Should Creationism be given EQUAL TIME?

[Boo Radley]

Why didn't you answer mine? You are simply ignoring the issues at hand.

I did answer yours, complete with examples. I think you have a false premise, but will knwo more if you answer the entire post.

 

[Wessexman]

I did answer yours, complete with examples. I think you have a false premise, but will knwo more if you answer the entire post.

Your answers were utterly incomplete and useless. As I said to the examples of height and weight;

What are these? Are they properties or modalities or things in their own right or the sum of other things or just concepts? How do we make use of these or measure them? How do we explain them, such as their causes? When we measure them how do we deal with problems like the relativity of measurement and the fact that each point in a straight line is indefinitely small and indefinitely large making such measurement even more relative, as it is literally only the distance between two immeasurable points, and lacking in exactness?

These need philosophical and rational answers and not just observations. The rest of your post was just platitudes about scientists beliefs and how they reexamine and so forth.

 

[Boo Radley]

Your answers were utterly incomplete and useless. As I said to the examples of height and weight;

What are these? Are they properties or modalities or things in their own right or the sum of other things or just concepts? How do we make use of these or measure them? How do we explain them, such as their causes? When we measure them how do we deal with problems like the relativity of measurement and the fact that each point in a straight line is indefinitely small and indefinitely large making such measurement even more relative, as it is literally only the distance between two immeasurable points, and lacking in exactness?

These need philosophical and rational answers and not just observations. The rest of your post was just platitudes about scientists beliefs and how they reexamine and so forth.

How tall I am is a mesurment, not a concept. Relative is in comparison with others. They need no philosophical underining.

Now let's review what you ignored:

But I would be interested in what you think they share. Many scientist, for example, believe in God. Many actually believe God created the Universe. They just don't predetermine they know how. So, they do what scientist do. they examine, observe, theorize, confirm, reexamine, and adjust.

 

[Wessexman]

How tall I am is a mesurment, not a concept.

A measurement of what?

Relative is in comparison with others. They need no philosophical underining.

So you don't need to understand what space is? What geometry is? Or the relations of points. Or an understanding of extension and number as you admit it is a measurement. Or indeed, as you admit measurement is relative a knowledge of relations and the relations and qualities, the deepest sense, of what is measured and what is doing the measuring?

 

[Boo Radley]

Of how tall I am.

And even space is not a philosopy. Nor is geometry. It is an observable measurement, no philosphy required.

You did not yet answer:

But I would be interested in what you think they share. Many scientist, for example, believe in God. Many actually believe God created the Universe. They just don't predetermine they know how. So, they do what scientist do. they examine, observe, theorize, confirm, reexamine, and adjust.

 

[joko104]

Don't know about "equal time." But since a vast majority of people believe in creation, then it should be taught if for no other reason than for students to understand current social anthropology.

 

[Ben K.]

The problem is that outside that anthropormising it cannot be understood.

What do you mean by understood? We can characterise the effects it has and what effects it. No understanding is necessary beyond that. Perhaps these exercises are in vain and we wrongly label things due to a limitied language (that btw, all philosophical arguments rely on), but the fact remains, the naturalistic, non-teleological mechanism of characterising things benefits people regardless of what underpins their personal philosophies. You may see age as a meaningless characteristic like height or weight, but people generally want to see that characteristic extended based on what we derive from these methods of reasoning.

Like human thought and consciousness DNA cannot be understood except in terms of intentionality,
philosophically speaking, or in terms of it carrying with it information of things, or pointing towards things, outside its chemical state. Try and ignore this in favour of naturalistic, non-teleological understandings and any explanation become incoherent.

I'm afraid that by using terms like information and understanding you're begging the question. Both words anthropomorphises DNA as if it were computer code.

How can a chemical state be of another or of some other thing?

Because language is flawed. I accept that in some ways science must similarly descended from such flaws, but it constantly provides objective benefits to people across cultures, it will extend measurement systems like life-span and improve others like hunger and pain, whether or not you find those characteristics fudamentally arbitrary.

 

[Boo Radley]

Don't know about "equal time." But since a vast majority of people believe in creation, then it should be taught if for no other reason than for students to understand current social anthropology.

In religion class. Not science class.

