Nested sets of life and AV's "false positive"

[AV1611VET]

Well then, I really dont understand your point?

Good!

Finally we got somewhere!

Are we done now?

 

[VirOptimus]

Good!

Finally we got somewhere!

Are we done now?

I dont know, but sure, as you have (finally) admitted that your views are not with mainstream christianity my point stands.

 

[AV1611VET]

I dont know, but sure, as you have (finally) admitted that your views are not with mainstream christianity my point stands.

Then you've changed your point.

You went from this:

Only if it disagrees with the Bible.

Yes, as I said, you have a problem with physical reality, i.e. science. Most christians do not share your view on the matter.

... to this:

... your views are not with mainstream christianity ...

In other words, you went from saying most Christians do not share the view with me that Genesis 1 is correct,* to this bit about most Christians not sharing my view of Genesis 1 as correct.

* Here's my view: Genesis 1 is correct.

Here's a Gap theorist's view: Genesis 1 is correct.

Here's a YEC's view: Genesis 1 is correct.

Here's an OEC's view: Genesis 1 is correct.

Here's a sci ... er ... skip that one.

Here's an Omphalos view: Genesis 1 is correct.

We all share the same view: Genesis 1 is correct.

 

[In situ]

I am not ... will not ... no way ... in any way, shape or form ... going to let you swap the exampe I gave:

Dawkins talks about the nested set, he does not explain why it is a nested set. I did not "swap" anything but have explain what the "link", that Dawkins talks about, is all about. The "link" is all about observations; unique inherent characteristics.

Unique inherent characteristics, i.e the nested set, is the "link" that tells us that a mallard is a mallard and a duck and a bird and a dinosaur, and that is why it is not "on paper" only. If the nested set is a false positive, then it follows that mallard are not for sure born by bird nor are mallards for sure born by ducks. It even follows that we can not for sure say that a mallard is born by another mallard. Who knows, if the nested set is false positive, then maybe it was born by a crocodile, or created by a miracles.

I am prepared to accept miracles, if you can provide me a good reason to accept such miracles. For instance, I can accept that abiogenesis is not viable and the first cell was created by a miracle, still, based on observations, I will need to conclude, due to the nested set of life, that all life share a universal last common ancestor.

... for your own example ... just so you can claim I'm wrong.

You misunderstood me. I want you, and everyone, to not agree with it!

But if you feel what I am said meant that you are wrong, then perhaps it means you are wrong... At least that is the way I judge if I am wrong. But in the discussion with you I don't feel anything you said so far make me feel I am wrong. Why is that? Why can you not make me feel I am wrong? Why is it that it is me that make you feel you are wrong and not the other way around? Please explain to me! What do you know which I do not know?

If you want to do that, be my guest.

But don't expect me to agree.

That's was not my intention nor they way I want you to understand it. This is not about proving anyone wrong, but about me finding out why you think the nested set of life is a false positive.

Like I have said already, I don't think you believe those things, it is nonsense, but that nonsense is actually what your claim implies, and I made this example to make it clear to you how little sense your claim makes to me. We both agree on this. That means you have failed to explain to me so I can understand why it makes sense to you to claim the nested set of life is a false positive.

Do you now understand my intention with the mallard example?

And I've said all I care to say on this issue.

Then you leave me at the position where I cannot make sense of your beliefs. Do you really want me to conclude that you do not understand what a nested set is all about, and you only believe what you believe because you are ignorant or do you want me to conclude that you understand things better than almost every single expert on the issue and I should just trust you on your words that you are right?

You can hardly type without saying something right

It is hard to know what you refer to since you are not specific in your accusation. How do you want me to understand that I am wrong if you cannot be specific about what I am wrong about?

In contrary, any specific example you brought up as an explanation for why the nested set is a false positive, I have disputed and disqualified and as well pointed out that you only repeat your assertion by the claim made. This you agree with, when even yourself notice that you are only repeating yourself. At least for me this, having no argument to support a claim, would be a strong sign I cannot assert the claim to be true and a possible indication that I might be wrong.

