Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › March 2016, I was diagnosed with esophogeal cancer
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) March 2016, I was diagnosed with esophogeal cancer (Read 521 times)
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1036
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: March 2016, I was diagnosed with esophogeal cancer
Reply #40 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 9:01pm
Print Post  
Quote:
Correct, it's not accidental and no god intervened.  But an intelligent being chose to drop the meat into the petrie dish instead of eating or freezing it.  An even more intelligent being designed the petrie dish and a still more intelligent being discovered why we can expect the meat to rot.  That's why your example is not accidental but clearly on purpose.


Alright then, if you want to go around in circles trying to make some point, I'll fix it.

An frog walked into a pool of warm water and the water started to boil because it was in yellowstone. and it then cooked and rotted. And it's a true story because yogi said it was.

Quote:
But was the primordial ooze accidental?  If so then everything that was caused by its existence was accidental also, right?  Unless, as in your example, an intelligent being prompted the ooze to do its work.


The moon is made of blue cheese and that's not accidental. The Martians are using it as a storehouse for aging cheese.

Oh wait, the blue in the cheese was caused by the ID'er cause he didn't like processed cheese food slices all that much.

You need to talk to Jeff and get his opinion now.
Alright, Don.  I gave you a chance to explain your position.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5844
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: March 2016, I was diagnosed with esophogeal cancer
Reply #41 - Oct 4th, 2017 at 9:47pm
Print Post  
burnsred wrote on Oct 4th, 2017 at 9:01pm:
Alright, Don.  I gave you a chance to explain your position.


There's no intelligent designer necessary. Everything is explained by Darwinism. There are no gaps int e fossil record and it's remarkbly complete considering that it took certain extraordinary conditions to cause bones to fossilize.

You're obviously not accepting Darwinism because you are holding onto a hidden agenda of supporting creation. If you can't break from that then we've probably got nothing more to say on the topic. Your choice.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1036
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: March 2016, I was diagnosed with esophogeal cancer
Reply #42 - Oct 5th, 2017 at 8:46am
Print Post  
Quote:
There's no intelligent designer necessary. Everything is explained by Darwinism. There are no gaps int e fossil record and it's remarkbly complete considering that it took certain extraordinary conditions to cause bones to fossilize.

You're obviously not accepting Darwinism because you are holding onto a hidden agenda of supporting creation. If you can't break from that then we've probably got nothing more to say on the topic. Your choice.
None of that explains what you mean by Darwinian evolution being non-accidental.  I believe I know why you're confused.

Dawkins excoriates anyone who doesn't believe exactly as he does which is a very religious attitude.  It just happens to be the religious belief of atheism that he's attached to.  But in describing evolution, he goes back time and time again to metaphors, analogies and similes that at least use the imagery of conscious choice.  Dawkins assumes that the reader understands that this is not to be taken literally, but that every step in the evolutionary process is an accident.  You don't seem to have read between the lines and so you cling to the idea that Darwinian evolution is non-accidental.

You don't want to say that every part and ever step is accidental because intuitively, that seems so improbable.  As Dawkins himself admitted in his book "Climbing Mount Improbable."  If you want to defend Darwinian Evolution, you must either come up with intelligently designed arguments to explain the improbable or fall back on religious dogma and personal attacks.

Or . . . if you could expand on that idea of how Darwinism could be both purposeful and non-intelligent, you could write a book.  Here's an idea for it you can have for free:  Make it two books in one where there's no back cover but two front covers so you flip the book over.  One half is called "The Accidental Darwinist" and the other side is called "The Purposeful Darwinist."  Once you get your theory clear in your own mind, you won't have to be much of a scholar to write a book like that.  God (or whatever) knows Dawkins isn't.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5844
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: March 2016, I was diagnosed with esophogeal cancer
Reply #43 - Oct 5th, 2017 at 1:42pm
Print Post  
burnsred wrote on Oct 5th, 2017 at 8:46am:
None of that explains what you mean by Darwinian evolution being non-accidental.  I believe I know why you're confused.


I think I've made it quite clear that it can be both accidental and non-accidental, depending on the question. Now I'm finding that you aren't talking about an ID'er but something entirealy different. You need to make your point so we can find some agreement.

