory. This is exactly how modern science works. It is why I have brought formal logic into the discussion, because it squarely shows what I mean when I say that evolution cannot be properly tested and therefore it's a futile theory. Copy|paste x 10.

No, formal logic says nothing about whether evolution can be properly tested. Indeed it says nothing about science at all, it is simply a system by which one sets up the specific conditions for a proof. You decide the set of finite sequences of symbols that makes up your formal language, you decide the rules of inference that are used to deduce each axiom from it's predecessor and eventually derive your theorem. This theorem can then be said to be proven using your specific criteria but this criteria can not be made universal. You can never say that the theorem you have come up with is formally proven for all systems simply because a universal system by nature must violate it's consistency.

This is a tool for mathematics only - and really only useful in computing where logic is rigid. Science certainly does not now and never has worked like this. Science has nothing to do with this. Formal logic does not and can not ever show anything about evolution or it's required level of testing. It says nothing about any other scientific theory. It says nothing about science at all. Your argument is wrong. Reality cannot be subjected to formal logic, the idea is absurd. Saying that the belief that evolution (or any other theory) has undergone sufficiently rigorous testing to be considered proven is irrational on the grounds of Godel's incompleteness theorems is not merely a gross misunderstanding of formal logic, not merely a gross misunderstanding of the scientific method, but an intentional misrepresentation of a legitimate area of inquiry in order to support an unsupportable worldview and agenda. It is, frankly, deceitful, dishonest, and detestable.

Gem Windcaster, on 04 November 2009 - 03:01 AM, said:

No, no, and no. For you it is the rational belief to hold, but that doesn't make it proven. You could bet your life on it, and it still wouldn't be proven.

It seems to me that you think that your view is the only possible rational view that anyone could hold. You should consider the fact that your assigned meaning of the world is not necessarily the same as other people's assigned meaning. And they have as much meaning assigning powers as you do.

The empirical evidence is there for all to see. Meaning is assigned using a prescribed process, if this assigned meaning can be used to make predictions that are then found to be true by observing further empirical evidence, this meaning is considered tested. You don't have to believe a tested theory is proven for it to impact your life. Indeed you can bet your life against it but I wouldn't, because every time someone in the world eats or uses anything with soy, corn, cotton, tomatoes, potatoes, conola, sugar cane, sugar beet or rice (all genetically modified crops), they might just be using the theory of evolution whether you believe in it or not.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Gem Windcaster, on 14 November 2009 - 02:58 AM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 13 November 2009 - 07:25 PM, said:

If CI ever had said that he meant that evolution is not capital-T-truth, then he would inadvertently agree with me, and we would then not have this discussion. But CI seems to be saying that his lower-case-truth, as you call it, is the only possible lower-case-truth and inherently making it the capital-T-truth. And btw as to this: "In order for us to adequately assess Evolution, we have to agree on the standards by which it is to be judged, and the rationale of its formulation." The problem I have had with for instance CI's stance is that he doesn't have the same standards as me with which to judge the theory and the rationale of its formulation. It's impossible to discuss rationale when the opponent claims full truth and can't see his own beliefs for what they are.

Yes, but I don't really need to make concessions, since i don't really claim anything. But yes, you are right.

The concessions I had in mind were argumentative ones. Arguing Evolution being the only lowercase-truth, factual truth, does not make the assertion that it is the Truth, but that it is de facto True, if not de jure or de Logos Truth. I would argue that in this case if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, we can treat it like a duck, even if we can never prove it is a waterfowl of the family Anatidae. It is a de facto duck. Evolution is a duck, so to speak.

Quote

Yes, exactly, it is such a relief to have somebody finally understand what I am saying.

From the course and comments of this argument, I'm sure this is a rare occurrence.

[Dolorous Menhir]

It's a relief to see that no matter how ugly the site becomes, the arguments never change.

[cauthon]

@DM Haha!

