Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Squawk

Hey All

Recommended Posts

I'll ignore the word salad that is the opening paragraph, I can't make head nor tail of it.

 

Intelligence, creativity and evolution do have some conflicting issues. Now how can I convince myself I am talking to a random evolutionary process and not a creative human being?

 

Talking to a random evolutionary process? I have absolutely no idea what you are getting at here. Wouldn't that be like talking to gravity?

 

What to do? Hmmmm this is going to be very very hard. Perhaps I should consider making failure my goal and quit now Not. I confess your creativity intrigues me. I don’t know what argument (creative event) you are going to make next? On with the paradox or charade...

 

Charade seems appropriate, I still have no idea what you are talking about.

 

That’s allowed in evolutionary ideology.

 

Two points. First, what exactly is evolutionary ideology? Second, do you refer to the notion of humans descended from chimps as being permissible in evolutionary theory? If so any discussion on evolutionary biology will need to be put on hold to go right back to basics. Humans and chimps share a common ancestor, one cannot be descended from the other. A speciation event creates two daughter species from a single lineage, at which time the original lineage (from a classification stand point) is extinct.

 

There is no right or wrong according to the theory. Isn’t it whatever it takes to survive? Are you introducing morality into this discussion?

 

Must you insist on heading off down tangents whilst accusing me of being the instigator? I never mentioned right or wrong, moral or otherwise. I never mentioned survival of the fittest and I certainly never mentioned social darwinism. Right and wrong are subjective concepts, concepts that require an intelligence to consider. I can do it, you can do it. Evolution can't. As Richard Dawkins put it, evolution is a blind watchmaker. Natural selection is a barbaric process that works on the raw materials it is provided with. There is no right or wrong, only survival. Nothing to do with doing "whatever it takes" to survive. That would imply that one can "cheat" natural selection. Though that may now true to an extent for humanity (we can argue the specifics), it has never before been true. Natural selection operates on phenotype, within which I would include behaviour (bird building a nest, beaver building a damn etc), but it's not a conscious act to defeat evolution.

 

If so, I would like to know what the rules are so I won’t cheat. Since you don’t believe there are any, I will expect you to “cheat†by my definition. Not! On second thought perhaps te act of asking you the rules might cause trauma to your fragile evolutionary psyche. Dear me, however shall I proceed. Tell me if I shoulf go on? I don’t want to do any harm.

 

First instruction would be to can the hubris, it's neither required nor justified. My fragile evolutionary psyche? Did it occur to your psyche to actually answer any of the points I raised rather than to evade with word salads and tangential arguments that have no bearing on the discussion?

 

Right. I would agree. But ,you introduced C into an A B conversation and while I choose not to speak for God, I assume. “I†can speak for myself and I believe I do exist, I (Mike summers) am the reference for the originating source of the statement. I am the one that called creation more efficient. Tacitly you would agree or you wouldn’t have a computer or drive a car. I would find it extremely amusing that you would ride a horse to work every day? See, according to evolution the horse evolved and…. unless you expect me to believe the car evolved.

 

How is any of this relevant to anything I posted? I posted a query asking how creation is more efficient, and you start going on about horses and cars? You're not actually suggesting that creation is more efficient because humans have created a car and evolution hasn't, are you? We can have an interesting discussion on the evolution of engineering, ranging from computers to cars and planes, but it's hardly comparable to the supposed creation of existence.

 

 

You have a real problem believing in evolution and stupidity don’t you?

 

No, on both counts. Both are trivial to observe.

 

Splitting this into two posts so I can use quotes, next post coming when the timeout ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no requirements for evo. Right away you introduce another C. NASA is an intelligent source of information and that is not in the evo premise.