 

[Wessexman]

What do you mean by understood? We can characterise the effects it has and what effects it. No understanding is necessary beyond that. Perhaps these exercises are in vain and we wrongly label things due to a limitied language (that btw, all philosophical arguments rely on), but the fact remains, the naturalistic, non-teleological mechanism of characterising things benefits people regardless of what underpins their personal philosophies. You may see age as a meaningless characteristic like height or weight, but people generally want to see that characteristic extended based on what we derive from these methods of reasoning.

Well without teleological understandings we are left only with efficient causality which, as Hume said is loose and separate on its own and therefore we are left with Humean puzzles of causality or as Aquinas put it if a cause does not follow an end of final cause then there is no reason why one effect should follow orderly and regularly from a cause, except by chance. But even beyond that talk of DNA is suffused with terms like information, encoding, blueprint and such. This is much more in line with a teleological approach than a non-teleological one and indeed with the regularity and intentionality of DNA a naturalistic explanation is not just improbable, and question-begging anyway, but really illogical.

I'm afraid that by using terms like information and understanding you're begging the question. Both words anthropomorphises DNA as if it were computer code.

You didn't answer the question. DNA is intentional in the philosophical sense;

Intentionality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

It is impossible to talk of DNA except in terms of information or the like, as in in terms of intention and purpose. DNA is of some other state. You stop talking about it in this way and you become incoherent.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Well without teleological understandings we are left only with efficient causality which, as Hume said loose and separate and therefore we are left with Humean puzzles of causality or as Aquinas put it if a cause does not follow an end of final cause then there is no reason why one effect should follow orderly and regularly from a cause, except by chance. But even beyond that talk of DNA is suffused with terms like information, encoding, blueprint and such. This is much more in line with a teleological approach than a non-teleological one and indeed with the regularity and intentionality of DNA a naturalistic explanation is not just improbable, and question-begging anyway, but really illogical.


You didn't answer the question. DNA is intentional in the philosophical sense;

Intentionality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

It is impossible to talk of DNA except in terms of information or the like, as in in terms of intention and purpose. DNA is of some other state. You stop talking about it in this way and you become incoherent.

All of which makes a great argument in a discussion of philosophy, but has nothing to do with science or the theory of evolution.

 

[Wessexman]

Of how tall I am.

And even space is not a philosopy. Nor is geometry. It is an observable measurement, no philosphy required.

See, you are simply philosophically ignorant. No offense, but this is why you can't understand the topic. If space and geometry are not philosophical how, for instance, do we come to understand that a point on a line is indefinitely small and indefinitely large and therefore all measurement is relative between two dimensionless points? How do we understand the relationship of a point to dimensions and to space as such. How do we understand the principles of extension and its qualities and qualities of things that exist in space and in time? How do we understand the relationship of abstract and plane geometry to real space and extension?

 

[Wessexman]

All of which makes a great argument in a discussion of philosophy, but has nothing to do with science or the theory of evolution.

Actually it does. It helps us to understand that teleology is important in science no less than the rest of life. If we cannot understand not just efficient causality but many scientific processes, like DNA, without it, it is time natural science stopped obstinately ignoring it.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Actually it does. It helps us to understand that teleology is important in science no less than the rest of life. If we cannot understand not just efficient causality but many scientific processes, like DNA, without it, it is time natural science stopped obstinately ignoring it.

Natural science should stop ignoring the philosophical account which holds that final causes exist in nature?

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

[Wessexman]

Natural science should stop ignoring the philosophical account which holds that final causes exist in nature?

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Because the scientific account doesn't make sense without them, as I showed.

 

[Boo Radley]

See, you are simply philosophically ignorant. No offense, but this is why you can't understand the topic. If space and geometry are not philosophical how, for instance, do we come to understand that a point on a line is indefinitely small and indefinitely large and therefore all measurement is relative between two dimensionless points? How do we understand the relationship of a point to dimensions and to space as such. How do we understand the principles of extension and its qualities and qualities of things that exist in space and in time? How do we understand the relationship of abstract and plane geometry to real space and extension?

Reminds me of discussions i had with people favoring deconstructionsim, interesting exercise, but not practical. Again, answer my question and we'll take it further. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.

 

[Wessexman]

Reminds me of discussions i had with people favoring deconstructionsim, interesting exercise, but not practical. Again, answer my question and we'll take it further. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.

You simply have shown utter philosophical ignorance and unwillingness to think and are now not even making a proper argument.

Your question seemed irrelevant, but I couldn't understand what you mean. What who share?

 

[Boo Radley]

You simply have shown utter philosophical ignorance and unwillingness to think and are now not even making a proper argument.