Maybe we should again declare a truce for a while and let matters rest, so they can be picked up with renewed vigour in a few months time.

[Cold Iron]

Dolorous Menhir, on 20 November 2009 - 10:00 PM, said:

It's a relief to see that no matter how ugly the site becomes, the arguments never change.

This argument has undergone quite significant evolution (zing), we have covered a lot of ground.

[Gem Windcaster]

Cold Iron, on 16 November 2009 - 11:17 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 04 November 2009 - 03:01 AM, said:

You realize that formal logic is a more pure form of logic? That formal logic was built on classical logic and math? Formal logic confines a system even more than classical logic. In this pure form of logic, theories are proven by the possibility of being disproved. In fact it has the same essence as science - namely that until another better theory comes along, and a theory is not disproved, it is counted as a valid theory. This is exactly how modern science works. It is why I have brought formal logic into the discussion, because it squarely shows what I mean when I say that evolution cannot be properly tested and therefore it's a futile theory. Copy|paste x 10.

No, formal logic says nothing about whether evolution can be properly tested. Indeed it says nothing about science at all, it is simply a system by which one sets up the specific conditions for a proof. You decide the set of finite sequences of symbols that makes up your formal language, you decide the rules of inference that are used to deduce each axiom from it's predecessor and eventually derive your theorem. This theorem can then be said to be proven using your specific criteria but this criteria can not be made universal. You can never say that the theorem you have come up with is formally proven for all systems simply because a universal system by nature must violate it's consistency.

No, friend, it is you that don't understand formal logic. In formal logic the criteria is made universal, for that theorem, on purpose, because otherwise it's useless.

Cold Iron, on 16 November 2009 - 11:17 PM, said:

This is a tool for mathematics only - and really only useful in computing where logic is rigid. Science certainly does not now and never has worked like this. Science has nothing to do with this. Formal logic does not and can not ever show anything about evolution or it's required level of testing. It says nothing about any other scientific theory. It says nothing about science at all. Your argument is wrong. Reality cannot be subjected to formal logic, the idea is absurd. Saying that the belief that evolution (or any other theory) has undergone sufficiently rigorous testing to be considered proven is irrational on the grounds of Godel's incompleteness theorems is not merely a gross misunderstanding of formal logic, not merely a gross misunderstanding of the scientific method, but an intentional misrepresentation of a legitimate area of inquiry in order to support an unsupportable worldview and agenda. It is, frankly, deceitful, dishonest, and detestable.

Friend, it was never the science I was criticizing, but your application of the scientific method. We fundamentally disagree on the definition of science it seems. As much as I agree that formal logic is flawed in it's application on reality, science have similar flaws - although good science is much more flexible - but you fail to see it. I've been using formal logic as an example of rigid thinking, to show you your own rigid thinking. You can't discard an argument allegedly built on logic with a less logical system, and at the same time saying the more pure form of logic cannot be applied on reality. You are in fact saying math and formal logic doesn't apply to reality. This is hilarious in so many ways, since both fields venture to describe a very small part of reality, this making them possible to accept as more pure forms of reality descriptions. It's easier to understand the sand within the circle, than to successfully categorize the entire beach. Furthermore, the description is only viable as long as you take into account that it's only the sand within the circle you are investigating, as opposed to the whole beach, of which you know nothing.

Cold Iron, on 16 November 2009 - 11:17 PM, said:

Gem Windcaster, on 04 November 2009 - 03:01 AM, said:

No, no, and no. For you it is the rational belief to hold, but that doesn't make it proven. You could bet your life on it, and it still wouldn't be proven.

It seems to me that you think that your view is the only possible rational view that anyone could hold. You should consider the fact that your assigned meaning of the world is not necessarily the same as other people's assigned meaning. And they have as much meaning assigning powers as you do.