In other words, you know you are not telling me everything of substance. But you do not say so, you only want me to believe there is a substance to your claim while there is none. That means everything falls back to what I have said before; you are asking me to not to believe what I see but to believe something else which nobody can see, in other words you are asking me to believe in that which there exists no reason to believe in.

Why would anyone like to carry such believes? If I asked you to believe leprechaun created the nested set of life, would you accept it? If not, why shoudl I accept your "explanation"?

and I can hardly type without having to repeat myself.

I agree, you just keep repeating the same thing without explain what you mean with it.

Good day, sir.

I will not let you go AV. Since you have not presented any argument for why the nested set of life is a false positive, more than asserted that it is so, I will try to present something that might be the reason why you think the nested set of life is a false positive and see if you can agree with me if that is a reason why you regard it to be a false positive.

Do you think that is fair enough?

 

[VirOptimus]

Then you've changed your point.

You went from this:




... to this:



In other words, you went from saying most Christians do not share the view with me that Genesis 1 is correct,* to this bit about most Christians not sharing my view of Genesis 1 as correct.

* Here's my view: Genesis 1 is correct.

Here's a Gap theorist's view: Genesis 1 is correct.

Here's a YEC's view: Genesis 1 is correct.

Here's an OEC's view: Genesis 1 is correct.

Here's a sci ... er ... skip that one.

Here's an Omphalos view: Genesis 1 is correct.

We all share the same view: Genesis 1 is correct.

Yes, but OEC (the vast majority of christians) dont question the science regarding evolution, big bang, the age of the earth etc. That is (as you fully well know) what I am posting about.

You say "science (i.e. physical reality) can take a hike" when it clashes with your (highly unorthodox) interpretation of the bible. Most christians dont do that. So, my point stands.

 

[AV1611VET]

You say "science (i.e. physical reality) can take a hike" when it clashes with your (highly unorthodox) interpretation of the bible. Most christians dont do that. So, my point stands.

Whatever turns you on.

 

[VirOptimus]

Whatever turns you on.

What a weird reply.

 

[In situ]

God did not create a nested hierarchy.

It is unclear to me what you mean with "God did not create a nested hierarchy". Are you saying the nested set was created as a coincident, not by purpose or are you saying it does not exist at all?

As I already explained, if a nested set can be associated with a branching process then it implies a hierarchy, generated by the branching process. We know there is branching process connected with life, called parent-child relations, therefore the nested set also implies an underlying nested hierarchy. (Notice - to implies is not the same as assuming, implication are conclusions based on facts, i.e. observations).

The animals He created in Genesis 1 are not linked in any way, shape or form.

Saying animals are "not linked" is just a repition of the assertion that the nested set is a false positive. Repating a claim does not make it more true.

 

[In situ]

Yes, as I said, you have a problem with physical reality, i.e. science. Most christians do not share your view on the matter.

I am trying to find out the reason for a very specific claim made by AV, this is not part of that claim. So can we try focus the discussion to the question in the OP, please?

 

[In situ]

And as [the late]Mr. Henry M Morris puts it in his Defender's Study Bible, evolution is an ongoing process, while creation was a completed act.

So what you're calling a process is not a process at all ... and never was.

So, is it your claim it is a false positive because God created life as a nested set or (as indicated by another comment) there is no nested set at all, it is just imagined to be one?

 

[In situ]

what you're calling a process is not a process at all

Rereading what you wrote, I like to clarify that I want to lay the stress on the word branching in branching process. The stress is not on process. If you think about it, creation (or design) is also a process, but not necessary a branching process.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Whatever turns you on.

Phrasing XD

 

[In situ]

I'm disagreeing with the idea that most Christians don't share my idea that creationism and the Bible are at odds.