Quote:
Dawkins excoriates anyone who doesn't believe exactly as he does which is a very religious attitude.


Not at all! Dawkins believes in Darwinian evolution and will always accept a challenge to that. It's very seldom that Darwin was wrong but I think he's openly accepted any error that Darwin made. I think I recall one in one of his books? Can you recall what it could have been? Dawkins is purely science and accepts that science is proven to be wrong in some cases. You know very well that's how it works.

Quote:
  It just happens to be the religious belief of atheism that he's attached to.


I wouldn't call it a religious belief, even in the true sense of the word, 'religious'.

Quote:
  But in describing evolution, he goes back time and time again to metaphors, analogies and similes that at least use the imagery of conscious choice.


You lost me with that but you could provide an example?
 
Quote:
Dawkins assumes that the reader understands that this is not to be taken literally, but that every step in the evolutionary process is an accident.


I can accept that it's not to be taken literally.

Quote:
  You don't seem to have read between the lines and so you cling to the idea that Darwinian evolution is non-accidental.


You just said that it's not to be taken literally. I think I'm beginning to get your point but I don't like your use of the word 'accidental'. I've explained why it doesn't work very well in some cases.

What are you trying to get me to believe? Let's try to get to that now. Is it that you believe there has to be an intelligent designer? Or are yoiu interpreting those words, 'intelligent design' in a way that I'm not understanding or accepting?

Quote:
You don't want to say that every part and ever step is accidental because intuitively, that seems so improbable.


I'm saying that I accept Darwinian evolution completely and it doesn't seem improbable at all once one delves into it thoroughly. As Dawkins often says, it's a beautiful theory that hasn't been improved upon since it's inception. (roughly quoted)
Quote:
  As Dawkins himself admitted in his book "Climbing Mount Improbable."  If you want to defend Darwinian Evolution, you must either come up with intelligently designed arguments to explain the improbable or fall back on religious dogma and personal attacks.


I know of no time when Dawkins suggested accepting intelligent design arguments. Quote one that is in context with what we're debating.

Quote:
Or . . . if you could expand on that idea of how Darwinism could be both purposeful and non-intelligent, you could write a book.  Here's an idea for it you can have for free:  Make it two books in one where there's no back cover but two front covers so you flip the book over.  One half is called "The Accidental Darwinist" and the other side is called "The Purposeful Darwinist."  Once you get your theory clear in your own mind, you won't have to be much of a scholar to write a book like that.  God (or whatever) knows Dawkins isn't.


I'm right into this conversation with you! But you're going to have to tell me what you want me to believe. The only thing I can imagine is that you believe there has to be an ID'er involved in evolution. I don't hear you producing any evidence for that.

We both know that humans aren't capable of understanding the universe or time, as in a beginning or an end, but that doesn't strengthen an argument for an I.D'er being necessary.

I'll allow you to say that some questions aren't answerd but I will NOT" allow you to say that your religious and creationist beliefs are an answer for anything!

Anyway, tell me what you want me to believe and also tell me why you find the question of 'accidental/non-accidental so important?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5844
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: March 2016, I was diagnosed with esophogeal cancer
Reply #44 - Oct 5th, 2017 at 1:46pm
Print Post  
I think that maybe part of your schtick is to discredit Dawkins. I'm o.k. with you trying.

And there's no doubt in my mind that you want me to accept a bit of intelligent design. Just a little bit that would be a foot in the door so to speak. I'm willing to hear you out.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1036
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: March 2016, I was diagnosed with esophogeal cancer
Reply #45 - Oct 5th, 2017 at 2:42pm
Print Post  
Quote:
And there's no doubt in my mind that you want me to accept a bit of intelligent design. Just a little bit that would be a foot in the door so to speak. I'm willing to hear you out.
You already do accept a little bit of intelligent design by claiming that Darwinism is non-accidental.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5844
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: March 2016, I was diagnosed with esophogeal cancer
Reply #46 - Oct 5th, 2017 at 2:58pm
Print Post  
burnsred wrote on Oct 5th, 2017 at 2:42pm:
You already do accept a little bit of intelligent design by claiming that Darwinism is non-accidental.



