FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB General Discussion Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-17-2003, 02:25 PM   #261
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas
Posts: 29,689
Default

of course i do, and you are cofusing the axiom with categories of logic. ]

Go back and reread my posts. I made myself clear on this several posts ago. I am not applying the axiom to the categories. It's you who's confused. Sheesh.

abiogenesis is a CATEGORY. it is simply
"Life was caused, and its cause was non-intelligent". It is a category with a nice little name. there are not an INFINITE amount of replacement theories. no amount of anger at me will create a new replacement. there are an infinite amount of logical ways abiogenesis could have happened, but not alternatives to abiogenesis itself.

THe axiom you keep citing is specifically about CAUSES and EFFECTS- abiogenesis is neither. it is a CATEGORY. i say Hume would agree with me because I believe he would be smart enough to know this.


Quit whining and realize, admit, or whatever that I already made this point several posts ago, and called the categories "natural" (abiogenesis) and "supernatural". I do not claim that there's a replacement for the "abiogenesis" category. But within each category, there are an infinite number of possible hypotheses. That's where the axiom comes into play.

Geez, I've had to repeat that three times now. It seems like it would sink in after a while. Instead, you basically restate what I've already said, claim it as your own, and insist that I haven't seen it yet.

Great, Hume would agree with you about a point I made several posts ago, and that it appears you're trying to take credit for. Do you think he'd agree with me that you're plagiarizing and being a bit disingenuous? Here again is what I posted a couple of pages ago:

Quote:
OK, to make things easy, I'll concede this point, since by abiogenesis you seem to mean "god didn't do it". For the sake of argument, and to simplify things, let's just limit it to two categories: "goddidit" and "god didn't do it". By "god" I mean any supernatural means. So our broad categories are supernatural hypotheses and natural hypotheses.
I've come up with two possible hypotheses: either you're being disingenuous or you have the reading comprehension of a rock. There's no doubt an infinite number of other hypotheses to explain this phenomenon.

I believe you do. I believe that i will wake up tomorrow. I also believe that you believe that life arose from nonlife spontaneously. I believe this.

Apparently you also count Argumentum ad nauseam in your arsenal.

Close your eyes and click those red slippers together three times and maybe you'll get back to Kansas as well, Dorothy. Or believe and clap your hands so Tinkerbell won't die. Sheesh.

What you believe is in my head makes no difference in what's actually in my head. Actually, what you believe about something makes no difference to the actual state of that something.

Mageth is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 02:33 PM   #262
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas
Posts: 29,689
Default

xian: if you have a complaint about moderation of a thread, post it in the Bugs, Problems and Complaints forum. It's inappropriate to post it in the thread.

And Bree is a she.
Mageth is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 03:25 PM   #263
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 889
Thumbs up Moved

Eppur si muove !

It was about time .
DoubleDutchy is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 03:43 PM   #264
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 378
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Mageth
of course i do, and you are cofusing the axiom with categories of logic. ]

Go back and reread my posts. I made myself clear on this several posts ago. I am not applying the axiom to the categories. It's you who's confused. Sheesh.

abiogenesis is a CATEGORY. it is simply
"Life was caused, and its cause was non-intelligent". It is a category with a nice little name. there are not an INFINITE amount of replacement theories. no amount of anger at me will create a new replacement. there are an infinite amount of logical ways abiogenesis could have happened, but not alternatives to abiogenesis itself.

THe axiom you keep citing is specifically about CAUSES and EFFECTS- abiogenesis is neither. it is a CATEGORY. i say Hume would agree with me because I believe he would be smart enough to know this.


Quit whining and realize, admit, or whatever that I already made this point several posts ago, and called the categories "natural" (abiogenesis) and "supernatural". I do not claim that there's a replacement for the "abiogenesis" category. But within each category, there are an infinite number of possible hypotheses. That's where the axiom comes into play.

Geez, I've had to repeat that three times now. It seems like it would sink in after a while. Instead, you basically restate what I've already said, claim it as your own, and insist that I haven't seen it yet.

Great, Hume would agree with you about a point I made several posts ago, and that it appears you're trying to take credit for. Do you think he'd agree with me that you're plagiarizing and being a bit disingenuous? Here again is what I posted a couple of pages ago:



I've come up with two possible hypotheses: either you're being disingenuous or you have the reading comprehension of a rock. There's no doubt an infinite number of other hypotheses to explain this phenomenon.

I believe you do. I believe that i will wake up tomorrow. I also believe that you believe that life arose from nonlife spontaneously. I believe this.

Apparently you also count Argumentum ad nauseam in your arsenal.

Close your eyes and click those red slippers together three times and maybe you'll get back to Kansas as well, Dorothy. Or believe and clap your hands so Tinkerbell won't die. Sheesh.

What you believe is in my head makes no difference in what's actually in my head. Actually, what you believe about something makes no difference to the actual state of that something.
my name is not dorothy.
xian is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 03:54 PM   #265
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas
Posts: 29,689
Default

There's no place like home...there's no place like home...
Mageth is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 04:49 PM   #266
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 567
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by xian
lol, nice way to minimize the dependence of abiogenesis on random events by saying "Of course, the conditions of the earth and a few random lightning could always do some good. "

CONDITIONS are everything!!!

from the "conditions" come the possibility of the event. it truly is funny how abiogenesis is suddenly a deterministic event, when the conditions themselves are enourmously improbable.
Explain how the chemicals on earth's young life were enormously improbable.
I'm sure every single person researching abiogenesis will be thankful of your groundbreaking reply.
AndresDeLaHoz is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 04:51 PM   #267
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 567
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by xian
as much as you like to skirt the issue, my ORIGINAL statement remains:

abiogenesis = Life arose spontaneously from nonlife through chance.
Not spontaneous, not by pure chance. Strawman. Understand that.
AndresDeLaHoz is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 04:51 PM   #268
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: an inaccessible island fortress
Posts: 10,638
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Demigawd
I have the supernatural ability to predict that xian will concentrate on this one sentence of yours, rather than the entirety of your post, and then whine about how infidels are so nasty towards him.
Some psychic you turned out to be. Now we'll never hear how men and dust bunnies share a common ancestor.
Biff the unclean is offline  
Old 04-18-2003, 06:26 AM   #269
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,335
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Monkeybot
No... it wasn't clear to me what your question was. You suddenly jumped from chemical bonding to genetic mutation, and I was having a bit of trouble following your leaps
(emphasis mine)
Don't you mean "punctuated equilibrium"?
Godot is offline  
Old 04-18-2003, 07:38 AM   #270
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,247
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by xian
Hawkingfan, i appreciate you giving me a real example (unmolested) to analyze. I believe you too, that this was administered properly.

i looked at his answers and would definately rule "NON-ATHEIST"

this does not mean he is a theist...he could be a deist. This test ONLY seeks to identify someone as

"Professing atheist" = YES or NO
Yeah, he's a theist. He's an elder (and sometimes preacher) in the Church of Christ (a very conservative church). I personally thought his answers pinpointed him as a Christian. I think Christians are easy to read, but I can also see how you think he could be a deist.
Hawkingfan is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:39 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.