The empirical evidence is there for all to see. Meaning is assigned using a prescribed process, if this assigned meaning can be used to make predictions that are then found to be true by observing further empirical evidence, this meaning is considered tested. You don't have to believe a tested theory is proven for it to impact your life. Indeed you can bet your life against it but I wouldn't, because every time someone in the world eats or uses anything with soy, corn, cotton, tomatoes, potatoes, conola, sugar cane, sugar beet or rice (all genetically modified crops), they might just be using the theory of evolution whether you believe in it or not.

Well, friend, as much as I can happily agree with all that, it doesn't mean squat in our discussion. Because we are discussing something that cannot be seen in our daily lives - if it could, you would have shown me a youtube video already, or better yet, we'd never have this discussion at all. How's that for empirical evidence for you. It's an observable fact that I refuse to agree with you, and it's something you have to deal with in an empirical manner, right? I having a small hope that you won't just discard it as false data, as some scientists do when they happen upon data that doesn't suit their theory. Lets venture a guess...

..wait for it...
...nah, didn't think so...

[Darkwatch]

How many times can a train wreck itself before there is nothing left to wreck?

[Gem Windcaster]

Well friend, there's still tons of ravine left to bounce off of.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Cold Iron, on 24 November 2009 - 07:36 AM, said:

Dolorous Menhir, on 20 November 2009 - 10:00 PM, said:

It's a relief to see that no matter how ugly the site becomes, the arguments never change.

This argument has undergone quite significant evolution (zing), we have covered a lot of ground.

There's no need to cover more ground. It became clear many posts, and months, ago that an argument with Gem Windcaster is pointless and will never achieve anything but frustration. I don't think you'll ever stop though, Cold Iron.

[Gem Windcaster]

Dolorous Menhir, on 20 December 2009 - 02:53 PM, said:

Cold Iron, on 24 November 2009 - 07:36 AM, said:

Dolorous Menhir, on 20 November 2009 - 10:00 PM, said:

It's a relief to see that no matter how ugly the site becomes, the arguments never change.

This argument has undergone quite significant evolution (zing), we have covered a lot of ground.

There's no need to cover more ground. It became clear many posts, and months, ago that an argument with Gem Windcaster is pointless and will never achieve anything but frustration. I don't think you'll ever stop though, Cold Iron.

I resent that. Go bash something in your own size for a change. Also, I think it's clear that many that has participated in this thread didn't want a discussion, only a place where they could bash religion safely. If those people wanted a true discussion, they would have tried to show some actual content, instead of constantly resorting to bashing religion. I've taken this thread as being about Evolution and it's lack of proof, while most of my opponents have taken this thread as being about religion and it's lack of proof. The whole business is pretty hilarious, since the whole point of religion is that it can't be proven, while the point of Evolution is that it claims to be built on solely science and thus needs to have some sort of proof at its base, otherwise it's pretty hypocritical. On the other hand, if evolution could step down form its high horse, it would realize it has lots of potential and meaning even without the monopolizing of truth.

I used to look up to you people, I thought you were very intelligent and open, but it seems now you are just as cynical and closed minded as so many other 'intellectuals' in society. Such a shame.

Some of you will claim you have given me sources that proves your point, believe me, I have noticed your tries. But while I do understand where you're coming from, I can't really count them as content unless they show me something I didn't know before. I am not looking to win an argument, I am looking to get convinced or convince. There is no contradiction in trying to learn something while sharing your own views on a subject.

You expect me to bow to your will only? I am not the one being a fanatic here. Hey, I think Evolution is wonderful fiction - and some parts I even believe in. I can see clearly where it is coming from, the reason for the scientific monopoly on truth in today's society. I understand the underlying mechanics, I can read the pattern from the early Greeks to last centuries great discoveries. I understand the importance of political and ethical change coming from scientific communities. I can see why science needed to break free form philosophy and religion as a concept. But ideologically science had trouble during 1900s-2000s century, so it's only natural that it doesn't accept it's own ideological fate. Modern science is relatively young, and so it has to stand its ground. As with any paradigm, it will grow and take over the society.