Could we start another thread with a more suitable title. This one doesn't seem right to me.

If I accept a little bit of intelligent design then you'll have to suggest to me what it could be. Your claim isn't specific enough for me to understand just what you want me to accept.

I can say unequivocally that I don't accept an intelligent designer. Neither the jesus or the god! Period! I'm an atheist but can also be referred to as an agnostic because I understand the terms as they relate to the celestial teapot theory.

I think you do too and I also think that may be Dawkins' theory? Is it?

So let's just start by getting to this 'ID' that you insist I believe. Actually I'm getting close to just saying that I believe, I believe in something ID, just so we can move on.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1036
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: March 2016, I was diagnosed with esophogeal cancer
Reply #47 - Oct 5th, 2017 at 2:59pm
Print Post  
Quote:
I think I've made it quite clear that it can be both accidental and non-accidental, depending on the question. Now I'm finding that you aren't talking about an ID'er but something entirealy different. You need to make your point so we can find some agreement.
The question isn't what I'm talking about, the question is what you are talking about.  If evolution is non-accidental, it is purposeful.  So, the question for you who believes in purposeful evolution is what is the purpose and who or what is furthering that purpose?



Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
  But in describing evolution, he goes back time and time again to metaphors, analogies and similes that at least use the imagery of conscious choice.


You lost me with that but you could provide an example?
Of course, because I already have.  In "The Selfish Gene," Dawkins uses the analogy of a gene that "selfishly" "wants" to reproduce itself to describe the mechanism by which gene-based life-forms came into existence, survived and reproduced, and then either went extinct or continued to thrive to the present day.  I don't think that Dawkins means that the genes actually want to reproduce, but rather that their behavior appears to be motivated by conscience choice.

In "Climbing Mount Improbable," Dawkins uses the metaphor of climbing to represent evolution's seemingly unlikely assent.  Climbing is a conscience act, but I don't think Dawkins literally believes that there is a sentient being guiding the process. 

So why use metaphors that imply such a thing?  My answer is that the reality is that the theory of Darwinian evolution relies on a series of accidental events that would seem highly improbable ("until one has read my book!" Dawkins would say).   

Quote:
Quote:
Dawkins assumes that the reader understands that this is not to be taken literally, but that every step in the evolutionary process is an accident.


I can accept that it's not to be taken literally.

Quote:
  You don't seem to have read between the lines and so you cling to the idea that Darwinian evolution is non-accidental.


You just said that it's not to be taken literally. I think I'm beginning to get your point but I don't like your use of the word 'accidental'. I've explained why it doesn't work very well in some cases.
You may have meant to do that, but what you actually did was to state that it can either be accidental or non-accidental in different cases.  You've never stated why one case would be accidental and another non-accidental.
Quote:
What are you trying to get me to believe? Let's try to get to that now. Is it that you believe there has to be an intelligent designer? Or are yoiu interpreting those words, 'intelligent design' in a way that I'm not understanding or accepting?
No, I'm saying that a person who claims that part of the evolutionary process is non-accidental believes that there must be intelligence at work.  Those are the only options:  accidental or purposeful. 

Quote:
Quote:
You don't want to say that every part and ever step is accidental because intuitively, that seems so improbable.


I'm saying that I accept Darwinian evolution completely and it doesn't seem improbable at all once one delves into it thoroughly. As Dawkins often says, it's a beautiful theory that hasn't been improved upon since it's inception. (roughly quoted)
Quote:
I hope that was pretty rough because the Darwinian theory was greatly improved by the discovery of the gene as the agent of hereditary traits being passed on.

 
Quote:
I'll allow you to say that some questions aren't answerd but I will NOT" allow you to say that your religious and creationist beliefs are an answer for anything!
I didn't know that I wasn't allowed to say that or that you were in a position to allow or not allow me to say things.  Lucky for me that I had no intention of saying anything like that.

So if what you are saying is that the question of whether origin of species via natural selection is accidental or non-accidental is not answered, I certainly will accept that.  If you believe those questions are answered, tell me what the answers are.  Start with what parts are accidental and what parts are non-accidental.

