- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,773
- 52,549
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Common as dirt, a person learns a few "philosophical" sayings, and tosses in some God to make an unbeatable combo.
A few even try to guild the Lilly with the pretense of being a " scientist".
You still lose. You have still shot yourself in the foot.I'm not defining it, I'm giving it a synonym.
Really? I hope your day job is not piloting commercial aircraft, or driving a bus, or parking cars, or ...
Science knowledge does not circumscribe even a blade of grass and yet claims to know how man came into existence.
Like I said. Reality is scary. Gibberish is the result sometimes.Circumscribe a blade of grass?
I suspect that was just a red-herring to continue the ego-boosting run-around. In philosophical discussions, you define your terms at the outset then get on with it. First-principles are simply axioms or a-priori terms that vary by philosopher and domain.The philosopher who cannot get past the idea that there might be questions about mutual acceptance of their postulates, axioms, dare I say assumptions.
He is equally ignorant in science and philosophy.I suspect that was just a red-herring to continue the ego-boosting run-around. In philosophical discussions, you define your terms at the outset then get on with it. First-principles are simply axioms or a-priori terms that vary by philosopher and domain.
It's the popular example of qualia, what it is subjectively like to have a sensory experience - part of the 'hard problem' of consciousness, something that objective science can't directly explain because subjective experience is not accessible. Mind-body dualists think it proves something.Are you asking because you have a sincere interest or is this just an attempt at a game of "gotcha!" whack-a-mole?
At any rate, I haven't specifically researched that subject, though I suspect if you want to read up on subjects like phototransduction, the visual cortex and neurological processing of visual stimuli, you can probably find more than a few things to tickle your fancy.
You're correct, he didn't understand it. It's from my post #814 in the 'What about the Differences between Chimps and Humans?' thread.Not knowing where you mined this quote, I will just assume that you don't understand it nor why the author wrote that.5) When the evolutionary scientist cannot provide natural explanations for observed effects, he often masks his ignorance with flowery language, eg., “order emerges from the interactions of multiple subsystems as a result of their intrinsic properties, without external guidance …”. Rather than assign the observed effect to a super-natural or unnatural cause the scientist presumes a natural cause without identifying it.
Presumably, he didn't read the referenced article, or if he did, he didn't understand that either.It means order emerging from the interactions of multiple subsystems as a result of their intrinsic properties, without external guidance or direction. Popular examples are starling murmurations or schools of fish. The patterns generated by cellular automata like Game of Life, or fractals like the Mandelbrot Set are also examples.What does "undirected emergent order" mean?
Not really. Emergent properties may not be predictable from those of the subsystems, but they have observable causes (the interactions of the subsystems). The idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts is rather ambiguous - it's more the case that the behaviour of the whole is quite different from that of its parts. See Emergence."Emergent" properties are those that have no observable cause. "Emergent" implies the whole is somehow greater than its parts. Philosophically, claiming an "emergent" property violates First Principles, ie., Principle of Sufficient Reason. How does adding the modifier "undirected" clarify the "emergent" assumption? "Emergent", like "random", admits of ignorance.
There's no conflict with the Principle of Sufficient Reason, emergence is inherently deterministic.
The modifier 'undirected' is to distinguish the self-organisation I'm describing from the directed form you suggested in #753. As I said, the idea of self-organisation carries the implication of being the result of intrinsic rather than extrinsic influence.
You have to give the drongo a fair suck of the pineappleCount me among those who noticed early.
The OP limits the debate to the evolution of man. For discussion purposes, I allow that evolution is possible for bugs (colloquial sense) to primates.
It's just so much more peaceful now.
View attachment 301170
It's just so much more peaceful now
I know, I know ... you're all upset. Evo's become quite emotional when anyone reveals that their evolution theory has no clothes.
Rather than deal with the theory's shortcomings, their SOP is to attack the messenger, try to destroy a reputation rather than refute an argument. We've seen this tactic before. Doubtless, we'll see it again.
Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory - The New American
The Scientific Case Against Evolution
https://phys.org/news/2006-06-scientists-oppose-darwin-theory.html
Over 1,000 PhD Scientists Sign Petition Dissenting From Darwin's Theory of Evolution | Christians for Truth
Are there Non-Religious Skeptics of Darwinian Evolution and Proponents of Intelligent Design? | Christian Research Institute
The Vanishing Case for Evolution
Questioning evolution is neither science denial nor the preserve of creationists
After their "group hug" celebrating another supposed successful defense of their beloved theory, they return to bury their heads back in the safe sand of ignoring the obvious.
Did you read any of those articles? If so, please quote the one you think supports the argument you were making.View attachment 301170
It's just so much more peaceful now
I know, I know ... you're all upset. Evo's become quite emotional when anyone reveals that their evolution theory has no clothes.
Rather than deal with the theory's shortcomings, their SOP is to attack the messenger, try to destroy a reputation rather than refute an argument. We've seen this tactic before. Doubtless, we'll see it again.
Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory - The New American
The Scientific Case Against Evolution
https://phys.org/news/2006-06-scientists-oppose-darwin-theory.html
Over 1,000 PhD Scientists Sign Petition Dissenting From Darwin's Theory of Evolution | Christians for Truth
Are there Non-Religious Skeptics of Darwinian Evolution and Proponents of Intelligent Design? | Christian Research Institute
The Vanishing Case for Evolution
Questioning evolution is neither science denial nor the preserve of creationists
After their "group hug" celebrating another supposed successful defense of their beloved theory, they return to bury their heads back in the safe sand of ignoring the obvious.
Did you read any of those articles? If so, please quote the one you think supports the argument you were making.
I'll give myself an "optimistic" rating while I wait for you not to provide a relevant quotation.
View attachment 301170
It's just so much more peaceful now
I know, I know ... you're all upset. Evo's become quite emotional when anyone reveals that their evolution theory has no clothes.
Rather than deal with the theory's shortcomings, their SOP is to attack the messenger, try to destroy a reputation rather than refute an argument. We've seen this tactic before. Doubtless, we'll see it again.
Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory - The New American
The Scientific Case Against Evolution
https://phys.org/news/2006-06-scientists-oppose-darwin-theory.html
Over 1,000 PhD Scientists Sign Petition Dissenting From Darwin's Theory of Evolution | Christians for Truth
Are there Non-Religious Skeptics of Darwinian Evolution and Proponents of Intelligent Design? | Christian Research Institute
The Vanishing Case for Evolution
Questioning evolution is neither science denial nor the preserve of creationists
After their "group hug" celebrating another supposed successful defense of their beloved theory, they return to bury their heads back in the safe sand of ignoring the obvious.
Nature makes mistakes; our Creator didn't.The OP states that creation is superior to evolution and yet you do not provide any evidence or facts for that claim to be correct.
Is that a picture of geologists or archaeologists looking for evidence of evolution?It's just so much more peaceful now.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?