 

If you read my post you would have noted that I explicitly stated that I would allow, for the purpose of this discussion, the premise that God created the first replicating molecule. My reasoning is simple, creationists as a rule show time and again that they can't understand the distinction between the formation of life and the subsequent spread of life. You have once again shown that to be the case. Evolution, as defined once already in this thread, is descent with inherent modifcation in a reproducing population. It has nothing to say about the arising of that population in the first place. You can postulate the giant teapot starting it for all I care, it makes no difference when discussiong evolution. I saw a great analogy elsewhere in this forum. Game theory, as applied to poker, doesn't care where the cards were made. The cards, table and players are already present. Game theory simply addresses the way the pieces in the game (cards, people and money) interact with each other as time passes. So it is with evolutionary theory, interested in the interaction of populations (not individuals) with the environment.

 

And who do you suppose created the algorithm? Also I have not conceded that evolution is not an extension of abiogenesis. I think it is. There I go again using intelligenceâ€â€Âoh but those rules are for you not for me.

 

Nice goal post shift. Your challenge was "Besides we can create things but we really don't have the ability to evolve anything let alone anything specific we might want. So if we want it and it does not exist, its got to be created right? Falsify the previous statement with just one example"

 

I provide just such an example, it fits with the criteria, and now you complain on spurious grounds. regressing to the point of asking who created the algorithm. The algorithm is simply a means of replicating a natural process in nature, the algorithm mirrors a natural process. The process in nature isn't an algorithm, but can easily be modeled as one when all the variables are known for a particular process. It's a simple and easy to observe instance of evolution actually working more efficiently than design.

 

Squak, you cannot use anything intelligent as a source (with the exception of your mind) Ok? The name NASA stimulates me to think of intelligence and allâ€â€Ânot evo.

 

Given that I already stated, for the purposes of this discussion, that I'm happy to propose God created the first reproducing molecule, this objection was nullified before it ever arose. If you wish for me to remove any human input I'll just look to nature to observe evolution, my personal favourite example being the salamanders that form a ring species in southern california.

 

You original question could actually be interpreted as a request for magic. You want me to evolve something, but you won't allow raw materials and a mechanism of inheritance to be provided. When once is provided, you claim human involvement invalidates the experiment.

 

 

I'm not going to address the claim about me as an atheist, you can call me what you want, I've defined my position clearly enough. I have no idea what the rest of that paragraph is supposed to achieve.

 

Sigyrng;pjk,dk kkfkk dimgn. That was some random code. Evolution made me do it.  Tell me what it means ‘cause I have no idea.

 

No, a desire to try to make a point made you do it, and the simply fact that you consider that to have merit in this discussion is interesting. How can the typing of a random string of characters have any bearing on evolutionary theory? How do I apply conservation, reproduction, inheritance and mutation to that garbled set of words? What would be the result?

 

 

See, Squak, we have got to teach you to really think like an evolutionist which is kind of hard for a creationist like yourself to do.

 

You lost me completely. I'm a creationist now? You want to teach me to think like an evolutionist?

 

We both know we are a unique one of a kind creative beings. So, would you at this time accept that you who thinks you evolved are not an exact duplicate of some other being who would have to be writing the posts you are writing to me at the same time you are writing it? Funny, I do not see a duplicates post.

 

Relevance to the discussion here is what, precisely?

 

Are you willing to concede your creative ability or expect me to think some random process is on the other side of my posts?

 

This sounds something like a turing test, and I confess I'm now intrigued at the possibility you are a machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you are the one playing linguistic gymnastics. You have equated ignorance with agnosticism.

68421[/snapback]

Ignorant – (Adjective)

1. Lacking knowledge: lacking knowledge or education in general or in a specific subject

2. Unaware of something: unaware of something

3. Resulting from a lack of knowledge: caused by a lack of knowledge, understanding, or experience

 

Agnostic - (Greek: ἀ- a-, without + γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) In other words, agnostic is a derivative of the words without and knowledge… Or “NO KNOWLEDGEâ€ÂÂ, or “LACKING KNOWLEDGEâ€ÂÂ.