So you see, I can see both science and religion in the context of bigger social change; I don't shy away from the truth of history. A flow of ideas is just that - ideas. They can't change humanity, only humanity can; if you believe in that sort of thing.

The thing is, you have to admit your own beliefs before you can begin to judge or bash others beliefs. And since some of you doesn't even know enough about yourself to know or even less admit that your world view is build on beliefs, then I'd say that the frustration while discussing with me is your own fault, and not mine.

So Dolorous Menhir, go learn about yourself, before you attempt to bash me.

- Gem, has enjoyed this thread immensely.

[HoosierDaddy]

Is that a whimper or a bang?

You do yourself a disservice by going out like that Gem. For all the time you've put in this topic, and I have admired your singular focus, despite my disagreement with it, going out calling others ignorant of themselves seems cheapened to me.

Quote

I've taken this thread as being about Evolution and it's lack of proof, while most of my opponents have taken this thread as being about religion and it's lack of proof. The whole business is pretty hilarious, since the whole point of religion is that it can't be proven, while the point of Evolution is that it claims to be built on solely science and thus needs to have some sort of proof at its base, otherwise it's pretty hypocritical.

Where's the hypocrisy?

There was never an equal footing. What you take in faith, and is therefore improvable, you then ask others to provide proof that you seem to never validate. It is a lose-lose scenario for anyone not on the side of Creation. Thus, the frustration.

[Gem Windcaster]

H.D., on 07 January 2010 - 05:42 AM, said:

Is that a whimper or a bang?

You do yourself a disservice by going out like that Gem. For all the time you've put in this topic, and I have admired your singular focus, despite my disagreement with it, going out calling others ignorant of themselves seems cheapened to me.

Don't worry HD, that particular passage wasn't directed in any way at you. Actually, anyone feeling that I've directed it at them can calmly assume that it wasn't directed at them - since that actually requires some knowledge of self. It's the people that doesn't feel a target in that passage that it possible was directed at - unless you're already a step beyond me, in which case you don't need anyone like me telling you anything like that in the first place (in which case you don't really need my assurances anyway - shutting up now).

H.D., on 07 January 2010 - 05:42 AM, said:

Quote

I've taken this thread as being about Evolution and it's lack of proof, while most of my opponents have taken this thread as being about religion and it's lack of proof. The whole business is pretty hilarious, since the whole point of religion is that it can't be proven, while the point of Evolution is that it claims to be built on solely science and thus needs to have some sort of proof at its base, otherwise it's pretty hypocritical.

Where's the hypocrisy?

The monopoly on truth while not always owning absolute proof. However, if one doesn't monopolize on truth, then you can happily go along with your purty theories.

H.D., on 07 January 2010 - 05:42 AM, said:

There was never an equal footing. What you take in faith, and is therefore improvable, you then ask others to provide proof that you seem to never validate. It is a lose-lose scenario for anyone not on the side of Creation. Thus, the frustration.

Well yes, it has been my point all along, or one of my points rather, that the whole attack on creationism is futile and rather silly. Scientists especially have no business polarizing the debate - a war between religion and science is anti-intellectual and will have no real winners. Personally I am not a fan of creationism, and not that big a fan of religion in general, although I have strong convictions and beliefs (which is another matter). Basically I see this anti-creationist business as intellectuals lowering themselves into the pit willingly, so to speak.

Focusing on ending another flow of ideas, instead of focusing on enriching your own flow of ideas can never end well. Never. That's when you get crusades, and public beatings, death penalties, racism, segregation, and genocide. Not right away, of course - I don't mean to say that any around here would ever want to build towards that stuff - but eventually, a society intolerable enough, will build its frustration towards a flow of ideas; making targets of different groups of people in society. Because any kind of force built on ideology drives towards control and more control. But I digress.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 08 January 2010 - 01:09 AM