to be clear - the anti expert feistyness of Americans isnt a bad thing, im not saying that.
its just not particularly a magor focus for the rest of the anglosphere in the same way.
to be clear - the anti expert feistyness of Americans isnt a bad thing, im not saying that.
if the string theorists are right and we have multiverses of multiverses, abiogenesis is quite low on the totem pole of human theories getting a nasty shock.in order to have parts and wholes one needs a closed cosmological system as opposed to starting with the premise of acosmic mathematical/machine extensions.
aaah, but this is trying to squeeze the new sausage into the old wine bottle ?NapLajoieonSteroids wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 10:00 am
Leaving veracity aside for a moment, the biological response is clever (and devastating to that old frame).
How can we speak of preservation with so many clearly disappeared things under our feet? If there is preservation at all, it is in the mechanism of this one leading to that (at least for the lucky few). And it does a pretty good job of marrying non-life stuffs like geology and climates to life-stuffs.
Arguments from scratch are sausage links all the way downnoddy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 11:39 amaaah, but this is trying to squeeze the new sausage into the old wine bottle ?NapLajoieonSteroids wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 10:00 am
Leaving veracity aside for a moment, the biological response is clever (and devastating to that old frame).
How can we speak of preservation with so many clearly disappeared things under our feet? If there is preservation at all, it is in the mechanism of this one leading to that (at least for the lucky few). And it does a pretty good job of marrying non-life stuffs like geology and climates to life-stuffs.
their is just turtles.
good quote, ive never really comprehended the change in thinking that occured in europe as you move into the 19th century.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 11:40 am A N Whitehead: "the greatest scientific discovery of the 19th century was the science of discovery."
That quote comes to mind.
if you can point to me what a turtle isnoddy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 11:46 am so its the comfort with turtles that is the big change i think - and the biggest sticking point in the arguments.
all the old philosophies and religions short circuit the turtles, provide an escape point, the recursive endlessness of it is a problem that needs fixing.
--
ive always loved "atoms" on that level, smallest building block my arse.
i can wave at a bunch of things which are still close enough to being a turtle that its as good a label as anything - not sure if their are any complicated critters which are annoyingly a bit tortoise aswell.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 11:54 amif you can point to me what a turtle isnoddy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 11:46 am so its the comfort with turtles that is the big change i think - and the biggest sticking point in the arguments.
all the old philosophies and religions short circuit the turtles, provide an escape point, the recursive endlessness of it is a problem that needs fixing.
--
ive always loved "atoms" on that level, smallest building block my arse.
im afraid it truly is turtles all the way down.Paleontologists still haven't identified the exact family of prehistoric reptiles that spawned modern turtles and tortoises,
how can it - their is what we know and what we dont know.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 11:54 amif you can point to me what a turtle isnoddy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 11:46 am so its the comfort with turtles that is the big change i think - and the biggest sticking point in the arguments.
all the old philosophies and religions short circuit the turtles, provide an escape point, the recursive endlessness of it is a problem that needs fixing.
--
ive always loved "atoms" on that level, smallest building block my arse.
it can't be both a smuggled-in olde tymey essence and an unimportant grammatical placeholder depending on the situational mood.
....as for smallest/biggest/ simple/complexity-- more nonsense grammar that doesn't mean anything. Does nothing come close to primitive notions in this astrological system?
i wouldnt call it linear, its a never ending bifurcation and its certainly not progress or improvement or other such concepts ive seen people impose on it.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 12:14 pm Here are my aggregates! I have some here, some of there; there are similarities (though freely disputable;e) so we'll call'em the same. There are some things in the ground which are sorta similar too, so we'll throw that in there. It's all linear, by the way.
Seeing all these patterns between individual objects gets schizophrenics thrown in rubber rooms.
Well said. It is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.noddy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 6:44 am
yeh - this is an American phenomena that various christians have different points at which they tap out of the discussion
1) evolution changing species colours and shapes and behaviours (wolves to dogs, goats to sheep)
2) evolution changing a species so much its a new species (bears and wolves having a common ancestor, chickens being dinosaurs)
3) evolution as the start of life, from organic chemistry
at each of these points it can just be a mechanism by which god acts in the physical world - even the start of life "made from mud" part.
so the phrasing of the question is important , no doubt.
god created everything via a lightning strike into a puddle of organic goo being the murky part of the discussion... or did god create the puddle of goo and the lightning.. or ..
one thing ive noticed is that internet creationists are far more worried about (3) and its consequences than anything else - whereas atheists really dont as a whole believe we have any answers to that yet.
the assumption is that it must be a physical process, no doubt, but the mechanisms are completely unknown and dont have anything to do with god anyway - why is the mechanism so important ?
Yep. and the only way to create discontent is to try to deny the other their chosen perspectives/delusions.
IIRC. A N Whitehead wrote most of the dialogue for Mystery Men.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 11:40 am A N Whitehead: "the greatest scientific discovery of the 19th century was the science of discovery."
That quote comes to mind.
You live in New England.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 6:10 am I haven't met a christian creationist either (in this more specific sense). I also asked the missus if she has actually come across it in the wild, and she's a negative on it too.
You are a creationist.I do think this creationist label as a pejorative doesn't help. For all intents and purposes I am a creationist too-- I believe in our God is a creator we exist as we are His creation. Not that it is either here nor there, but I and assume many others would be poorly captured in how popular or articulated these things actually are.
That's just your opinion.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 7:25 am Or it could be that everyone else besides us and the Turks are just wimps and will bow their heads to any expert which comes their way.
------------
To not have evolution requires an extensive cosmology
Not in the slightest.
We don't need evolution for that, we used to just call it breeding.1) evolution changing species colours and shapes and behaviours (wolves to dogs, goats to sheep)
What is the common ancestor of bears and wolves. Be specific. Or are you making things up again.2) evolution changing a species so much its a new species (bears and wolves having a common ancestor, chickens being dinosaurs)
You are making things up again, Here is a science bro from your side speaking hopefully in your language. Abiotic genesis is not possible3) evolution as the start of life, from organic chemistry
Where do you get this stuffat each of these points it can just be a mechanism by which god acts in the physical world - even the start of life "made from mud" part.
so the phrasing of the question is important , no doubt.
god created everything via a lightning strike into a puddle of organic goo being the murky part of the discussion... or did god create the puddle of goo and the lightning.. or ..
The mechanism doesn't exist, that's why this is so important. You believe in flying pigs and try to pass it off as science.one thing ive noticed is that internet creationists are far more worried about (3) and its consequences than anything else - whereas atheists really dont as a whole believe we have any answers to that yet.
the assumption is that it must be a physical process, no doubt, but the mechanisms are completely unknown and dont have anything to do with god anyway - why is the mechanism so important ?
But you are getting closer.
I am talking about it being time-bound. Because, for argument's sake, there is no reason to start with the idea that these collections of things have anything to do with one another.
the entire time ive been saying we dont know and no scientist claims different, you keep saying im lying.
right - and some things dont always fit neatly into these alleged splits, so it opens the question of panspermia or other such things.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 12:48 amI am talking about it being time-bound. Because, for argument's sake, there is no reason to start with the idea that these collections of things have anything to do with one another.
So outside of acknowledge some general sense of time, the rest of it would be language games.