You are perhaps correct, but this is not the claim you are accused of disagreeing with. The claim was about the nested set of life and whether it is a false positive of not. If the nested set of life is a false positive then it implies that a mallard is not duck, but only looks like a duck. We have agree on that you do not carry the belief that a mallard only looks like a duck but in fact is a ducks.

The part you seam not to agree with is the inference I made in my OP;

"if life is not a nested set then this implies a mallard isn't a duck, a mallard only looks like a duck".

Is this correctly understood by me, you disagree with this inference, or is it something else you disagree with? I am asking this because it is not clear to me what exactly it is you disagree with (or if you even disagree with anything at all - and if you do not disagree with any facts then why do you claim it is a false positive, why not accept life is in fact a nested set?).

 

[AV1611VET]

What a weird reply.

That's hippie talk.

I would think you academians would know that.

 

[Hoghead1]

Only if it disagrees with the Bible.

It would be better for you to say only if it disagree with your interpretation of the Bible. There are many other options for Christians. I say the heck with all fallible, human-made ideologies and fallible, human made religions, such as is the Bible Belt. I am going directly to the Bible and studying carefully what the structure of teh texts themselves reveal about its relationship to God. I say the heck with all middle men, the heck with the natural theology of 19th-Century Christendom. I am going to nature and seek out what nature reveals about itself and its relationship to God. On that basis, I reserve the right to disagree with you completely. I will continue to do so until you demonstrate you are free of the distortions created by an adherence to a fallible, man-made version of Christianity.

I say the heck with all worldly wisdom, the heck with popular public opinion, the heck with what the vast uneducated masses have to say. I am going strictly on what highly qualified experts have to teach me. On that basis, I reserve the right to disagree with you completely. I am gong to continue to do so until you demonstrate to me you are no longer caught up in the distortions caused by the unqualified judgments of self-appointed lay authority and other false prophets.

 

[AV1611VET]

It would be better for you to say only if it disagree with your interpretation of the Bible. There are many other options for Christians. I say the heck with all fallible, human-made ideologies and fallible, human made religions, such as is the Bible Belt. I am going directly to the Bible and studying carefully what the structure of teh texts themselves reveal about its relationship to God. I say the heck with all middle men, the heck with the natural theology of 19th-Century Christendom. I am going to nature and seek out what nature reveals about itself and its relationship to God. On that basis, I reserve the right to disagree with you completely. I will continue to do so until you demonstrate you are free of the distortions created by an adherence to a fallible, man-made version of Christianity.

I say the heck with all worldly wisdom, the heck with popular public opinion, the heck with what the vast uneducated masses have to say. I am going strictly on what highly qualified experts have to teach me. On that basis, I reserve the right to disagree with you completely. I am gong to continue to do so until you demonstrate to me you are no longer caught up in the distortions caused by the unqualified judgments of self-appointed lay authority and other false prophets.

Spoken like a true Protestant.

While you're kissing all these "middlemen" goodbye, consider this ...

Jeremiah 23:4a And I will set up shepherds over them which shall feed them:

Romans 12:6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;
Romans 12:7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;

Galatians 6:6 Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's hippie talk.

I would think you academians would know that.

AV... do you not know what "turn on" implies in certain contexts? Especially when applied to people being turned on?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV... do you not know what "turn on" implies in certain contexts?

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the term.

We used it a lot in the 70s.

Especially when applied to people being turned on?

Yes ... drugs.

"Whatever turns you on." = "Whatever piques your interest."

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the term.

We used it a lot in the 70s.Yes ... drugs.

"Whatever turns you on." = "Whatever piques your interest."

Uh... no AV. The modern slang use of the phrase means "aroused in a sexual sense". That's the most polite way I can put it, and that's why people find the way you used it funny.

 

[AV1611VET]

Uh... no AV. The modern slang ...

I thought I stipulated it was "hippie talk"?

Hippie talk ≠ modern slang.

That's the most polite way I can put it, and that's why people find the way you used it funny.

Whatever floats their boat.