 

You can equivocate all you want on the subject. You can even tap dance around the subject all you want. In fact, you can continue going around in denial on the subject. But, it will be pointed out at every turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignorant – (Adjective)

1. Lacking knowledge: lacking knowledge or education in general or in a specific subject

2. Unaware of something: unaware of something

3. Resulting from a lack of knowledge: caused by a lack of knowledge, understanding, or experience

 

Agnostic - (Greek: ἀ- a-, without + γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) In other words, agnostic is a derivative of the words without and knowledge… Or “NO KNOWLEDGEâ€ÂÂ, or “LACKING KNOWLEDGEâ€ÂÂ.

 

You can equivocate all you want on the subject. You can even tap dance around the subject all you want. In fact, you can continue going around in denial on the subject. But, it will be pointed out at every turn.

68445[/snapback]

You can continue to point it out at every turn, you'll be as wrong then as you are now. If you're going to post the definitino of ignorant as an adjective, why not do the same for agnostic?

 

adjective

3.

of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.

4.

asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

 

when we do that, we see your claim fails, entirely. The accusation of equivocation is entirely unfounded, I defined my position precisely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can continue to point it out at every turn, you'll be as wrong then as you are now. If you're going to post the definitino of ignorant as an adjective, why not do the same for agnostic?

 

adjective

3.

of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.

4.

asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

 

when we do that, we see your claim fails, entirely. The accusation of equivocation is entirely unfounded, I defined my position precisely.

68447[/snapback]

I see you're still have a problem handling the truth of the matter... So let me ask you this; what does the word Agnostic mean? Be truthful now, and don't equivocate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Equivocate really is your favourite word isn't it, an accusation that you level at others and yet something I think you are guilty of constantly employing. This thread is a perfect example. You're keen to project your own misunderstanding onto me in an attempt to ignore the rest of the information I posted in this thread, a purposeful attempt at obfuscation?

 

Lets note something. The labels we apply don't matter if we define our position. Since I have done so more than once the fact that you continue to push this definition issue tells me something. It tells me that you would rather not address the rest of the information posted.

 

But I digress, so lets rehash.

 

Ignorance - lacking knowledge

Agnostic - The inability to attain knowledge

 

When applied to a deity

Ignorance - Not knowing if a god exists

Agnostic - The inability to know if a god exists

 

Those are not equivalent.

 

The word comes from greek, as you point out. What you failed to point out is that it can mean either unknown, or unknowable. Given that we already have the word ignorant, and given my previous postings in this thread, it should be clear what the meaning is.

 

Granted it's a fine distinction, so how about another example.

 

I'm currently ignorant as to the contents of my fridge. I could, if I wanted, cure that ignorance by walking to the fridge and opening the door. I am not agnostic on the matter, because I know I can go find out if I so choose.

 

Of course I still claim to be, in a strict sense, agnostic on all things, since I contend that we cannot ever be 100% certain on anything. But thats not relevant to this discussion. Since there is no evidence for a deity I'm perfectly content with my lack of belief in one, but I'm agnostic in that I can't present evidence in support of that position. It's not a difficult concept, and it really doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read my post you would have noted that I explicitly stated that I would allow, for the purpose of this discussion, the premise that God created the first replicating molecule. My reasoning is simple, creationists as a rule show time and again that they can't understand the distinction between the formation of life and the subsequent spread of life. You have once again shown that to be the case. Evolution, as defined once already in this thread, is descent with inherent modifcation in a reproducing population. It has nothing to say about the arising of that population in the first place. You can postulate the giant teapot starting it for all I care, it makes no difference when discussiong evolution. I saw a great analogy elsewhere in this forum. Game theory, as applied to poker, doesn't care where the cards were made. The cards, table and players are already present. Game theory simply addresses the way the pieces in the game (cards, people and money) interact with each other as time passes. So it is with evolutionary theory, interested in the interaction of populations (not individuals) with the environment.