Quote:
Anyway, tell me what you want me to believe and also tell me why you find the question of 'accidental/non-accidental so important?
Because non-accidental requires conscience decision making and you have not explained who or what is making those decisions. 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 23179
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: March 2016, I was diagnosed with esophogeal cancer
Reply #48 - Oct 5th, 2017 at 6:12pm
Print Post  
burnsred wrote on Oct 5th, 2017 at 2:59pm:
Because non-accidental requires conscience decision making and you have not explained who or what is making those decisions. 
Unfortunately, the lizard makes it's own decisions, and it's ass lickers bow down out of ignorance and greed.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5844
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: March 2016, I was diagnosed with esophogeal cancer
Reply #49 - Oct 5th, 2017 at 7:12pm
Print Post  
burnsred wrote on Oct 5th, 2017 at 2:59pm:
The question isn't what I'm talking about, the question is what you are talking about.  If evolution is non-accidental, it is purposeful.  So, the question for you who believes in purposeful evolution is what is the purpose and who or what is furthering that purpose?



It doesn't have to be accidental or purposeful and I've explained that to you. But you can have it your way as long as you don't try to connect it with an I.D'er. Each instance would deserve an answer and I've already given you a scenario with a frog walking into warm water and then boiling to death. It wasn't an accident, it was stupidily somewhat like Jeff shows us.

The selfish genes are furthering that purpose, nothing more, nothing less. No gods or sky fairies necessary whatsoever.


Quote:

Of course, because I already have.  In "The Selfish Gene," Dawkins uses the analogy of a gene that "selfishly" "wants" to reproduce itself to describe the mechanism by which gene-based life-forms came into existence, survived and reproduced, and then either went extinct or continued to thrive to the present day.  I don't think that Dawkins means that the genes actually want to reproduce, but rather that their behavior appears to be motivated by conscience choice. [/quote]

I wouldn't say they use conscience choice or conscious choice because I don't believen genes can make choices in the way we know and use the word.

Quote:
In "Climbing Mount Improbable," Dawkins uses the metaphor of climbing to represent evolution's seemingly unlikely assent.  Climbing is a conscience act, but I don't think Dawkins literally believes that there is a sentient being guiding the process. 


Conscience/conscious aside, yoiu might be right.

Quote:
So why use metaphors that imply such a thing?  My answer is that the reality is that the theory of Darwinian evolution relies on a series of accidental events that would seem highly improbable ("until one has read my book!" Dawkins would say). 


Maybe? But I rather took Darwinism to be quite probable even before reading Dawkins' books. That could have been because it so was so easy for me to reject creation as the alternative.  

Quote:
You may have meant to do that, but what you actually did was to state that it can either be accidental or non-accidental in different cases.  You've never stated why one case would be accidental and another non-accidental.


You've never given me specific questions to work with.

Quote:
No, I'm saying that a person who claims that part of the evolutionary process is non-accidental believes that there must be intelligence at work.  Those are the only options:  accidental or purposeful.


No, I don't agree. But I am firmly convinced there's no superstitious intelligence at work. 

Quote:
I hope that was pretty rough because the Darwinian theory was greatly improved by the discovery of the gene as the agent of hereditary traits being passed on.


Good Dog! it was announced many years ago and it's obviously going to be updated. BUT. It hasn't been discredited or discarded for something else. That's miraculous! Then xtians come along 150 years later and can't even understand it  in the 21st. century!!

 
Quote:
So if what you are saying is that the question of whether origin of species via natural selection is accidental or non-accidental is not answered, I certainly will accept that.  If you believe those questions are answered, tell me what the answers are.  Start with what parts are accidental and what parts are non-accidental.


I'll do that to the best of my ability if you give me specific examples, and there will be another category that is 'neither' perhaps.

Quote:
Because non-accidental requires conscience decision making and you have not explained who or what is making those decisions. 


It doesn't in my opinion and it didn't with my frog. And I'm not going to accept the non-accidental are being done by your god or your I.D.'er.
« Last Edit: Oct 5th, 2017 at 11:13pm by Don_G »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › March 2016, I was diagnosed with esophogeal cancer
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy