Evolution

[noddy]

that is a very american viewpoint, the need to take a stance.

im more of the millitant agnostic - not only do i not know, i know nobody else knows either, so anybody thats too caught up in their opinion, is lying or kidding themselves.

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.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Just to be clear on this side, I didn't think of taking offense to it or that it was a good or bad thing; it is what it is. And I was just joking with my comment.

--------------

More to the point, if I were to build the case I would start with what the opponents were saying about those radical materialists with their theory of the transmutation of species.

These would not be the best arguments, but they would instructive.

If one is going to argue against the institution, there is no need to get bogged down in a century of commentary or make the very human mistake of then offering to do that commentary better than those making it.

If it's wrong, it all needs to be rooted out.

The broad picture argument was about preservation, with the enthymeme being that when we are talking about parts and wholes-- and 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.

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.

[noddy]

well, it doesnt really start from an idea and then get fleshed out coherantly , its an adhoc collection of discoveries from many fields of science that all created a mess of questions that demanded answers.

those proposed answers require a familiarity with all those fields of science, the questions raised by geology, biology etc are the questions being answered, any proof - for or against - the theories will be coming from those fields as they discover a practical reason the theory is indeed wrong.

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.

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.

[noddy]

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.

aaah, but this is trying to squeeze the new sausage into the old wine bottle ?

their is just turtles.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

A N Whitehead: "the greatest scientific discovery of the 19th century was the science of discovery."

That quote comes to mind.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

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.

aaah, but this is trying to squeeze the new sausage into the old wine bottle ?

their is just turtles.

Arguments from scratch are sausage links all the way down

[noddy]

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.

[noddy]

A N Whitehead: "the greatest scientific discovery of the 19th century was the science of discovery."

That quote comes to mind.

good quote, ive never really comprehended the change in thinking that occured in europe as you move into the 19th century.

the explorations of it seem comical.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

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.

if you can point to me what a turtle is

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?

[noddy]

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.

if you can point to me what a turtle is

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.

https://www.thoughtco.com/prehistoric-t ... on-1093303

according to that, we dont actually know much about them, or where they started.

Paleontologists still haven't identified the exact family of prehistoric reptiles that spawned modern turtles and tortoises,

im afraid it truly is turtles all the way down.

[noddy]

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.

if you can point to me what a turtle is

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?

how can it - their is what we know and what we dont know.

unless someone proposes their will be an end to the latter, which im doubtful of.

the ability for bald monkeys on a rock on the edge of the universe speak with great authority on the rock they stand on is about as far as i can accept.

the fact we dabble in the universe itself and how the rock got there, is impressive, but not likely to get anywhere in my lifetime, and for any future i could predict.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

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.

[noddy]

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.

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.

some things like crocodiles dont appear to change at all, in any of the fossils through to now - so not all changes are improvements, seems any variation on being a crocodile isnt an improvement and they are already perfect at lurking in puddles and eating thirsty creatures.

it was shear weight of numbers of folks agreeing with those patterns in fossils and living animals and how the spread of various types matches the movement of the continents that eventually formed the modern view on it.

[Simple Minded]

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 ?

Well said. It is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

the recreational value of the in-your-face discussion is high, consequences of being right or wrong are non-existent.

[Simple Minded]

that is a very american viewpoint, the need to take a stance.

im more of the millitant agnostic - not only do i not know, i know nobody else knows either, so anybody thats too caught up in their opinion, is lying or kidding themselves.

Yep. and the only way to create discontent is to try to deny the other their chosen perspectives/delusions.

Very similar to the youngest religion of Climate Change.

[Simple Minded]

A N Whitehead: "the greatest scientific discovery of the 19th century was the science of discovery."

That quote comes to mind.

IIRC. A N Whitehead wrote most of the dialogue for Mystery Men.

https://www.quotes.net/movies/mystery_men_7937

"To learn my teachings, I must first teach you how to learn!" The Sphinx

[Mr. Perfect]

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 live in New England.

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.

You are a creationist.

[Mr. Perfect]

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

That's just your opinion.

[Mr. Perfect]

yeh - this is an American phenomena that various christians have different points at which they tap out of the discussion

Not in the slightest.

1) evolution changing species colours and shapes and behaviours (wolves to dogs, goats to sheep)

We don't need evolution for that, we used to just call it breeding.

2) evolution changing a species so much its a new species (bears and wolves having a common ancestor, chickens being dinosaurs)

What is the common ancestor of bears and wolves. Be specific. Or are you making things up again.

3) evolution as the start of life, from organic chemistry

You are making things up again, Here is a science bro from your side speaking hopefully in your language. Abiotic genesis is not possible

Timestamped for your convenience, 1:23:47

It's only a few minutes, and it will prove helpful.
ADiql3FG5is

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 ..

Where do you get this stuff

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 ?

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.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Nothing evolved into a crab

But you are getting closer.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

i wouldnt call it linear, its a never ending bifurcation

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.

So outside of acknowledge some general sense of time, the rest of it would be language games.

[Simple Minded]

Nothing evolved into a crab

But you are getting closer.

Reminds me of the sign that hung in my Dad's shop:

BEWARE THE MISERABLE DUTCHMAN!

[Simple Minded]

The real question, that all y'all are dancing around is, and to chicken too type........ if creationism is real, who were God's parents?

[noddy]

Timestamped for your convenience, 1:23:47

the entire time ive been saying we dont know and no scientist claims different, you keep saying im lying.

now you prove me right.

im perfectly comfortable with what he said,. you are arguing with yourself, half truths and strawmen and confusion.

[noddy]

i wouldnt call it linear, its a never ending bifurcation

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.

So outside of acknowledge some general sense of time, the rest of it would be language games.

right - and some things dont always fit neatly into these alleged splits, so it opens the question of panspermia or other such things.