It is true what you say based on your definition. I realized after I read what you said again that you have made a disconnect from the problems of abiogenesis. That is understandable. However Darwin’s original position was and the non believers in God (diety or whatever ) was that life came into existence from matter and energy which are easily observable. Life is not necessarily easily observable when it is not being confused with “evolution†matter & energy

 

What I am saying is probably different from what others might say. In my view the process of evo cannot be divorced from abiogenesis. Matter and energy are still claimed to be the change causing mechanism of evolution. The cell is made out of matter as code or DNA. Along comes a cosmic ray (energy) causing a change to DNA. Other changes are allegedly caused by chemical interventions supposedly etc. causing mutations and an increase in information ultimately. “Natural Selection" then selects for… Since matter and energy are still the culprits causing the changes I conclude that today's evo is just a restatement of yesterday's evo without even moving the goal posts.

 

 

As far as your argument about the cards, I would consider it an attempt to break with reality. With no card factory or intelligent design there would be no cards to play with. More correctly it may not matter to you but it does to me.

 

Nice goal post shift. Your challenge was "Besides we can create things but we really don't have the ability to evolve anything let alone anything specific we might want. So if we want it and it does not exist, its got to be created right? Falsify the previous statement with just one example"

 

I provide just such an example, it fits with the criteria, and now you complain on spurious grounds. regressing to the point of asking who created the algorithm. The algorithm is simply a means of replicating a natural process in nature, the algorithm mirrors a natural process. The process in nature isn't an algorithm, but can easily be modeled as one when all the variables are known for a particular process. It's a simple and easy to observe instance of evolution actually working more efficiently than design.

 

Ok Then answer this simple question. Can you point to any algorithm that wrote itself as evidence?

 

Given that I already stated, for the purposes of this discussion, that I'm happy to propose God created the first reproducing molecule, this objection was nullified before it ever arose. If you wish for me to remove any human input I'll just look to nature to observe evolution, my personal favourite example being the salamanders that form a ring species in southern california.

 

You original question could actually be interpreted as a request for magic. You want me to evolve something, but you won't allow raw materials and a mechanism of inheritance to be provided. When once is provided, you claim human involvement invalidates the experiment.

 

 

I'm not going to address the claim about me as an atheist, you can call me what you want, I've defined my position clearly enough. I have no idea what the rest of that paragraph is supposed to achieve.

 

You are right about correcting me on the atheist remark. I apologize for the remark. Squawk is fine for me.

 

As far as references to God we can leave Him out of the discussion as this conversation is an A B conversation (of course since this is a public form any other beings are welcome to jump in anywhere).

 

In terms of magicâ€â€Âthat is what I believe evo is. On the other hand you can have all the matter an energy you want --even time but inheritance implies a previous history of something or someone’s creativity.

 

I am not familiar with the salamanders but, I take it you are inferring something from that. I haven’t enough information to agree, disagree or chose to be neutral.

 

No, a desire to try to make a point made you do it, and the simply fact that you consider that to have merit in this discussion is interesting. How can the typing of a random string of characters have any bearing on evolutionary theory? How do I apply conservation, reproduction, inheritance and mutation to that garbled set of words? What would be the result?

 

Actually this experiment was based on a theorem of Claude Shannon the guru of Information Theory. Evo's sometimes try to site an algorithm he wrote to prove information can be randomly generated. The algorythm requires code be input mathematical function and the output would be random code on the other end. Such as ABCD as an input as an output ACDB BACD CABD etc. By defining code as information it would prove information could be randomly generated. As you can see that’s not the case.

 

 

You lost me completely. I'm a creationist now? You want to teach me to think like an evolutionist? 

 

I said this “tongue in cheek†It was an attempt at humor or paradoxical intention.. But if the shoe fits... :lol:

Relevance to the discussion here is what, precisely?

 

I am at a loss.