Your question seemed irrelevant, but I couldn't understand what you mean. What who share?

If you really believed that, you'd answer my question so we couold move forward.

You said scientist all share a philosphical position. What is it? How is different from creationists? It's not a hard question if you're not blowing smoke. And you could have asked for clarification much earlier, again, if that was the case.

 

[scourge99]

Natural science should stop ignoring the philosophical account which holds that final causes exist in nature?

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Wessexman tried to use a similar argument against me. Basically it boils down to his belief that if you dont have a "theory of everything" then he dismisses your arguments because there are things it cant or has yet to explain.

 

[Wessexman]

If you really believed that, you'd answer my question so we couold move forward.

You said scientist all share a philosphical position. What is it? How is different from creationists? It's not a hard question if you're not blowing smoke. And you could have asked for clarification much earlier, again, if that was the case.

See this shows your ignorance I'm afraid. I meant they share the same assumptions about reality, nominalistic, mechanistic, naturalistic, positivist and Cartesian. I have said this already and I meant particularly when they come to do their science. No one really believes in these positions in everyday life, because they are so flawed and incoherent, but that isn't the point. My point is what they hold these background assumptions when doing science. Read some philosophy of science and it is relatively easy to see the history of such thought.

Don't think I haven't noticed you can answer my points and are trying to move away from them to discuss your somewhat irrelevant question.

 

[Wessexman]

Wessexman tried to use a similar argument against me. Basically it boils down to his belief that if you dont have a "theory of everything" then he dismisses your arguments because there are things it cant or has yet to explain.

It boiled down to your belief that 2+2 can equal 5 if you rearrange the numbers enough.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

It boiled down to your belief that 2+2 can equal 5 if you rearrange the numbers enough.

For large values of two, 2 + 2 does, in fact, equal five. Don't believe me? Go check your calculator.

 

[Wessexman]

For large values of two, 2 + 2 does, in fact, equal five. Don't believe me? Go check your calculator.

Such complexities of measurements, like the rounding ones you are facetiously referring to, simply accords with some of my points.

I like the signature, not the sophistic moron Singer, who apparently thinks medieval is an insult, but my comments. It is shame your narrowness of vision cannot see any depth but only a source for scorn in my comments.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Such complexities of measurements, like the rounding ones you are facetiously referring to, simply accords with some of my points.

I like the signature, not the sophistic moron Singer, who apparently thinks medieval is an insult, but my comments. It is shame your narrowness of vision cannot see any depth but only a source for scorn in my comments.

Well comparing fairy tales to other fairy tales is a great one. I couldn't miss such a quote.

Medieval is an insult. Let's think about the medieval times:

1. The world was flat.
2. Sea Monsters were a legitimate hazard
3. Bleeding and leaches were legitimate medical cures.

Yes, those were great times. :roll: Not a fan of Dr. Singer?

2.5 + 2.5 = 5. That is a complex measurement? I had no idea. That seems rather fundamental.

 

[Wessexman]

Well comparing fairy tales to other fairy tales is a great one. I couldn't miss such a quote.

Except you show your own narrow and rigid understanding of the world. You cannot imagine the import of the creative, unitative and profoundly symbolic and anagogic quality of myths and fairy tales. I suppose when you see an amateur production of Shakespeare you execrate it for historical inaccuracies and rebuke your bank clerk, who might be playing King Lear for daring to pretend he is an ancient British King when he is clearly an American bank clerk.

All language and mental conceptions are myths. The theory of gravity written in a textbook is not gravity as it exists. There is a duality between any description, any words and mental conceptions and the thing itself. To this degree all descriptions are myths.

Medieval is an insult. Let's think about the medieval times:

1. The world was flat.
2. Sea Monsters were a legitimate hazard
3. Bleeding and leaches were legitimate medical cures.

Yes, those were great times. :roll: Not a fan of Dr. Singer?

It is clear you are historically ignorant. It was known the world was round since antiquity.

2.5 + 2.5 = 5. That is a complex measurement? I had no idea. That seems rather fundamental.

Yes, because when I said 2+2 I meant 2+5+2.5, as well, obviously. The rounding considerations help show some of the complexities of the issues of measurements.

 

[Ikari]

For large values of two, 2 + 2 does, in fact, equal five. Don't believe me? Go check your calculator.

Hahahah, we make the same type of jokes in Physics.