 

 

This sounds something like a turing test, and I confess I'm now intrigued

 

It is not a test. If you have faith, it’s Mike’s fingers pushing the keys on his keyboard somewhere in Detroit, Michigan, USA. So, am I talking to a computer or someone testing me to see if I am a computer program myself. I will accept what you say on faith. The word turing shows up on my MS Word 2007 as mispelled guess thay hadn't put it in the spell check data base. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I am saying is probably different from what others might say. In my view the process of evo cannot be divorced from abiogenesis. Matter and energy are still claimed to be the change causing mechanism of evolution.

 

Matter and energy are all that exist in the Universe, neatly linked by Einsteins equation of E=mc^2. I don't know how you get from there to the statement about a mechanism of evolution.

 

As far as your argument about the cards, I would consider it an attempt to break with reality. With no card factory or intelligent design there would be no cards to play with. More correctly it may not matter to you but it does to me.

 

Of course it matters. The origin of life would be fantastic to know, and is a discovery I await with great anticipation. But I don't need to know it in order to discuss evolutionary theory, in the same way that I have no need to understand the big bang in order to discuss evolutionary theory.

 

 

Ok Then answer this simple question. Can you point to any algorithm that wrote itself as evidence?

 

Interesting question. If you define an algorithm as a set of rules that determine the behaviour of a system then the laws of nature (not our approximations of them) are all "self written", as it were. You can of course postulate a deity as the writer, but you then struggle with issues of infinite regression. Gene fixation would be a good example of something that can be neatly expressed mathematically based on the fitness of an organism carrying the gene, population size and reproduction rates.

 

In terms of magicâ€â€Âthat is what I believe evo is. On the other hand you can have all the matter an energy you want --even time but inheritance implies a previous history of something or someone’s creativity.

 

I am not familiar with the salamanders but, I take it you are inferring something from that. I haven’t enough information to agree, disagree or chose to be neutral.

 

Inheritance implies a past, it does not require an agent of creation. The salamanders are, along the north atlantic gulls, arguably the best way to introduce someone to the idea of speciation. Think of it like this. Lets say that in your house you have a set of stairs, 10 steps in total. On each step lives a population of salamanders. The salamanders on the bottom step can breed with those on step 2. Those on step 2 can breed with those on step 3, those on step 3 can breed with those on step 4 etc until those on step 9 can breed with those on step 10.

 

That meets the definition of a speices (A population through which gene transfer can occur). But here is the thing. The population on step 1 can't interbreed with the population on step 10. The slight differences between each step add up to make them reproductively incompatible. So, what happens if I come along and stamp to death all salamanders on steps 2-9? 2 new species.

 

This isn't just hypothetical, it exists, they are called ring species, and the situation arises around a particular canyon that the salamanders don't cross. It's a great example of how genetic diversity arises through physical separation.

 

 

Onto Shannon, and I've never seen anyone using Shannon in that fashion. Shannon usually arises when people confuse Shannon information with Kolmogorov information and insist that mutation cannot add "new information" to a genome, or insist that information is always lost. If you want to see randomly generated information, go look at grains of sand on a beach or go look at some dog poo.

 

Anyway, my bed is calling, so I shall bid you adieu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bon soir mon ami or whatever is appropriate where you live

Matter and energy are all that exist in the Universe, neatly linked by Einsteins equation of E=mc^2. I don't know how you get from there to the statement about a mechanism of evolution.

Was this a slight or don't you think there is such things as life or intelligence?

 

Moreover, what is evolution then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bon soir mon ami or whatever is appropriate where you live

Matter and energy are all that exist in the Universe, neatly linked by Einsteins equation of E=mc^2. I don't know how you get from there to the statement about a mechanism of evolution.

Was this a slight or don't you think there is such things as life or intelligence?

 

Moreover, what is evolution then?

68455[/snapback]

A slight? No slight intended, matter is simply energy manifested differently. Life would be matter and energy arranged in a particular configuration. Intelligence is an emergent property of life.

 

Evolution (biological evolution) is properly defined as descent with inherent modification in a reproducing population. Modification can be in one of several forms of mutation. We're basically seeing a re-arrangement of energy and matter. It's a reductionist viewpoint of course, far too simplistic for an overall view, but thats what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A slight? No slight intended, matter is simply energy manifested differently. Life would be matter and energy arranged in a particular configuration. Intelligence is an emergent property of life.

 

Evolution (biological evolution) is properly defined as descent with inherent modification in a reproducing population. Modification can be in one of several forms of mutation. We're basically seeing a re-arrangement of energy and matter. It's a reductionist viewpoint of course, far too simplistic for an overall view, but thats what it is.

 

I would say these beliefs have been specifically modified by you as I do not generally observe evo scientists calling life emergent in the sense that you seem to infer. They seem to think its occurrence was specific if not a one time event. Furthermore, matter & energy sired it. That would explain why experiments with primordial soup and energy bursts have been used to try and recreate life.

 

I don’t think life is emergent. I don’t think it needed to be created. I think it, intelligence, power, and information are synonymous.. I also think that it is the predominant power on earth. It is the causative agent in the cell which is doing all the work and causes a cell to seem alive. It reads DNA code. In my view evo and natural selection are imposters--charlatans and the only selecting going on is done by life.

 

In high school I remember looking at dead cells and those that were alive under a microscope. They looked the same except for motion. That led me to conclude that if life leaves a cell it is dead.

 

There is evidence that DNA code stays behind as a physical(the remains). Natural selection and evolution are descriptions of what life does rather than causes of life, I realize that my view throws me into the path of the runaway locomotive of evo science, I declared my independence from evo years ago.

 

I can reduce all the rhetoric down to something I read in the Bible and that is that the environment was made for us and not us for the environment, So, the question is in my simplified view as simple as, “Do we have dominion over the environment or does it have dominion over us?†In my experience we have dominion over the environment by virtue of our intelligence. Intelligence controls energy and matter and I have yet to see it any other way.

 

I have been in the helping field as a teacher councilor/ therapist for over 31.years. I often use a simple acronym to help my clients when they come to me disturbed thinking something in their environment is doing something to them (such as their wife some event or some imaginary force). Here goes: The acronym is ABCDE. Where A= Activating event as a stimuli to initiate the process. B=our belief system, B can be broken down into two parts IB and RB. Irrational beliefs (IB) which are beliefs not conducive to the happiness and/ or continued existence of a human being. RB’s are beliefs that are nurturing and sane beliefs which produce realistic responses to the environment both inside our minds along with realistic interactions with others. “Appropriate concern†is more preferable than anger (hate).. As you can see IB’s are the issues in human disturbance. Their predominance in a person philosophy of life is theorized as the cause of the person’s disturbance. Psychological pain is what causes a client to seek help or therapy.

 

Then there is C. C=Consequence an emotional response coupled with a tendency of behavior. “A" (the activating event) in the mind of the client causes “C“ (the consequence or emotional response). As you can see RB & IB are intervening variables which actually are the causes of “C.†My job is to help the client become aware of this process which is largely automated in most people and a description of who people often claim they are. I help my client identify his IB’s. I also help the client eliminate and dispute IB’s. With the IB’s disputed (D) lessened or eliminated, there will be “E†a new emotional effect (lessened disturbance). In the ABCDE acronym “Dâ€ÂÂ= Disputatio of IB’s “Eâ€ÂÂ=New Effect or consequence--appropriate emotions and appropriate behavior caused by (D) disputation of Ib’s.

Albert Ellis concepulized the ABCDE acronym (REBT.ORG)

 

There is no reason to eliminate or “mess†with RB’s other than to enhance them and make them stronger than any remaining IB’s. This process can be summed up in this premise;. Cognition serves as a mediating function between stimulus and effect. It is also restated in a sentence attributed to an ancient stoic philosopher Epictetus that said, “People are disturbed not by things but, the views they take of things.†Finally, why I believe the Bible. God tells us in Genesis that He gave us dominion over the environment which is a true statement whether you accept the idea of God or not.

 

I have spent 31 years of my life listening to people tell me how their spouse, their boss, situations, their evironment etc. has emotional causing components in them. Bosh! It’s their own thinking and their IB’s that is causing their disturbanceâ€â€Ânot the external environment. Idolotry is the belief that the environment has dominion over us. I sometimes call it the big "It." I can here myself askin a client, "What do you mean "it" upset you? And how can "it" do that?"

 

As Jesus said, “Take no anxious thought. See that you be not troubled.†Note, that Jesus new that the antecedent of emotion was thought. He said nothing about the environment doing anything to Him or us. It is my belief that He was the sanest being that ever walked this planet! If you read the story, did He wine and complain about what anyone was doing to Him? He steadfastly maintained the belief that He had power and control over the environment even when He was being crucified! No one set a better example of having dominion over the environment than Him--even if you don't think he was a God beeing. You are without an excuse if you do not acknowledge contol of you and deceived for want of a better word. I know you will choose to believe what you wish--the truth or the lie?

 

Moreover, in the Garden of Good and Evil with the forbidden fruit, the story points out that Adam & Eve were both naked and not embarrassed but after eating of the tree of Good and Evil “nakedness†caused them to be embarrassed. Bosh. Allegorically, the Garden of Good and evil is our mind. If my experience has any validity, most people today have a big tree right in the middle of their head (called today a worldview). Adam & Eve bought a lie. It was their IB’ not being naked that caused their change in emotions. They obviously continued to believe the environment had dominion over them and taught it to their children who taught it to their children etc. The rest of the Bible talks about what happens when beings take to themselves the knowledge of good & evilâ€â€Âthinking the environment is doing something to them.

 

I became a therapist to inform modern Adam & Eve to stop eating of the tree of G&Eâ€â€Âto show them how to do that. The belief in evo is the complete opposite of what I have experienced being a therapist (evo=the environment causes and has dominion over us). Therefore, evo has to go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys you are supposed to speak the truth in love. This conversation seems to be quite harsh. >.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Equivocate really is your favourite word isn't it,

68450[/snapback]

Only when pointing it out as it applies to the rules of this forum, and the context of your postings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys you are supposed to speak the truth in love. This conversation seems to be quite harsh. >.< I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding the tone of the conversation, that is just how I am reading it.

68663[/snapback]

This forum is mild compared to most out there on this subject. You must be fairly new on debating this subject?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys you are supposed to speak the truth in love. This conversation seems to be quite harsh. >.< I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding the tone of the conversation, that is just how I am reading it.

68663[/snapback]

Absolutely Spectre. The "truth" in "love". Where we have two points to consider as well:

 

1- Every person here, Christian AND non-Christian alike, agreed to abide by the forum rules PRIOR to being accepted. An honest conversation is all we can ask of our members. No one said we would all agree on any or all of the subjects here. But, as you'll notice, the rule are "strictly enforced" for a reason.

 

2- Sometimes love is "tough" love. If one of my children smoked, I would still love them, but I'd do everything within my ability to get them to quit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely Spectre. The "truth" in "love". Where we have two points to consider as well:

 

1- Every person here, Christian AND non-Christian alike, agreed to abide by the forum rules PRIOR to being accepted. An honest conversation is all we can ask of our members. No one said we would all agree on any or all of the subjects here. But, as you'll notice, the rule are "strictly enforced" for a reason.

 

2- Sometimes love is "tough" love. If one of my children smoked, I would still love them, but I'd do everything within my ability to get them to quit.

68807[/snapback]

Okay, point taken. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Equivocate really is your favourite word isn't it, an accusation that you level at others and yet something I think you are guilty of constantly employing. This thread is a perfect example. You're keen to project your own misunderstanding onto me in an attempt to ignore the rest of the information I posted in this thread, a purposeful attempt at obfuscation?

68450[/snapback]

Attempting to run from the actual definition, in order to retain your misunderstanding of the definitional properties of a word “AND†it’s contextual meaning, is a less than honest stance to approach from. You actually can misrepresent the word, to make it mean what you want it to mean, but that is the definition of “equivocationâ€ÂÂ. And that is why I bring it up; to expose it for what it is; to bring it into the light so everyone else can see what is happening and recognize it for what it is.

 

If you continue to hear the word “equivocation†from me, it is because YOU continue to equivocate! And, I will “constantly employ†it, until you stop attempting it.

This forum is about honest debate, not:

 

Using evasive or deliberately vague language

Straying from truthfulness or sincerity in order to deceive, mislead, hedge, etc.; be deliberately ambiguous

 

Lets note something. The labels we apply don't matter if we define our position. Since I have done so more than once the fact that you continue to push this definition issue tells me something. It tells me that you would rather not address the rest of the information posted.

68450[/snapback]

If you “define†your position by misrepresenting the original definitions with prevarications, you have done nothing more than posted a dishonest opinion here.

If you build your foundation of definition upon misrepresentation, the rest of the conversation (i.e. information) is fallacious at best, and not worth the sand it is built upon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I digress, so lets rehash.

Ignorance - lacking knowledge

Agnostic - The inability to attain knowledge

68450[/snapback]

Again, you prevaricate… BOTH of the above semi-definitions are descriptive of the word “Agnosticâ€ÂÂ. And both are stances from IGNORANCE (Ignorance = “lack of knowledgeâ€ÂÂ… “A†= No… Gnostic = Knowledge. Therefore “Agnostic = NO KNOWLEDGE… Please see “ignorance above^^^).

 

“An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist.†Why, because Agnostic translated means “NO KNOWLEDGE†prefix “Aâ€ÂÂ-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun “Gnostic†meaning "knowledge," http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic

 

When applied to a deity

Ignorance - Not knowing if a god exists

Agnostic - The inability to know if a god exists

68450[/snapback]

And, as I provided above, both are stances from a “lack of knowledge†or “ignoranceâ€ÂÂ.

 

Agnostic - Agnostos

 

“The English term "agnostic" is derived from the Greek "agnostos," which means, "to not know." An agnostic is one who admits, "I don't know." The term is applied specifically to those who don't know for certain whether or not God exists. An agnostic is one who believes that the existence of God is unknown and most likely beyond human ability to discover.â€ÂÂ

 

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/agnostic.htm

 

Those are not equivalent.

68450[/snapback]

They ARE equivalent, regardless of your denial of the evidence against your misguided stance.

 

The word comes from greek, as you point out. What you failed to point out is that it can mean either unknown, or unknowable. Given that we already have the word ignorant, and given my previous postings in this thread, it should be clear what the meaning is.

Granted it's a fine distinction, so how about another example.

68450[/snapback]

I pointed out the etymology of “Agnosticism†earlier (in this post, and further up in the thread), so your attempt to misrepresent it here will be exposed over-and-over.

Unknown: not forming part of somebody's knowledge or of knowledge in general (ignorance)

 

Unknowable: impossible to know, often because of being beyond human experience or understanding (ignorance).

 

ag•nos•tic [ ag nóstik ] (plural ag•nos•tics)

noun

Definition:

1. somebody denying God's existence is provable: somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists

2. somebody denying something is knowable: somebody who doubts that a question has one correct answer or that something can be completely understood

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861584207/agnostic.html

 

As you can see in the above definition, BOTH of your definitions (“unknown†AND “Unknowableâ€ÂÂ) are agnostic terms! BOTH distinctions are agnostic distinctions.

Therefore the balance (or the rest) of your post is moot, because your foundations assertion is flawed and incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms