Happy Atheist Forum

Religion => Creationism/Intelligent Design => Topic started by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 17, 2014, 11:01:45 PM

Title: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 17, 2014, 11:01:45 PM
I was re-reading Donald Knuth's Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About (http://www.amazon.com/dp/157586326X) and was reminded of a little allegory by Raymond Smullyan that Knuth found interesting. I thought some of you folks might find it interesting as well. Here's the link:

http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/smullyan.html

Knuth, as you may know, is the author of The Art of Computer Programming series (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0321751043) and is a Christian; Smullyan is a mathematician, a concert pianist, a logician, a magician, and a Taoist philosopher; and he's got a great beard, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Smullyan

Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: xSilverPhinx on December 17, 2014, 11:31:30 PM
Well look who's back! :D Shaker's Law is right!

Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Tank on December 18, 2014, 12:11:39 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 17, 2014, 11:31:30 PM
Well look who's back! :D Shaker's Law is right!
We are theist porn, they can't stay away!!  :D
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Magdalena on December 18, 2014, 12:30:55 AM
Hey, Gerry! It's nice to see you again--and again--and again--and again!  :D
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Magdalena on December 18, 2014, 12:31:34 AM
Quote from: Tank on December 18, 2014, 12:11:39 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 17, 2014, 11:31:30 PM
Well look who's back! :D Shaker's Law is right!
We are theist porn, they can't stay away!!  :D

;D  ;D
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Tank on December 18, 2014, 12:32:42 AM
Quote from: Magdalena on December 18, 2014, 12:30:55 AM
Hey, Gerry! It's nice to see you again--and again--and again--and again!  :D
One day he'll leave and mean it!

Sorry Gerry but your behaviour is a little bit amusing  ;D
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: xSilverPhinx on December 18, 2014, 12:33:58 AM
A little bit? ;D
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Tank on December 18, 2014, 12:34:55 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 18, 2014, 12:33:58 AM
A little bit? ;D
Got me there!
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Magdalena on December 18, 2014, 02:45:37 AM
It looks as if we're avoiding the topic because we don't want to go through 19 pages of the same thing.  :D
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 18, 2014, 06:42:04 AM
Quote from: Magdalena on December 18, 2014, 02:45:37 AM
It looks as if we're avoiding the topic because we don't want to go through 19 pages of the same thing.  :D

Love the photo, Magdalena (I'm assuming, of course, that's you and not a musician or some other famous person I'm too "out of touch" to recognize).
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Magdalena on December 18, 2014, 06:57:34 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 18, 2014, 06:42:04 AM
Quote from: Magdalena on December 18, 2014, 02:45:37 AM
It looks as if we're avoiding the topic because we don't want to go through 19 pages of the same thing.  :D

Love the photo, Magdalena (I'm assuming, of course, that's you and not a musician or some other famous person I'm too "out of touch" to recognize).
:-*
Thank you, Gerry.
That's me!  :D
I remember you said people use avatars, and fake names and never show their faces here and you are right, so you inspired me, this is why I'm showing my face to the world. I'm an atheist, and I have nothing to hide. Thank you for that. You see? I listen to what you have to say, so it looks like we've found common ground!  :)
Do you agree?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 18, 2014, 07:13:20 AM
Quote from: Magdalena on December 18, 2014, 06:57:34 AMThank you, Gerry.
That's me!  :D
I remember you said people use avatars, and fake names and never show their faces here and you are right, so you inspired me, this is why I'm showing my face to the world. I'm an atheist, and I have nothing to hide. Thank you for that. You see? I listen to what you have to say, so it looks like we've found common ground!  :)
Do you agree?
Yes, I agree. And I feel like I know you better already.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Magdalena on December 18, 2014, 07:32:46 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 18, 2014, 07:13:20 AM
Quote from: Magdalena on December 18, 2014, 06:57:34 AMThank you, Gerry.
That's me!  :D
I remember you said people use avatars, and fake names and never show their faces here and you are right, so you inspired me, this is why I'm showing my face to the world. I'm an atheist, and I have nothing to hide. Thank you for that. You see? I listen to what you have to say, so it looks like we've found common ground!  :)
Do you agree?
Yes, I agree. And I feel like I know you better already.

That's great, Gerry! This is the first time I see you and feel you as simply--Gerry.  :)
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Guardian85 on December 18, 2014, 07:50:45 AM
Quote from: Tank on December 18, 2014, 12:32:42 AM
Quote from: Magdalena on December 18, 2014, 12:30:55 AM
Hey, Gerry! It's nice to see you again--and again--and again--and again!  :D
One day he'll leave and mean it!
In the meantime someone owes me 20$.  8)
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Guardian85 on December 18, 2014, 08:06:36 AM
Quote from: Magdalena on December 18, 2014, 06:57:34 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 18, 2014, 06:42:04 AM
Quote from: Magdalena on December 18, 2014, 02:45:37 AM
It looks as if we're avoiding the topic because we don't want to go through 19 pages of the same thing.  :D

Love the photo, Magdalena (I'm assuming, of course, that's you and not a musician or some other famous person I'm too "out of touch" to recognize).
:-*
Thank you, Gerry.
That's me!  :D
I remember you said people use avatars, and fake names and never show their faces here and you are right, so you inspired me, this is why I'm showing my face to the world. I'm an atheist, and I have nothing to hide. Thank you for that. You see? I listen to what you have to say, so it looks like we've found common ground!  :)
Do you agree?
I think there is actually a thread from way back when dedicated to peoples pictures of themselves. Can't find it, though.....
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 18, 2014, 08:37:41 AM
No replies (regarding the thread topic) yet? Perhaps Smullyan's allegory is too long. Let's try an excerpt so you don't have to read the whole thing:

The main philosophical problem of the Middle Period was to establish whether this mysterious thing called "Humor'' really had objective existence or whether it existed only in the imagination. Those who believed it really existed were called Pro-Humorists; those who believed it did not were called skeptics or Anti-Humorists...

The Pro-Humorists were roughly of three sorts; the Rational Pro-Humorists, who claimed that the existence of Humor could be established by pure reason; the Faith-Humorists, who believed that reason could be somewhat helpful but that an act of faith was crucial; and finally there were the "Mystic-Humorists'' who claimed that neither reason nor faith were of the slightest help in apprehending Humor; the only reliable way it could be known was by direct perception...

The Mystic-Humorists kept repeating, "If only you could see humor directly, you would not need rational arguments nor any faith nor anything like that. You would then know that Humor is real.'' This phrase "see Humor directly'' was particularly apt to be criticized. The Mystic-Humorists actually said: "Yes, we can see humor in many situations. Life is permeated with humor, if you can only see it.''

The skeptical Anti-Humorists said, "So, you claim you can see humor! Tell me, what color is it?''

The Mystic-Humorists laughed and said, "Humor doesn't have any color!''

The skeptics continued: "Oh, so you can see it only in black and white! Well, then, what shape is it?''

"It doesn't have any form or shape.''

"Then I am confused! Is humor visible or invisible?''

"Of course it is invisible!''

"But I thought you just said that you can see it. Didn't you say that you could see the humor of certain situations?''

"Well, yes, I said that, but I didn't mean 'see' in the literal sense of 'see with your eyes.' Ocular vision really has nothing to do with it. I used 'see' in the sense of directly perceive, not see with the eyes. The perception, though as direct as vision, is really through a different sense altogether.''

"A different sense? Which sense is it---hearing? If so, what does humor sound like? Or is it smell or taste or touch or what? With which of the five senses do you perceive humor, or is it a combination of more than one of them?''

"No, it is not any one of these five senses, nor is it a combination of them. It is a different sense altogether---in a way, it is a nonphysical sense---we call this sense the 'sense of humor'.''

"Good God, you literally mean a nonphysical sense? In other words, you mean it is something occult like telepathy or clairvoyance? But scientific integrity requires us not to believe in anything occult; hence we cannot but believe that this Humor is something totally unreal, a mere figment of the imagination.''
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Eric V Arachnid on December 18, 2014, 09:14:39 AM
Quote from: Guardian85 on December 18, 2014, 08:06:36 AM
Quote from: Magdalena on December 18, 2014, 06:57:34 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 18, 2014, 06:42:04 AM
Quote from: Magdalena on December 18, 2014, 02:45:37 AM
It looks as if we're avoiding the topic because we don't want to go through 19 pages of the same thing.  :D

Love the photo, Magdalena (I'm assuming, of course, that's you and not a musician or some other famous person I'm too "out of touch" to recognize).
:-*
Thank you, Gerry.
That's me!  :D
I remember you said people use avatars, and fake names and never show their faces here and you are right, so you inspired me, this is why I'm showing my face to the world. I'm an atheist, and I have nothing to hide. Thank you for that. You see? I listen to what you have to say, so it looks like we've found common ground!  :)
Do you agree?
I think there is actually a thread from way back when dedicated to peoples pictures of themselves. Can't find it, though.....

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8695.0
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Davin on December 18, 2014, 01:51:31 PM
I didn't like it. Way too annoying to read.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Recusant on December 18, 2014, 11:30:27 PM
Another homework assignment, Gerry Rzeppa? Nearly every thread you've started on this site has begun the same way, and each assignment seems to be more tiresome than the last. This one was the most tedious and prolix by far. Smullyan appears to be very fond of his own prose, but in my opinion it's rather pedestrian and uninspiring. Not at all a pleasure to read. As for the subject matter of the piece, despite being a prolonged attempt to hammer something home, I found it strained, overblown, and not particularly clear. Apparently you consider it a useful and incisive allegory. If so, what aspect of our society does it address, in your opinion?

Humor is to seriousness as __?__ is to __?__

You are a pedagogue, so I don't particularly blame you for taking a pedagogical approach. However, my impression is that while you may think of yourself as teaching, what you've actually been doing sometimes at least has undertones of haranguing members of this site, using the trappings of teaching. You have somewhat of an air of providing instruction in the form of lecture and dialog, and you keep within that character at least some of the time, yet you slip into apologist mode often enough to give me reason to think that it's a significant part of your agenda here.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: xSilverPhinx on December 19, 2014, 12:54:14 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 18, 2014, 08:37:41 AM
No replies (regarding the thread topic) yet? Perhaps Smullyan's allegory is too long. Let's try an excerpt so you don't have to read the whole thing:

The main philosophical problem of the Middle Period was to establish whether this mysterious thing called "Humor'' really had objective existence or whether it existed only in the imagination. Those who believed it really existed were called Pro-Humorists; those who believed it did not were called skeptics or Anti-Humorists...

The Pro-Humorists were roughly of three sorts; the Rational Pro-Humorists, who claimed that the existence of Humor could be established by pure reason; the Faith-Humorists, who believed that reason could be somewhat helpful but that an act of faith was crucial; and finally there were the "Mystic-Humorists'' who claimed that neither reason nor faith were of the slightest help in apprehending Humor; the only reliable way it could be known was by direct perception...

The Mystic-Humorists kept repeating, "If only you could see humor directly, you would not need rational arguments nor any faith nor anything like that. You would then know that Humor is real.'' This phrase "see Humor directly'' was particularly apt to be criticized. The Mystic-Humorists actually said: "Yes, we can see humor in many situations. Life is permeated with humor, if you can only see it.''

The skeptical Anti-Humorists said, "So, you claim you can see humor! Tell me, what color is it?''

The Mystic-Humorists laughed and said, "Humor doesn't have any color!''

The skeptics continued: "Oh, so you can see it only in black and white! Well, then, what shape is it?''

"It doesn't have any form or shape.''

"Then I am confused! Is humor visible or invisible?''

"Of course it is invisible!''

"But I thought you just said that you can see it. Didn't you say that you could see the humor of certain situations?''

"Well, yes, I said that, but I didn't mean 'see' in the literal sense of 'see with your eyes.' Ocular vision really has nothing to do with it. I used 'see' in the sense of directly perceive, not see with the eyes. The perception, though as direct as vision, is really through a different sense altogether.''

"A different sense? Which sense is it---hearing? If so, what does humor sound like? Or is it smell or taste or touch or what? With which of the five senses do you perceive humor, or is it a combination of more than one of them?''

"No, it is not any one of these five senses, nor is it a combination of them. It is a different sense altogether---in a way, it is a nonphysical sense---we call this sense the 'sense of humor'.''

"Good God, you literally mean a nonphysical sense? In other words, you mean it is something occult like telepathy or clairvoyance? But scientific integrity requires us not to believe in anything occult; hence we cannot but believe that this Humor is something totally unreal, a mere figment of the imagination.''

Meh, I only read this excerpt but it's enough to make me not want to read the whole thing. If you're going to go on about allegories it's a pity you didn't bring up Plato's Allegory of the Cave instead, it's a much more interesting topic.  ::)
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 19, 2014, 01:40:43 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 18, 2014, 11:30:27 PMApparently you consider it a useful and incisive allegory. If so, what aspect of our society does it address, in your opinion?

It seems to me that Smullyan was curious about two things: (1) the "transcendental" aspects of life, like humor, and how different kinds of people understand and react to such things; and (2) free will -- or the impossibility thereof -- which is addressed later in the piece.

Quote from: Recusant on December 18, 2014, 11:30:27 PMHumor is to seriousness as __?__ is to __?__

In the excerpt I quoted, I would say that "Humor" is analogous to "the supernatural". Here's the excerpt with the various forms of the word "Humor" changed to corresponding forms of "the supernatural":

The main philosophical problem of the Middle Period was to establish whether this mysterious thing called "the supernatural'' really had objective existence or whether it existed only in the imagination. Those who believed it really existed were called Pro-supernaturalists; those who believed it did not were called skeptics or Anti-supernaturalists...

The Pro-supernaturalists were roughly of three sorts; the Rational Supernaturalists, who claimed that the existence of the supernatural could be established by pure reason; the Faith-Supernaturalists, who believed that reason could be somewhat helpful but that an act of faith was crucial; and finally there were the "Mystic-Supernaturalists'' who claimed that neither reason nor faith were of the slightest help in apprehending the supernatural; the only reliable way it could be known was by direct perception...

The Mystic-Supernaturalists kept repeating, "If only you could see the supernatural directly, you would not need rational arguments nor any faith nor anything like that. You would then know that the supernatural is real.'' This phrase "see the supernatural directly'' was particularly apt to be criticized. The Mystic-Supernaturalists actually said: "Yes, we can see the supernatural in many situations. Life is permeated with the supernatural, if you can only see it.''

The skeptical Anti-Supernaturalists said, "So, you claim you can see the supernatural! Tell me, what color is it?''

The Mystic-Supernaturalists people laughed and said, "The supernatural doesn't have any color!''

The skeptics continued: "Oh, so you can see it only in black and white! Well, then, what shape is it?''

"It doesn't have any form or shape.''

"Then I am confused! Is the supernatural visible or invisible?''

"Of course it is invisible!''

"But I thought you just said that you can see it. Didn't you say that you could see the supernatural in certain situations?''

"Well, yes, I said that, but I didn't mean 'see' in the literal sense of 'see with your eyes.' Ocular vision really has nothing to do with it. I used 'see' in the sense of directly perceive, not see with the eyes. The perception, though as direct as vision, is really through a different sense altogether.''

"A different sense? Which sense is it---hearing? If so, what does the supernatural sound like? Or is it smell or taste or touch or what? With which of the five senses do you perceive the supernatural, or is it a combination of more than one of them?''

"No, it is not any one of these five senses, nor is it a combination of them. It is a different sense altogether---in a way, it is a nonphysical sense---we call this sense the 'sense of the supernatural'.''

"Good God, you literally mean a nonphysical sense? In other words, you mean it is something occult like telepathy or clairvoyance? But scientific integrity requires us not to believe in anything occult; hence we cannot but believe that this supernatural is something totally unreal, a mere figment of the imagination.''

Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Pasta Chick on December 19, 2014, 01:44:44 AM
Quote from: Eric V Arachnid on December 18, 2014, 09:14:39 AM
Quote from: Guardian85 on December 18, 2014, 08:06:36 AM
Quote from: Magdalena on December 18, 2014, 06:57:34 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 18, 2014, 06:42:04 AM
Quote from: Magdalena on December 18, 2014, 02:45:37 AM
It looks as if we're avoiding the topic because we don't want to go through 19 pages of the same thing.  :D

Love the photo, Magdalena (I'm assuming, of course, that's you and not a musician or some other famous person I'm too "out of touch" to recognize).
:-*
Thank you, Gerry.
That's me!  :D
I remember you said people use avatars, and fake names and never show their faces here and you are right, so you inspired me, this is why I'm showing my face to the world. I'm an atheist, and I have nothing to hide. Thank you for that. You see? I listen to what you have to say, so it looks like we've found common ground!  :)
Do you agree?
I think there is actually a thread from way back when dedicated to peoples pictures of themselves. Can't find it, though.....

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8695.0

There was this, but we also changed our avatars to real photos a couple years ago too.  Of course those are all gone now.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Pasta Chick on December 19, 2014, 01:51:30 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 18, 2014, 08:37:41 AM
No replies (regarding the thread topic) yet? Perhaps Smullyan's allegory is too long. Let's try an excerpt so you don't have to read the whole thing:


Not so much that as weariness over being dragged into another 20 pages of circular debate, only to be told how we actually feel. 

Part of me wants to again extend welcome to the rest of the forum, as that is where most of us find common ground.  And do stuff like share photos and mundane life updates.  But a lot of me is afraid of being proselytized at in my happy place  :-\
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Recusant on December 19, 2014, 02:47:05 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 19, 2014, 01:40:43 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 18, 2014, 11:30:27 PMApparently you consider it a useful and incisive allegory. If so, what aspect of our society does it address, in your opinion?

It seems to me that Smullyan was curious about two things: (1) the "transcendental" aspects of life, like humor, and how different kinds of people understand and react to such things; and (2) free will -- or the impossibility thereof -- which is addressed later in the piece.

Quote from: Recusant on December 18, 2014, 11:30:27 PMHumor is to seriousness as __?__ is to __?__

In the excerpt I quoted, I would say that "Humor" is analogous to "the supernatural".

So, where in the real world do we find the society-wide torture and incarceration of people whose lives include a belief in the supernatural? What point was he trying to make by emphasizing that so heavily? What does "laughazone" represent? Humor in the allegory is considered by the entire society to be a disease. How does that correspond to the real world, assuming that humor = the supernatural?

A problem I see with your interpretation is that Smullyan assumes the existence of the supernatural all through his allegory, and the society he writes about seems to do the same. Humor represents something else, it would seem.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Magdalena on December 19, 2014, 04:56:10 AM
Quote from: Pasta Chick on December 19, 2014, 01:44:44 AM
Quote from: Eric V Arachnid on December 18, 2014, 09:14:39 AM
Quote from: Guardian85 on December 18, 2014, 08:06:36 AM
Quote from: Magdalena on December 18, 2014, 06:57:34 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 18, 2014, 06:42:04 AM
Quote from: Magdalena on December 18, 2014, 02:45:37 AM
It looks as if we're avoiding the topic because we don't want to go through 19 pages of the same thing.  :D

Love the photo, Magdalena (I'm assuming, of course, that's you and not a musician or some other famous person I'm too "out of touch" to recognize).
:-*
Thank you, Gerry.
That's me!  :D
I remember you said people use avatars, and fake names and never show their faces here and you are right, so you inspired me, this is why I'm showing my face to the world. I'm an atheist, and I have nothing to hide. Thank you for that. You see? I listen to what you have to say, so it looks like we've found common ground!  :)
Do you agree?
I think there is actually a thread from way back when dedicated to peoples pictures of themselves. Can't find it, though.....

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8695.0

There was this, but we also changed our avatars to real photos a couple years ago too.  Of course those are all gone now.
It feels kind of weird seeing my face here, so I'm going to move it over there.  ::)
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 19, 2014, 06:35:45 AM
Quote from: Magdalena on December 19, 2014, 04:56:10 AMIt feels kind of weird seeing my face here, so I'm going to move it over there.  ::)

Bummer. I agree it's weird seeing one's own face all over the thread, but it was nice to see the person I was replying to; made it feel more like I was actually talking to somebody.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 19, 2014, 07:11:39 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 19, 2014, 02:47:05 AMHumor represents something else, it would seem.

The story has been variously interpreted (though my view is shared by many). Knuth describes the whole first part of Smullyan's story as a parable regarding the limits of rationality: that there are things (like Humor) that can't be fully known by reason alone; things (like Humor) that are personally experienced and thus "believed in" with great certainty long before (if ever) they are rationally analyzed; things (like Humor) that can't really be understood except by those who have personally experienced them.

A related story is The Country of the Blind by H. G. Wells (https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/w/wells/hg/w45cb/chapter32.html).

Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Davin on December 19, 2014, 02:07:57 PM
Great, some stories... which are just stories. I could talk about the stories and what they might mean, but they aren't very good stories.

In the H.G. Wells story, (which was better by a lot, but still not that good), the guy was an idiot... or at least a story puppet meant to lead the reader to the conclusion that the author meant the reader to reach. Nunez could have proven sight in a lot of different ways than just trying to explain it. In ways that could be tested and the data individually verified... but he didn't. Now, with a story like this, one can try to put pretty much anything as sight.

Theists might say that faith is the sight int he story.
Skeptics might say that rationality is sight in the story.
Anti-vaccers might say that they are Nunez in the story for not vaccinating their children.

So many possibilities.

I suppose I could assume that Gerry here wants "sight" to be faith or god or something like that. In that case, I suppose the lesson we can learn from the story, is that the faithful do not empirically prove that their god exists, even though could easily do so. In that case, they are as stupid as Nunez.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Recusant on December 19, 2014, 04:40:34 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 19, 2014, 07:11:39 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 19, 2014, 02:47:05 AMHumor represents something else, it would seem.

The story has been variously interpreted (though my view is shared by many). Knuth describes the whole first part of Smullyan's story as a parable regarding the limits of rationality: that there are things (like Humor) that can't be fully known by reason alone; things (like Humor) that are personally experienced and thus "believed in" with great certainty long before (if ever) they are rationally analyzed; things (like Humor) that can't really be understood except by those who have personally experienced them.

A related story is The Country of the Blind by H. G. Wells (https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/w/wells/hg/w45cb/chapter32.html).

Were my questions too difficult for you to answer? Instead of addressing them at all, you tell us what somebody else thinks of the allegory, then you assign further homework.  (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi59.tinypic.com%2F8yatex.jpg&hash=9e689df79e3753c7fd76bbaf608b04cd2d573889)

Do you want to take another run at it, or do you think Smullyan's dreary wall of text has nothing more to offer than some vague platitude about the "limits to reason"?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 19, 2014, 08:54:45 PM
Quote from: DavinGreat, some stories... which are just stories... they aren't very good stories. I suppose the lesson we can learn from the story, is that the faithful do not empirically prove that their god exists, even though could easily do so. In that case, they are as stupid as Nunez.

Quote from: RecusantDo you want to take another run at it, or do you think Smullyan's dreary wall of text has nothing more to offer than some vague platitude about the "limits to reason"?

One of the points made by both stories is that it is very difficult to convince those who have not had a particular kind experience (like humor, sight, etc) of its reality: each person attempts to "fit the facts" into his chosen framework and if the experience in question is outside the bounds of that framework, communication becomes difficult (if not impossible).

So to Davin I say, the moral of the stories is that "the faithful do not empirically prove that their god exists" in ways and terms acceptable to you because it can't be done -- your framework isn't large enough to admit the evidences.

And to Recusant I say, "the limits of reason" are not merely the subject of "some vague platitude" in the story, but the central issue. Repeated demands for a particular kind of evidence for things that are both discovered and understood via different kinds of evidence is what makes finding common ground between theists and atheists so difficult.

The stories I've referenced in this thread (like Edwin Abbott's Flatland, http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/97/pg97.html) ask the reader to put himself in the place of the various characters in the interest of broadening the reader's perspective. These stories have been around a long time, and many people find them both thought-provoking and enlightening. I know I have. I thought some folks here might enjoy them in this way as well, and we might discuss them further. But we obviously won't get very far with people who discard lasting works of literature as "just stories" or "dreary walls of text".

Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Tank on December 19, 2014, 09:12:00 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 19, 2014, 08:54:45 PM
..your framework isn't large enough to admit the evidences.

Quite so, superstitions and wishful thinking are way outside any reasonable framework.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Recusant on December 19, 2014, 09:22:20 PM
Despite my reminder, you simply ignore my questions and repeat Knuth's interpretation of the story. It isn't a very productive way to carry on a discussion, but I've come to expect that sort of thing from you, Gerry Rzeppa.

Regarding your reference to "other kinds of evidence": What I've mentioned more than once in discussion with you is verifiable evidence. As far as I'm concerned, that's the sort of evidence that is meaningful. If your "other kinds" are not verifiable, what use are they, except to preachers and mountebanks?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 19, 2014, 10:28:19 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 19, 2014, 09:12:00 PM
Quite so, superstitions and wishful thinking are way outside any reasonable framework.

Ah, but they still must be taken into account. William James (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James), "one of the most influential philosophers the United States has ever produced" and the man whom some have called the "Father of American psychology", has studied and written extensively on the subject. He concluded:

"Success or failure depends more upon attitude than upon capacity; successful men act as though they have accomplished or are enjoying something. Soon it becomes a reality."

"It is our attitude at the beginning of a difficult task which, more than anything else, will affect its successful outcome."

"Belief creates the actual fact."

In other words, "wishful thinking" often matters more than actual capacity; new realities are often the direct result of real but intangible things like belief and wishful thinking.

Watson's and Crick's success in discovering the structure of DNA, for example, can be directly attributed to their "wishful thinking" regarding (a) the possibility of success, and (b) the rewards of such success. Take away that "wishful thinking" and they never would have discovered what they did. It is similar "beliefs" and "wishful thinking" that motivate the entire scientific enterprise.


Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 19, 2014, 10:46:39 PM
Quote from: Recusant on December 19, 2014, 09:22:20 PMWhat I've mentioned more than once in discussion with you is verifiable evidence. As far as I'm concerned, that's the sort of evidence that is meaningful. If your "other kinds" are not verifiable, what use are they, except to preachers and mountebanks?

The questions being asked in all three stories is essentially the same: What can be verified? and How can it be verified? The psychologists in Smullyan's story are unable to "verify" the existence of Humor because they have no direct experience of it; their framework is too small to include such a thing. The blind in Well's story cannot "verify" that sight is a real and meaningful sense because they have no direct experience with it; again, their framework is too constrictive. The flatlanders in Abbott's story cannot "verify" the existence of a third dimension for the same reason.

The best any of these can do is to attempt to understand by analogy -- that laughter is kind of like other pleasant sensations, yet quite different; that sight is kind of like hearing, yet quite distinct; that the third dimension is the like the first and second, yet different in at least one essential way. But of course that kind of thinking requires an open mind; a willingness to consider that there are things outside of one's own personal experience that are "too unfamiliar" or "too different" or "too big" to be fully understood within the confines of one's own personal experience.

In short, demanding rational proofs and explanations for super-rational things is not rational. Investigation of such things must employ all our faculties (not just our ability to reason) and will, even then, depend a great deal on argument by analogy and other less-than-mathematically-certain evidences.

Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 19, 2014, 08:54:45 PMThese stories have been around a long time, and many people find them both thought-provoking and enlightening. I know I have. I thought some folks here might enjoy them in this way as well, and we might discuss them further. But we obviously won't get very far with people who discard lasting works of literature as "just stories" or "dreary walls of text".

Rather than engaging in honest discussion, often you refuse to even acknowledge my questions and instead choose to respond to portions of my posts which you use as a springboard for more preaching. This is a well established pattern with you, and in light of that pattern, your disingenuous plaintive malarkey about "discussion" and "discarding lasting works" is laughable.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 19, 2014, 10:46:39 PM
Quote from: Recusant on December 19, 2014, 09:22:20 PMWhat I've mentioned more than once in discussion with you is verifiable evidence. As far as I'm concerned, that's the sort of evidence that is meaningful. If your "other kinds" are not verifiable, what use are they, except to preachers and mountebanks?

The questions being asked in all three stories is essentially the same: What can be verified? and How can it be verified? The psychologists in Smullyan's story are unable to "verify" the existence of Humor because they have no direct experience of it; their framework is too small to include such a thing.

Humor is acknowledged to exist in Smullyan's piece; it's considered a disorder.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 19, 2014, 10:46:39 PMThe blind in Well's story cannot "verify" that sight is a real and meaningful sense because they have no direct experience with it; again, their framework is too constrictive. The flatlanders in Abbott's story cannot "verify" the existence of a third dimension for the same reason.

The best any of these can do is to attempt to understand by analogy -- that laughter is kind of like other pleasant sensations, yet quite different; that sight is kind of like hearing, yet quite distinct; that the third dimension is the like the first and second, yet different in at least one essential way. But of course that kind of thinking requires an open mind; a willingness to consider that there are things outside of one's own personal experience that are "too unfamiliar" or "too different" or "too big" to be fully understood within the confines of one's own personal experience.

This assumes that none of those who dispute the existence of the supernatural have ever had experiences which believers would describe as supernatural. Of course, that isn't the case at all. Additionally, there are many who at one time believed in the supernatural and had experiences which they once attributed to the supernatural, but who no longer believe. How do you account for that?

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 19, 2014, 10:46:39 PMIn short, demanding rational proofs and explanations for super-rational things is not rational.

I'm not "demanding rational proofs and explanations," I'm asking for verifiable evidence.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 19, 2014, 10:46:39 PMInvestigation of such things must employ all our faculties (not just our ability to reason) and will, even then, depend a great deal on argument by analogy and other less-than-mathematically-certain evidences.

Could you explain how analogy would be used as evidence? What other "less-than-mathematically-certain" things do you have in mind to be used as evidence? Again, if I can't verify what's being presented as evidence, what use is it? How does it even qualify as evidence at all? It seems to me you're saying that we should ignore our critical faculties and just buy into whatever is told to us by purveyors of the supernatural. If not, how do you propose we should distinguish between bullshit and genuine evidence for the supernatural?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 07:53:48 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AMHumor is acknowledged to exist in Smullyan's piece; it's considered a disorder.

In the story, belief in the thing called "Humor" is considered a disorder (in the psychiatrists' view) because it is assumed (by them) that Humor, itself, does not exist. I think that's quite clear in this passage: "In the psychoanalytic portions of the treatment the psychiatrist carefully explained to the patient how he had been living in a fantasy world, and how when he started facing reality he would at first find it very painful. And amazingly enough, after about the third treatment, the patient actually agreed that the psychiatrist was right! He said: 'I see now that you were absolutely right. I was indeed living in a state in which I constantly confused fantasy with reality, and I moreover believed in the existence of an entity called Humor. Yes, I actually believed it to be something real rather than a mere figment of my imagination. But now I see the light. I realize how in error I have been!' "

Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AM...there are many who at one time believed in the supernatural and had experiences which they once attributed to the supernatural, but who no longer believe. How do you account for that?

I would say that they now interpret their past and present experiences differently than they did earlier. Which happens to all of us, a lot. Every time we find ourselves saying, for example, "Oh, now I see what you're saying!" It seems that when we're dealing with the purely physical we can often pin down the facts: water boils at such-and-such a temperature at such-and-such pressure, etc. But when we get to things that are more complex (and thus more interesting to us), we find the "facts" can often be ambiguously interpreted. Does she love me? Should I take this new job? Is my conscience really telling me about absolute rights and wrongs, or is it just another appetite clamoring for satisfaction? Etc.

Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AMI'm not "demanding rational proofs and explanations," I'm asking for verifiable evidence.

What "verifiable evidence" would you accept as proof that God exists?

Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AMCould you explain how analogy would be used as evidence?

All of the integral Calculus is essentially an argument by analogy -- no one has ever really seen the width of those infamous rectangles under a curve go to zero. In fact, every mathematical interpolation is an argument by analogy: we think we know the "shape" of a curve (though no one has ever seen all the points on any curve) and we use that assumed knowledge to approximate intermediate values on that curve. A non-numeric example would be when a guy says to his wife, "I bet if we did what our parents did to make us, we could make a baby too." He's arguing by analogy, saying, in effect, "Because we are like our parents in ways X and Y, I bet we're like them in way Z as well." Argument by analogy is not the same thing as proof, of course. But then very few things, relatively speaking, are susceptible of proof. Especially those things that are most interesting and important to us. So we have to make do with the tools available to us.

Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AMWhat other "less-than-mathematically-certain" things do you have in mind to be used as evidence?

Historical evidences, for example. Nothing in history is mathematically certain; and none of history can be repeated under exactly the same conditions, by definition. So historical matters are clearly a different kind of thing than, say, the boiling point of water, and must therefore be approached using different tools and techniques. Yet historical persons and events often play a major role in both our collective culture and in our individual decision-making. I'm pretty sure my wife and I would not have attempted to have a child in our old age without the historical account of Abraham and Sarah to inspire us. Nor would we have named our little guy, born of Sharon's very own way-past-menopause-57-year-old womb, Chuckles, without that history to imitate ("Chuckles" being a play on the name "Isaac", which means "Laughter"):

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi58.tinypic.com%2F119w3nb.jpg&hash=8b2413395014c061d87f5a2c1351151349d7f72e)

Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AMAgain, if I can't verify what's being presented as evidence, what use is it?

See above. We couldn't scientifically verify, with repeatable and peer-reviewed experiments, that the story of Abraham and Sarah was true. But we could gather enough evidences of other kinds -- analogical, historical, testimonial, anecdotal, etc -- to make us believe in the story and, more importantly, to act on that belief. So in this case at least, the reality (the kid you see above) was, in great part, the result of a belief in an historical event based on non-empirical evidences. As William James put it in the quote I posted above, "Belief creates the actual fact." Or in more traditional terms, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not [yet] seen."

Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AMHow does it even qualify as evidence at all?

Most of our lives are lived on such non-empirical evidences. Almost every decision we make is based on incomplete (and often at least partially faulty) evidence. It is necessary; there simply aren't the time and resources to ferret out all the facts before we're required to act. And, in cases like the one above -- where we're dealing with the past (Abraham and Sarah and Isaac) and the future (Chuckles) -- we couldn't get the necessary "facts" even with unlimited time and resources.

Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AMIt seems to me you're saying that we should ignore our critical faculties and just buy into whatever is told to us by purveyors of the supernatural.

Absolutely not. But we shouldn't restrict ourselves to the empirical, either. There's more to reality than can be reached that way. And we can't limit ourselves to the strictly logical and empirical anyway. May as well jump in with both feet and swim best we can.

Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AMIf not, how do you propose we should distinguish between bullshit and genuine evidence...

My preferred method is experiment, as above. Not knowing, for sure, that a really old couple can (or should) have a baby -- there were many who told us it was impossible, and many more who told us it was inadvisable -- we studied the available information (historical, analogical, testimonial, anecdotal, and empirical from various fertility clinics), we prayed, we investigated and attempted all sorts of alternative methods (the usual, foster children, the usual, local adoption, the usual, overseas adoption, the usual, artificial insemination, the usual, surrogate mothers, the usual, in vitro fertilization) and found out, by actual experiment, that sometimes a really old couple can and should have a baby.

Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AM...for the supernatural?

Most people find the supernatural more difficult to experiment with. Personally, I don't. As I've said in another thread, I'm persuaded that I'm a creature that has one foot in this universe, and the other somewhere else: that when I write this post, for example, I'm imposing my will on this universe, inserting events, so to speak, and causing this universe to be something it wouldn't otherwise be -- something that can't be explained by the fundamental forces of gravity and electromagnetism, etc, alone. If you'd like to get a taste of a similar experience, stare at your computer as you prepare to reply to this post and ask yourself, "What on earth could ever make the words I want to say appear on that screen?" Then type a little and stop to ask yourself, "Who just did that? How did that actually happen?" Surely, even if I'm utterly wrong and nothing supernatural is going on here, it's still something very, very mysterious...
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Tank on December 20, 2014, 08:00:06 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 19, 2014, 10:28:19 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 19, 2014, 09:12:00 PM
Quite so, superstitions and wishful thinking are way outside any reasonable framework.

Ah, but they still must be taken into account. William James (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James), "one of the most influential philosophers the United States has ever produced" and the man whom some have called the "Father of American psychology", has studied and written extensively on the subject. He concluded:

"Success or failure depends more upon attitude than upon capacity; successful men act as though they have accomplished or are enjoying something. Soon it becomes a reality."

"It is our attitude at the beginning of a difficult task which, more than anything else, will affect its successful outcome."

"Belief creates the actual fact."

In other words, "wishful thinking" often matters more than actual capacity; new realities are often the direct result of real but intangible things like belief and wishful thinking.

Watson's and Crick's success in discovering the structure of DNA, for example, can be directly attributed to their "wishful thinking" regarding (a) the possibility of success, and (b) the rewards of such success. Take away that "wishful thinking" and they never would have discovered what they did. It is similar "beliefs" and "wishful thinking" that motivate the entire scientific enterprise.
What a pile of rubbish.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Asmodean on December 20, 2014, 08:08:30 AM
What Tank said, only with prof. Dawkins' accent.

I do see what you are saying, Gerry, but I also think it's completely wrong.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Tank on December 20, 2014, 09:07:58 AM
(https://scontent-b-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10427671_358899177625297_8733525475635153429_n.jpg?oh=a5c81db8f941bcbf126fb4228983f9a2&oe=5502B8E4)
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 09:44:58 AM
Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 09:07:58 AM[quoting Ricky Gervais] "Opinions don't affect facts..."

Sure they do. Opinions play a major role in the creation of new facts. Barack Obama, for example, is the current president of the United States -- and it was the various opinions of the electorate that made that possibility a actual fact. Twice. And you've already seen, regarding my wife and I, how our opinion that the Biblical story of Abraham and Sarah was inspiring led to the tangible fact that we call Chuckles. Opinion is a very powerful force in the universe. Able even to overcome gravity, in some cases: it was the Wright brother's opinion that three-axis control was the missing ingredient in fixed-wing flying machines that led to the fact of successful powered flight in 1903.

Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 09:44:58 AM
Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 09:07:58 AM[quoting Ricky Gervais] "Opinions don't affect facts..."

Sure they do. Opinions play a major role in the creation of new facts. Barack Obama, for example, is the current president of the United States -- and it was the various opinions of the electorate that made that possibility a actual fact. Twice. And you've already seen, regarding my wife and I, how our opinion that the Biblical story of Abraham and Sarah was inspiring led to the tangible fact that we call Chuckles. Opinion is a very powerful force in the universe. Able even to overcome gravity, in some cases: it was the Wright brother's opinion that three-axis control was the missing ingredient in fixed-wing flying machines that led to the fact of successful powered flight in 1903.
So you think that belief overrides reality. Utter fucking tosh Gerry. No amount of faith/belief/wishful-thinking is going to make gravity go away. Go find a tall building and jump off it Gerry and just believe you won't die. And again your disingenuous word play, the only weapon in your delusional armoury, raises it's ugly head. Opinions don't change facts. Ideas may lead to the discovery of new facts. Simply substituting opinion for idea doesn't change the fact that a difference of opinion about that fact will change that fact. The Wright brothers didn't 'wish' the Flyer into the air. Hard work, experimentation and development got that first flight into the air not religious bullshit, wishful thinking or superstition. I am getting seriously fucking pissed off with your unmitigated stupidity and delusional world view. This place isn't a platform for obfuscationist creationist preachers like you.

To quote OG "No amount of belief makes something a fact." remember that Gerry. You might actually learn something today.

If you carry on like this I will kick you out.

Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Crow on December 20, 2014, 10:34:04 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 09:44:58 AM
Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 09:07:58 AM[quoting Ricky Gervais] "Opinions don't affect facts..."

Sure they do. Opinions play a major role in the creation of new facts. Barack Obama, for example, is the current president of the United States -- and it was the various opinions of the electorate that made that possibility a actual fact. Twice. And you've already seen, regarding my wife and I, how our opinion that the Biblical story of Abraham and Sarah was inspiring led to the tangible fact that we call Chuckles. Opinion is a very powerful force in the universe. Able even to overcome gravity, in some cases: it was the Wright brother's opinion that three-axis control was the missing ingredient in fixed-wing flying machines that led to the fact of successful powered flight in 1903.

I think you miss-understood the quote.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Asmodean on December 20, 2014, 11:54:28 AM
Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AM
Go find a tall building and jump off it Gerry and just believe you won't die.
Other people get warned for encouraging suicide.  :P

Quote
To quote OG "No amount of belief makes something a fact." remember that Gerry. You might actually learn something today.
There is a difference between facts and philosophical constructs. I think wishful thinking may actually give a philosophical construct a decent working over, but facts, no matter how much you twist them, are what they are. The rest is semantics.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Eric V Arachnid on December 20, 2014, 12:54:26 PM
The opinions of humans effect the world but not magically in my experience.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Eric V Arachnid on December 20, 2014, 01:56:54 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on December 20, 2014, 11:54:28 AM
Other people get warned for encouraging suicide.  :P

Yes that's right and proper.
If you are going to dabble with suicide you should tie a piece of cotton around your big toe and put the other end between your favourite pages of "Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There" and then you'll be able to come back if you don't like being dead.
No I haven't done it yet but it is my reality altering opinion that it's factual.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMSo you think that belief overrides reality.

Reality is not a fixed commodity. It is always changing. A reality without our kid Chuckles is a different reality than one with him; ask my wife! Beliefs don't override reality, they change reality, they create new realities. Edison's belief that he could find an appropriate material for a filament took us all from the candle and oil and gas lamp reality of times past to the electrically illuminated reality we know today.

Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMUtter fucking tosh Gerry. No amount of faith/belief/wishful-thinking is going to make gravity go away.

I never said that beliefs could "make gravity go away". I said that in the case of the Wright brothers, their belief in their theory of three-axis control allowed them to eventually overcome the negative effects of gravity on powered flight. Read their biographies: when they first started out, and whenever they got stuck and discouraged, it was their belief in their own future success that enabled them to press on toward the mark. Without that belief, they would not have done what they did.

Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMGo find a tall building and jump off it Gerry and just believe you won't die.

Who do you think invented bungee jumping? hang gliding? the parachute? Somebody who believed he could jump off a building without harming himself, or a suicidal maniac?

Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMAnd again your disingenuous word play, the only weapon in your delusional armoury, raises it's ugly head. Opinions don't change facts.

I never said that "opinions change facts." I said, opinions play a major role in the creation of new facts.

Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMIdeas may lead to the discovery of new facts.

Yes. But not just the discovery of existing facts, but the creation of new an unanticipated facts as well. Our Chuckles, for example; a living, breathing fact that nobody -- not ever we -- could have predicted.

Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMSimply substituting opinion for idea doesn't change the fact that a difference of opinion about that fact will change that fact.

Again, I'm not talking about changing existing facts. I'm talking about the creation of new facts, new realities.

Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMThe Wright brothers didn't 'wish' the Flyer into the air. Hard work, experimentation and development got that first flight into the air not religious bullshit, wishful thinking or superstition.

I disagree. In a very real way, they did "wish" their flyer into the air. It was their belief in their ideas and in their future success that fueled all that hard work, experimentation, and development.

Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMTo quote OG "No amount of belief makes something a fact." remember that Gerry.

Again, I have to disagree. It is belief in one's theories and ideas that motivates every investigative and creative effort. Watson and Crick, Edison, the Wright brothers, and Sharon and I all believed in what we were doing, and it was that belief that enabled us to persevere until the desired end was reached.

Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMI am getting seriously fucking pissed off with your unmitigated stupidity and delusional world view. This place isn't a platform for obfuscationist creationist preachers like you... If you carry on like this I will kick you out.

Curious response. I would have thought the rational response to be something more like, "If you carry on like this I will prove you wrong. I will demonstrate the folly of your thinking."
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: xSilverPhinx on December 20, 2014, 11:19:17 PM
You're using a whole lot of words and not saying very much, Gerry.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Tank on December 21, 2014, 09:34:20 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMSo you think that belief overrides reality.

Reality is not a fixed commodity. It is always changing. A reality without our kid Chuckles is a different reality than one with him; ask my wife! Beliefs don't override reality, they change reality, they create new realities. Edison's belief that he could find an appropriate material for a filament took us all from the candle and oil and gas lamp reality of times past to the electrically illuminated reality we know today.
Bullshit. We're not discussing change over time. We're discussing fact such as the effect of gravity. No amount of opinion will change gravity.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMUtter fucking tosh Gerry. No amount of faith/belief/wishful-thinking is going to make gravity go away.

I never said that beliefs could "make gravity go away". I said that in the case of the Wright brothers, their belief in their theory of three-axis control allowed them to eventually overcome the negative effects of gravity on powered flight. Read their biographies: when they first started out, and whenever they got stuck and discouraged, it was their belief in their own future success that enabled them to press on toward the mark. Without that belief, they would not have done what they did.
Bullshit. You quoted, and thereby supported, this ""Belief creates the actual fact." Do you still support that position? If not retract the statement and admit your error.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMGo find a tall building and jump off it Gerry and just believe you won't die.

Who do you think invented bungee jumping? hang gliding? the parachute? Somebody who believed he could jump off a building without harming himself, or a suicidal maniac?
Bullshit Gerry, stop squirming like a worm and admit that opinions have no effect on the laws of nature.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMAnd again your disingenuous word play, the only weapon in your delusional armoury, raises it's ugly head. Opinions don't change facts.

I never said that "opinions change facts." I said, opinions play a major role in the creation of new facts.
I repeat. Bullshit. You quoted, and thereby supported, this ""Belief creates the actual fact." Do you still support that position? If not retract the statement and admit your error.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMIdeas may lead to the discovery of new facts.

Yes. But not just the discovery of existing facts, but the creation of new an unanticipated facts as well. Our Chuckles, for example; a living, breathing fact that nobody -- not ever we -- could have predicted.
That's just life Gerry and nothing to do with opinions. You're just playing word games now. Loads of people have kids. To date 7 billion+.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMSimply substituting opinion for idea doesn't change the fact that a difference of opinion about that fact will change that fact.

Again, I'm not talking about changing existing facts. I'm talking about the creation of new facts, new realities.
Oh good you've realised you were wrong quoting, and thereby supporting, this ""Belief creates the actual fact."

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMThe Wright brothers didn't 'wish' the Flyer into the air. Hard work, experimentation and development got that first flight into the air not religious bullshit, wishful thinking or superstition.

I disagree. In a very real way, they did "wish" their flyer into the air. It was their belief in their ideas and in their future success that fueled all that hard work, experimentation, and development.
Bullshit. You're side stepping the point. Opinions/wishes/ideas/desires do not create/change the laws of nature.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMTo quote OG "No amount of belief makes something a fact." remember that Gerry.

Again, I have to disagree. It is belief in one's theories and ideas that motivates every investigative and creative effort. Watson and Crick, Edison, the Wright brothers, and Sharon and I all believed in what we were doing, and it was that belief that enabled us to persevere until the desired end was reached.
I agree that personal drive is vital in the progress of knowledge. Thank goodness for the scientists that continually discover what is really going on and and not mythologists who just guess.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMI am getting seriously fucking pissed off with your unmitigated stupidity and delusional world view. This place isn't a platform for obfuscationist creationist preachers like you... If you carry on like this I will kick you out.

Curious response. I would have thought the rational response to be something more like, "If you carry on like this I will prove you wrong. I will demonstrate the folly of your thinking."
Nobody can prove you wrong because at the end of the day you have your 'Get out of jail free' card; God did it. Also I don't have the option of ignoring your tripe. I read, not always in great detail, every post here. Now I've seen your despicable debating techniques and frankly they are not welcome here. It's not what you say it's the way you say it and the way you squirm around direct questions from Davin and Recusant. If you continue do debate and obfuscate in the way you do you will no longer be welcome. If you want to behave the way you do go to http://www.rationalskepticism.org/ they love that sort of thing over there. We don't appreciate it here. Agreed?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 21, 2014, 11:36:18 AM
Quote from: Tank on December 21, 2014, 09:34:20 AMBullshit. We're not discussing change over time. We're discussing fact such as the effect of gravity. No amount of opinion will change gravity.

You're discussing facts such as the effect of gravity. I'm discussing facts such as Obama's presidency and the Wright brothers airplane and Edison's lightbulb and Sharon's little boy. I think I've been quite clear about that.

Quote from: Tank on December 21, 2014, 09:34:20 AMBullshit. You quoted, and thereby supported, this "Belief creates the actual fact." Do you still support that position? If not retract the statement and admit your error.

Yes, I still support that statement in the way William James intended it. It is obvious from his writings that he didn't mean (nor do I) that "belief creates actual facts magically out of nothing." He meant (as do I) that "belief creates actual facts (like presidents and airplanes and light bulbs and kids) by motivating people to do things they wouldn't do without that belief."

Quote from: Tank on December 21, 2014, 09:34:20 AMBullshit Gerry, stop squirming like a worm and admit that opinions have no effect on the laws of nature.

It depends on what you mean by "no effect". The laws of nature tell us how inanimate things behave when they're not interfered with; the laws of nature say nothing about when, where, why, and how we conscious beings might intentionally interfere. The laws of motion, for example, tell us how a billiard ball will roll on a perfectly flat table if pushed in a certain direction with a particular amount of force; they tell us nothing about a guy coming in midstream and shoving the ball a little to the left. Once the guy is done shoving, of course, the laws of motion can tell us what to expect from the ball from that point forward; but again, they can't tell us anything about what to expect from the guy. So it turns out that the guy's opinion (about whether the ball ought to be shoved or not) can have an effect on the laws of nature: not by changing the laws, but by to giving them new input to work with.

Quote from: Tank on December 21, 2014, 09:34:20 AMThat's just life Gerry and nothing to do with opinions. You're just playing word games now. Loads of people have kids. To date 7 billion+.

I disagree. The opinions of people have a lot to do with their procreative realities: a couple who holds the opinion that contraception is a good idea, for example, will generally have fewer kids than others who hold the opposite opinion.

Quote from: Tank on December 21, 2014, 09:34:20 AMBullshit. You're side stepping the point. Opinions/wishes/ideas/desires do not create/change the laws of nature.

Agreed: Opinions/wishes/ideas/desires do not create/change the laws of nature. I never said they could. But I did say that opinions play a major role in the creation of new facts, facts like presidents and airplanes and light bulbs and kids. And I said just above that opinions can affect the laws of nature -- not by changing them -- but by giving them new input to deal with.

Quote from: Tank on December 21, 2014, 09:34:20 AMI agree that personal drive is vital in the progress of knowledge. Thank goodness for the scientists that continually discover what is really going on and and not mythologists who just guess.

Ah, but do you agree that "personal drive" is typically (if not always) motivated by belief in an idea or concept or theory or plan or design or an anticipated reward?

Quote from: Tank on December 21, 2014, 09:34:20 AMNobody can prove you wrong because at the end of the day you have your 'Get out of jail free' card; God did it.

"God did it" is obviously one philosophical alternative. "Nobody did it, it just always was" is another. "Everything popped out of nothing" is a third. There's no definitive answer at that level, for anyone. We all place our bets and take our chances.

Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Biggus Dickus on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 21, 2014, 11:36:18 AM

"God did it" is obviously one philosophical alternative. "Nobody did it, it just always was" is another. "Everything popped out of nothing" is a third. There's no definitive answer at that level, for anyone. We all place our bets and take our chances.

Gerry what exactly do you mean by "We all place our bets and take our chances"? Place our bets on what, and take our chances with whom"?
I remember in another thread you mentioned that if life after death exists it would be a game changer, and this is the point or leap of faith I can't comprehend.

I've had this discussion before on different levels with other believers, and the starting point is always the same, with this notion that we can find some common ground between us that will allow our exploration of god or faith to similar conclusions.

For example you may convince me that it is highly likely that "Live After Death" is real or that a 'God 'or a "Creator' exists.

Good job, your argument was so convincing I am now a believer in both (Although I'm still curious if life after death applies to all life or only us humans), but my big question now and always has been so what.
Life after death? How nice, but doesn't change things here on earth at the moment does it, and I'm certainly not going to change how I live because of it.

Same with the belief in a god or a creator.


So fucking what.

A god created everything, how nice, but it doesn't change anything at all. In fact tomorrow if every living on person proclaimed that,  "Yes there is a creator of the universe" it wouldn't change a damn thing.
Same if tomorrow every person proclaimed (I have to admit this would be nice) "Yes, we all agree there is no god, no creator to the universe".
(However, we would have to agree that the world would be a far better place if the latter were to take place. Seriously. I mean these fucks here in Michigan would finally come to their senses and allow my sister and her partner to get married. Folks in the middle east would stop murdering and abusing people, and folks like Benny-fucking-Hinn would have to get a real job and stop stealing money from those who can least afford it)

We would all still have to wake up in the morning, and prepare ourselves for the day. For some this means a hot shower, and breakfast, maybe a quick glance at the news, check a few emails and then head off to work.
For others, such as my sister-in-law it means waking up and heading out for another grueling radiation treatment to combat the cancer she is fighting.
Or for others it means walking miles everyday just to have access to clean water, or to find food. Others are dealing with wars, death, destruction, and all the other putridness and horrors their fellow humans can lay upon them (We could really go into detail at this point couldn't we Gerry, examining the worst of our kind, and our ability to inflict unimaginable horrors onto each other)

The existence of a god, or life after death changes none of that does it. Not. One. Bit.

Life after death? Okay, tell you what I'll worry about that later. Same with the belief in a god.

It's at this point though that I'm expected to take the huge, unbelievable leap of fucking faith as someone like you says to me, "So Bruno, you have accepted the fact that a god exists, or at least accepted the notion that such a god is possible, so now it's time for you to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior".

Really? Why Jesus? If I get to pick a god, or belief I'm not sure I want to go in this direction.
I mean let's face it the christians as a whole are simply way too wishy-washy with regards to their faith. I was raised catholic, I know.
Pope say's birth control is wrong, but 90% percent of catholic women use it. And the evangelical types are even worse as far as hypocrisy, proclaiming with one hand on a bible the sins and evilness of homosexuality, while with the other hand they are performing a reach around. (If they would even be so kind).

No if I'm gong to take this huge fucking leap of faith and throw my skepticism to the wind and believe in a god and/or religion I'm throwing in my lot with the Muslims (1.6 billion believers must know something we don't right?).
Look at ISIS, or Boko Haram. These folks aren't playing around, and are actually behaving just as god has instructed his people to behave in the past according to the old testament. (I'm talking about the killings, beheadings, the abduction of girls and women as wives or sexual slaves to be sold or abused as they see fit)
In fact if what I like best is the part about the 72 virgins, I mean as long as I accept this notion and have belief it will become real correct? How does that go,"Belief creates actual facts".

It's that type of thinking that has the world so fucked up Gerry.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Recusant on December 21, 2014, 07:23:12 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 07:53:48 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AMHumor is acknowledged to exist in Smullyan's piece; it's considered a disorder.

In the story, belief in the thing called "Humor" is considered a disorder (in the psychiatrists' view) because it is assumed (by them) that Humor, itself, does not exist. I think that's quite clear in this passage: "In the psychoanalytic portions of the treatment the psychiatrist carefully explained to the patient how he had been living in a fantasy world, and how when he started facing reality he would at first find it very painful. And amazingly enough, after about the third treatment, the patient actually agreed that the psychiatrist was right! He said: 'I see now that you were absolutely right. I was indeed living in a state in which I constantly confused fantasy with reality, and I moreover believed in the existence of an entity called Humor. Yes, I actually believed it to be something real rather than a mere figment of my imagination. But now I see the light. I realize how in error I have been!' "

That is one theory about humor in Smullyan's piece. In the second paragraph, it's clear that humor is generally recognized to exist, and considered a disorder, as I said.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 07:53:48 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AM...there are many who at one time believed in the supernatural and had experiences which they once attributed to the supernatural, but who no longer believe. How do you account for that?

I would say that they now interpret their past and present experiences differently than they did earlier. Which happens to all of us, a lot. Every time we find ourselves saying, for example, "Oh, now I see what you're saying!" It seems that when we're dealing with the purely physical we can often pin down the facts: water boils at such-and-such a temperature at such-and-such pressure, etc. But when we get to things that are more complex (and thus more interesting to us), we find the "facts" can often be ambiguously interpreted. Does she love me? Should I take this new job? Is my conscience really telling me about absolute rights and wrongs, or is it just another appetite clamoring for satisfaction? Etc.

One of the primary reasons that people change their minds about the supernatural is that they've gained insight through learning more about what they once believed. The ambiguity which once protected their belief has been decreased. So having an open mind can work against belief in the supernatural, at least as much as it can lead to accepting the supernatural. Your original statement ignored that; you implied that an open mind was necessary for belief in the supernatural, which isn't always the case. Many people believe in the supernatural because they've been indoctrinated into that belief, and it's only by opening their minds that they learn facts which lead them to reject their former belief. What some people believe to be experiences of the supernatural may not actually be that at all, ambiguous interpretation being what it is.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 07:53:48 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AMI'm not "demanding rational proofs and explanations," I'm asking for verifiable evidence.

What "verifiable evidence" would you accept as proof that God exists?

Evidence is what I've mentioned, not proof, as can be seen in the very sentence to which you're replying. Why do you continue to conflate the two?

There are many things that a deity could do that I would consider as evidence for its existence. Here's one rather famous one: Heal an amputee. How about one from the Bible? Stop the sun in the sky, as YHVH supposedly did (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua+10%3A13&version=NIV) to give Joshua and his army more time to slaughter their enemies.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 07:53:48 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AMCould you explain how analogy would be used as evidence?

All of the integral Calculus is essentially an argument by analogy -- no one has ever really seen the width of those infamous rectangles under a curve go to zero. In fact, every mathematical interpolation is an argument by analogy: we think we know the "shape" of a curve (though no one has ever seen all the points on any curve) and we use that assumed knowledge to approximate intermediate values on that curve.

OK, I can see that, if we view the field of mathematics as an analogy for the real world. However, if we view real world applications of mathematics as a direct description rather than an analogy, then it's not relevant.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 07:53:48 AMA non-numeric example would be when a guy says to his wife, "I bet if we did what our parents did to make us, we could make a baby too." He's arguing by analogy, saying, in effect, "Because we are like our parents in ways X and Y, I bet we're like them in way Z as well." Argument by analogy is not the same thing as proof, of course. But then very few things, relatively speaking, are susceptible of proof. Especially those things that are most interesting and important to us. So we have to make do with the tools available to us.

I'll note again that you seem to have a problem differentiating between evidence and proof, which is strange, given your repeated insistence that you're a scientist. As for the above, the fellow talking to his wife is presenting evidence in the form of previous events. The analogy isn't the evidence, the previous event is. I think that rather than being evidence itself, analogy is a way of approaching and considering evidence. One can produce hypotheses through the use of analogy, but then these hypotheses need to be tested to produce actual evidence.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 07:53:48 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AMWhat other "less-than-mathematically-certain" things do you have in mind to be used as evidence?

Historical evidences, for example. Nothing in history is mathematically certain; and none of history can be repeated under exactly the same conditions, by definition. So historical matters are clearly a different kind of thing than, say, the boiling point of water, and must therefore be approached using different tools and techniques. Yet historical persons and events often play a major role in both our collective culture and in our individual decision-making.

That's a good reply, at least the part that I've quoted. However, if you're trying to slip in the same sort of approach that Ken Ham used in the recent debate (http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/02/09/274335382/dear-mr-ham-you-can-t-have-it-both-ways), you should be more explicit. I have no comment on you and your wife using the story of Sarah giving birth to Isaac at the age of 90 as evidence for your family planning.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 07:53:48 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AMAgain, if I can't verify what's being presented as evidence, what use is it?
See above. We couldn't scientifically verify, with repeatable and peer-reviewed experiments, that the story of Abraham and Sarah was true. But we could gather enough evidences of other kinds -- analogical, historical, testimonial, anecdotal, etc -- to make us believe in the story and, more importantly, to act on that belief. So in this case at least, the reality (the kid you see above) was, in great part, the result of a belief in an historical event based on non-empirical evidences. As William James put it in the quote I posted above, "Belief creates the actual fact." Or in more traditional terms, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not [yet] seen."

That isn't an answer to my question, it's a description of your approach, which appears to me to be based on your Christian faith. You're well aware by now that I don't consider your approach credible.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 07:53:48 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AMHow does it even qualify as evidence at all?
Most of our lives are lived on such non-empirical evidences. Almost every decision we make is based on incomplete (and often at least partially faulty) evidence. It is necessary; there simply aren't the time and resources to ferret out all the facts before we're required to act. And, in cases like the one above -- where we're dealing with the past (Abraham and Sarah and Isaac) and the future (Chuckles) -- we couldn't get the necessary "facts" even with unlimited time and resources.

You've dodged the issue here. We're talking about the supernatural, not "most of our lives." The issue is that the supposed evidence for the supernatural is not verifiable, and given that, I question whether it can even be considered evidence. It seems to me that you're basically saying it's a waste of time to consider this question, and it's too hard to even try.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 07:53:48 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AMIt seems to me you're saying that we should ignore our critical faculties and just buy into whatever is told to us by purveyors of the supernatural.
Absolutely not. But we shouldn't restrict ourselves to the empirical, either. There's more to reality than can be reached that way. And we can't limit ourselves to the strictly logical and empirical anyway. May as well jump in with both feet and swim best we can.

I have done, and through the use of my critical faculties I've come to reject the existence of the supernatural as described by religion and preachers.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 07:53:48 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AMIf not, how do you propose we should distinguish between bullshit and genuine evidence...

My preferred method is experiment, as above. Not knowing, for sure, that a really old couple can (or should) have a baby -- there were many who told us it was impossible, and many more who told us it was inadvisable -- we studied the available information (historical, analogical, testimonial, anecdotal, and empirical from various fertility clinics), we prayed, we investigated and attempted all sorts of alternative methods (the usual, foster children, the usual, local adoption, the usual, overseas adoption, the usual, artificial insemination, the usual, surrogate mothers, the usual, in vitro fertilization) and found out, by actual experiment, that sometimes a really old couple can and should have a baby.

Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AM...for the supernatural?

Most people find the supernatural more difficult to experiment with. Personally, I don't. As I've said in another thread, I'm persuaded that I'm a creature that has one foot in this universe, and the other somewhere else: that when I write this post, for example, I'm imposing my will on this universe, inserting events, so to speak, and causing this universe to be something it wouldn't otherwise be -- something that can't be explained by the fundamental forces of gravity and electromagnetism, etc, alone. If you'd like to get a taste of a similar experience, stare at your computer as you prepare to reply to this post and ask yourself, "What on earth could ever make the words I want to say appear on that screen?" Then type a little and stop to ask yourself, "Who just did that? How did that actually happen?" Surely, even if I'm utterly wrong and nothing supernatural is going on here, it's still something very, very mysterious...

I don't see any deep mysteries of the sort you're describing (one foot in the universe, the other somewhere else) going on. It all looks like this universe to me. Certainly there are unknowns waiting to be explored, but I've still seen no credible evidence that anything which could be honestly described as "supernatural" exists.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 22, 2014, 03:28:37 AM
Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMGerry what exactly do you mean by "We all place our bets and take our chances"? Place our bets on what, and take our chances with whom"?

We all act on uncertain information all day, every day. Can I trust that website with my credit card number? Is it safe to leave my car in this parking lot? Is this food poisonous? Etc. So we make our best guesses, place our bets, and take our chances. We do the same with what happens after death; since no one knows what happens, for sure, we have to make our best guesses, place our bets, and take our chances.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMI remember in another thread you mentioned that if life after death exists it would be a game changer, and this is the point or leap of faith I can't comprehend.

Game 1: What you make of yourself in life really doesn't matter because when you die you cease to exist.
Game 2: What you make of yourself in life really does matter because you're stuck with it for all eternity.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMI've had this discussion before on different levels with other believers, and the starting point is always the same, with this notion that we can find some common ground between us that will allow our exploration of god or faith to similar conclusions. For example you may convince me that it is highly likely that "Live After Death" is real or that a 'God 'or a "Creator' exists.  Good job, your argument was so convincing I am now a believer in both (Although I'm still curious if life after death applies to all life or only us humans), but my big question now and always has been so what. Life after death? How nice, but doesn't change things here on earth at the moment does it, and I'm certainly not going to change how I live because of it.

Then either you don't really believe, or you don't understand the ramifications of that belief. Life is about becoming: becoming something better (or worse) each day. If the process ends at death, it really doesn't matter what you become. But if you're stuck with what you've made of yourself forever, it does matter -- forever.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMSame with the belief in a god or a creator. So fucking what.

The argument is essentially the same. If there is no Creator, then our lives belong to ourselves and we can do as we please. On the other hand, if there is a Creator, our lives belong to Him and are only "on loan" to us, so to speak; and we'll have to answer to Him for what we've made of them.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMA god created everything, how nice, but it doesn't change anything at all. In fact tomorrow if every living on person proclaimed that,  "Yes there is a creator of the universe" it wouldn't change a damn thing.

It would change a lot if (a) they really believed it, and (b) they understood the ramifications of that belief.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMSame if tomorrow every person proclaimed (I have to admit this would be nice) "Yes, we all agree there is no god, no creator to the universe".

Again, it would change a lot if (a) they really believed it, and (b) they understood the ramifications of that belief.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PM(However, we would have to agree that the world would be a far better place if the latter were to take place.

I don't agree with that at all.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMSeriously. I mean these fucks here in Michigan would finally come to their senses and allow my sister and her partner to get married.

But would that be a good thing? What, in a world without God, can we even mean by "good"? The believer defines good as "what God intended (since He's the Creator and must know how things work best)"; take God out of that definition and there's not much left.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMFolks in the middle east would stop murdering and abusing people,

You're assuming they're murdering and abusing people because of their belief in Allah. You're mistaken. People like that would quickly find a different excuse for the same actions.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMand folks like Benny-fucking-Hinn would have to get a real job and stop stealing money from those who can least afford it)

Again, people like him would find some other way to separate the suckers from their money. P. T. Barnum did it for decades without ever mentioning religion.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMWe would all still have to wake up in the morning, and prepare ourselves for the day. For some this means a hot shower, and breakfast, maybe a quick glance at the news, check a few emails and then head off to work. For others, such as my sister-in-law it means waking up and heading out for another grueling radiation treatment to combat the cancer she is fighting. Or for others it means walking miles everyday just to have access to clean water, or to find food. Others are dealing with wars, death, destruction, and all the other putridness and horrors their fellow humans can lay upon them (We could really go into detail at this point couldn't we Gerry, examining the worst of our kind, and our ability to inflict unimaginable horrors onto each other)

It should be noted that most of the work in the world that is done to relieve the suffering of the less fortunate is done by religious people. See, for a practical example, here: http://www.samaritanspurse.org/. It should also be noted that most of the problems of the human race could easily be solved by the human race: there's plenty of food and water and money to go around. It's not God that gets in the way, it's other people. Find something wrong with your own neighborhood and try to fix it: I guarantee you won't get any flak from God; but I strongly suspect you'll get resistance from your neighbors before you're through.

But that's not the point I want to make here. I want to go back to what each of us is becoming. Back in the day we used to make software for quadriplegics, so we got to know quite a few of them. Joni Eareckson Tada is one of them (http://www.joniandfriends.org/ ); she broke her neck when she was 17 and has been a quad ever since. She herself would tell you, if she wasn't so modest, that today she is a better, warmer, kinder, more patient, and a much wiser person that she ever would have been had she not broken her neck. And that she looks forward to Heaven where those virtues will one day be united with a fully operational body. In other words, she would say that God wasn't so much interested in her short-term happiness on earth, but in her long term growth into a person fit for Heaven and a heavenly body. The Bible clearly says that everything in this world will be burnt up in the end; it is only the people who will endure. So it's only what we're becoming that really matters; the rest is like grade-school homework -- a means to an end that will be discarded when it has served its purpose.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMThe existence of a god, or life after death changes none of that does it. Not. One. Bit.

Sure it does. See above. If God exists and there is life after death, then it matters what we make of ourselves. If God doesn't exist, then nothing really matters.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMLife after death? Okay, tell you what I'll worry about that later. Same with the belief in a god.

You can't worry about what you're making of yourself later, because you're already doing the making right now. Later is too late.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMIt's at this point though that I'm expected to take the huge, unbelievable leap of fucking faith as someone like you says to me, "So Bruno, you have accepted the fact that a god exists, or at least accepted the notion that such a god is possible, so now it's time for you to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior".

I wouldn't expect that. How could you possibly believe in somebody you don't yet know?

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMReally? Why Jesus? If I get to pick a god, or belief I'm not sure I want to go in this direction.

The short answer is this, as C. S. Lewis put it: "You can save yourself time by confining your attention to two systems: Hinduism and Christianity. I believe these are the two serious options for an adult mind. Materialism is a philosophy for boys. The purely moral systems like Stoicism and Confucianism are philosophies for aristocrats. Islam is only a Christian heresy, and Buddhism a Hindu heresy: both are simplifications inferior to the things simplified. As for the old Pagan religions, I think we could say that whatever was of value in them survives either in Hinduism or in Christianity or in both, and there only: they are the two systems which have come down, still alive, into the present without leaving the past behind." And between those two, by a swift stroke of Occam's razor, I'm left with Christianity.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMI mean let's face it the christians as a whole are simply way too wishy-washy with regards to their faith. I was raised catholic, I know.

I was raised Catholic myself. See my song "Scrambled Eggs and Toast" for my exit story (http://4praise.com/new/artists/31171.htm). I think we've come much closer to what was intended with our home churches. But no real Christian would ever ask anyone to believe in other christians! That's not the proper object of Christian faith.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMPope say's birth control is wrong, but 90% percent of catholic women use it. And the evangelical types are even worse as far as hypocrisy, proclaiming with one hand on a bible the sins and evilness of homosexuality, while with the other hand they are performing a reach around. (If they would even be so kind).

Again, Christianity and christians are two very different things.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMNo if I'm gong to take this huge fucking leap of faith and throw my skepticism to the wind and believe in a god and/or religion I'm throwing in my lot with the Muslims (1.6 billion believers must know something we don't right?). Look at ISIS, or Boko Haram. These folks aren't playing around, and are actually behaving just as god has instructed his people to behave in the past according to the old testament. (I'm talking about the killings, beheadings, the abduction of girls and women as wives or sexual slaves to be sold or abused as they see fit)
In fact if what I like best is the part about the 72 virgins, I mean as long as I accept this notion and have belief it will become real correct? How does that go,"Belief creates actual facts".

There is, of course, something admirable in those who are willing to die for their beliefs, whatever they may be. And it's a shame that so many Christians are hypocrites and weak. But it would be wrong to accept bad arithmetic just because the proponents of it were unusually passionate, and equally bad to reject good arithmetic just because the proponents of it rarely used it properly. People are flawed and everything they touch gets tainted. You need to focus on the essence of the thing, not any particular implementation.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMIt's that type of thinking that has the world so fucked up Gerry.

If you're looking for something that will fix the world, don't look to Christianity; that's not what it's about. Christianity is about fixing individual people; then the world gets burnt up; then a new world is created. This world was written off long ago.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 22, 2014, 08:41:37 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 21, 2014, 07:23:12 PMOne of the primary reasons that people change their minds about the supernatural is that they've gained insight through learning more about what they once believed. The ambiguity which once protected their belief has been decreased. So having an open mind can work against belief in the supernatural, at least as much as it can lead to accepting the supernatural.

Agreed.

Quote from: Recusant on December 21, 2014, 07:23:12 PMMany people believe in the supernatural because they've been indoctrinated into that belief, and it's only by opening their minds that they learn facts which lead them to reject their former belief.

Agreed.

Quote from: Recusant on December 21, 2014, 07:23:12 PMWhat some people believe to be experiences of the supernatural may not actually be that at all, ambiguous interpretation being what it is.

Agreed.

Quote from: Recusant on December 21, 2014, 07:23:12 PMThere are many things that a deity could do that I would consider as evidence for its existence. Here's one rather famous one: Heal an amputee.

Curious you should bring that up. It reminds me of a story in a little book of "fables" I wrote many years ago, the main characters being a Master and his young Protege. Here's the relevant page:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi60.tinypic.com%2Fogxag7.jpg&hash=d73684753ee0cacddc0fd8e01971866fe0cf54b6)

I'm also reminded of a story where some people found the healing of someone like an amputee infuriating, rather than convincing: "[Jesus] said to the man [with the withered hand], Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other. Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him." Others, I'm sure, found the event inspiring; but I suspect they were leaning that way before the healing. The bottom line, I think, is found at the end of the parable in Luke 16:19-31: "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Miracles have a very poor track record when it comes to convincing people.

Quote from: Recusant on December 21, 2014, 07:23:12 PMOne can produce hypotheses through the use of analogy, but then these hypotheses need to be tested to produce actual evidence.

Agreed. But sometimes such hypotheses cannot be directly tested, but are indirectly tested by accepting them as postulates, and seeing what kind of logical fruit they bear. And example of this kind of reasoning can be found in one of my posts from another thread which I've pasted here for convenience:

The beauty of the design paradigm is that it works the same through and through and has but a single difficulty. We dream up things and make them happen; God dreams up things and makes them happen. The only part that's difficult to imagine is that God isn't just a creator, He's a self-existent creator. So one difficulty (an adjective, "self-existent", that occurs just once in the paradigm); the rest is familiar territory.

The alternative paradigm is much more complicated. It postulates two altogether different kinds of creation: the kind we all know and do, and the kind that nature does. We dream up things (that are less than ourselves) and make them happen. Nature doesn't dream at all, and yet somehow makes things that are greater than what she had to work with in the first place. So in this paradigm we've got at least two difficulties: creation without anyone dreaming up anything; and greater things inexplicably emerging from lesser things. And those difficulties are not isolated: they permeate the whole of nature from end to end and from the beginning to the indeterminate future. Well, except in us. We somehow emerged from that unfamiliar system and decided to work in the opposite way all the time.

Quote from: Recusant on December 21, 2014, 07:23:12 PMYou've dodged the issue here. We're talking about the supernatural, not "most of our lives." The issue is that the supposed evidence for the supernatural is not verifiable, and given that, I question whether it can even be considered evidence. It seems to me that you're basically saying it's a waste of time to consider this question, and it's too hard to even try.

I'm saying that believers approach the supernatural the same way they approach the rest of their lives: they believe, then act on those beliefs. For example, I believe (but am not certain) that writing this post is a worthwhile endeavor; but since I believe it is, I take the time and effort to do it. I also believe (but am not certain) that I'm going to be stuck with the kind of person I've made myself for all eternity; so I try to develop into the kind of person that I wouldn't mind having around forever. The same approach in both cases.

Now let's say I was an atheist. I might believe, for one reason or another, that writing a (somewhat different) post was worthwhile; and so I would take the time and effort to do it. Same as the theist version of me. But then I get stuck: since I believe that my final (and soon to come) end is non-existence, frankly, I feel lost. Perhaps that's because I think more philosophically than others; perhaps it's because I'm a naturally goal-oriented person. Perhaps it's something else. But whatever it is, it depresses me; if that's my ultimate (and not too far off end), what's the point?

So I go back to postulating God (as in the blue, above). And as I do, I notice that once again I've chosen the simpler, more familiar, and more consistent paradigm: the one that works the same for nature and super-nature; both here and hereafter.

Quote from: Recusant on December 21, 2014, 07:23:12 PMI've come to reject the existence of the supernatural as described by religion and preachers... I don't see any deep mysteries of the sort you're describing (one foot in the universe, the other somewhere else) going on. It all looks like this universe to me. Certainly there are unknowns waiting to be explored, but I've still seen no credible evidence that anything which could be honestly described as "supernatural" exists.

And that brings us back to our stories. Smullyan's planet where some "see humor in everything" while others can't see it in anything. Well's country where one guy sees everything and the rest see nothing. Abbott's flatland where some manage to "reach out" into that third dimension, while the rest are unable to get beyond the two. Those with ears to hear and those without.

Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Davin on December 22, 2014, 02:55:25 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 19, 2014, 08:54:45 PMSo to Davin I say, the moral of the stories is that "the faithful do not empirically prove that their god exists" in ways and terms acceptable to you because it can't be done -- your framework isn't large enough to admit the evidences.
In the stories, the things could be proven empirically to exist, but the main characters were too stupid to think of ways of doing so. Except the humor one, that one humor was already known to existed, but in a minority. Again, if we follow the stories as analogies into god as you seem to want to do, then the theists are the protagonists who can empirically prove that their god exists, but are unable due to their mental deficiencies.

Quote from: Gerry RzeppaThe stories I've referenced in this thread (like Edwin Abbott's Flatland, http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/97/pg97.html) ask the reader to put himself in the place of the various characters in the interest of broadening the reader's perspective. These stories have been around a long time, and many people find them both thought-provoking and enlightening. I know I have. I thought some folks here might enjoy them in this way as well, and we might discuss them further. But we obviously won't get very far with people who discard lasting works of literature as "just stories" or "dreary walls of text".
It depends on the purpose of the discussion. It seems to me that you take these stories, and try to exert their fiction into reality. We don't need to play these games, or try to get people to read very large stories when you could just present your point.

For instance: Instead of a few long and boring stories and many posts of you avoiding getting to your point, you could have just said:
I don't think that people can empirically demonstrate that a god exists because there is no empirical evidence to support that a god exists. But there is a bunch of unreliable evidence that points to a god so long as one ignores the same kind of evidence that doesn't.

If you would just cut out all the condescending bullshit, we could actually have a useful conversation and have some common ground. But you seem to want to keep pretending to be teaching me, when everything you've brought up, are already things I've covered at least a dozen times (over a hundred for some things). All I'm asking is that you cut the bullshit and get to your points, address all criticisms to your points, answer all questions, and to do so in your own words. You know, like we're having a conversation.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 22, 2014, 08:25:17 PM
Quote from: Davin on December 22, 2014, 02:55:25 PMAll I'm asking is that you cut the bullshit and get to your points, address all criticisms to your points, answer all questions, and to do so in your own words. You know, like we're having a conversation.

Okay, here's the question posed by the stories in my own words and pictures:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi58.tinypic.com%2F2jg5ax4.jpg&hash=ebc4f9ae68824d5e9215cee88d2f3416818fff5d)

On the top, we have three images of a guitar amp I designed and built: from the outside; with the "skin" removed; and a close-up of one portion. On the bottom, similar photos of a person.

Now to me the parallel, the analogy, is obvious. The one system I know to be designed, and the other appears to be designed. The important point is that this appearance, no matter whether I look from far or near, is so striking, so compelling, so obvious and overwhelming -- the complexity so vast and the engineering so subtle and the functioning so sublime -- indeed, the elegance and grace and overall beauty of the whole is so moving that I really can't imagine the human body not being the result of design. It's all I can do to hold myself back from saying something like, "Praise be to the Creator!" (which I realize is not the kind of thing that is welcome on this forum, but you did ask for my own words).

My question is this: Do you folks (a) not see the parallel at all? (b) see it but don't find it striking and compelling? or (c) do you see it as clearly as I do, but have convinced yourself on other grounds that the striking and otherwise compelling similarities are completely illusory?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: xSilverPhinx on December 22, 2014, 08:36:04 PM
Argument from design is. a. fallacy. It's poor thinking.

Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Davin on December 22, 2014, 08:52:32 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 22, 2014, 08:25:17 PM
Quote from: Davin on December 22, 2014, 02:55:25 PMAll I'm asking is that you cut the bullshit and get to your points, address all criticisms to your points, answer all questions, and to do so in your own words. You know, like we're having a conversation.

Okay, here's the question posed by the stories in my own words and pictures:

http://i58.tinypic.com/2jg5ax4.jpg (http://i58.tinypic.com/2jg5ax4.jpg)

On the top, we have three images of a guitar amp I designed and built: from the outside; with the "skin" removed; and a close-up of one portion. On the bottom, similar photos of a person.

Now to me the parallel, the analogy, is obvious. The one system I know to be designed, and the other appears to be designed. The important point is that this appearance, no matter whether I look from far or near, is so striking, so compelling, so obvious and overwhelming -- the complexity so vast and the engineering so subtle and the functioning so sublime -- indeed, the elegance and grace and overall beauty of the whole is so moving that I really can't imagine the human body not being the result of design. It's all I can do to hold myself back from saying something like, "Praise be to the Creator!" (which I realize is not the kind of thing that is welcome on this forum).

My question is this: Do you folks (a) not see the parallel at all? (b) see it but don't find it striking and compelling? or (c) do you see it as clearly as I do, but have convinced yourself on other grounds that the striking and otherwise compelling similarities are completely illusory?
What are we on about now? One post we're talking about some lame stories, and now you seem have taken an alley way in another direction. I do hope that you'll actually address all my criticisms and questions. In the meantime, in good faith, I'll answer your questions (but keep in mind, I am speaking for myself and not "atheists")

a) I can see the parallel, it is a common mistake made many a time by several theists. I, and many others, are more than familiar with this kind of erroneous thinking.
b) It's not compelling at all once one is familiar with many problems that occur with the human thinking process. Things that fallacies correct for. In this case, there are a few fallacies, which is why it's not compelling.
c) I'm not entirely convinced that you can see anything clearly, given that your posts so far tend to be very vague, scattered, and inconsistent. But I doubt that this would be the case.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: MikeyV on December 22, 2014, 09:01:07 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 22, 2014, 08:25:17 PM
Now to me the parallel, the analogy, is obvious.

I don't see anywhere in your amp design a wire that needs to cover a distance of a few inches, but uses a few feet of wire to wrap around your capacitors before doubling back on itself to make its final connection. Why is that? Is it because you know that would be a bad design choice?

Now explain the recurrent laryngeal nerve as intelligent design.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: xSilverPhinx on December 22, 2014, 09:09:07 PM
Quote from: MikeyV on December 22, 2014, 09:01:07 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 22, 2014, 08:25:17 PM
Now to me the parallel, the analogy, is obvious.

I don't see anywhere in your amp design a wire that needs to cover a distance of a few inches, but uses a few feet of wire to wrap around your capacitors before doubling back on itself to make its final connection. Why is that? Is it because you know that would be a bad design choice?

Now explain the recurrent laryngeal nerve as intelligent design.

*nods*   Now imagine that thing in a giraffe. Now compare it with a fish, that technically has no neck. Read up on evolution, Gerry.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 22, 2014, 09:31:12 PM
Quote from: MikeyV on December 22, 2014, 09:01:07 PMI don't see anywhere in your amp design a wire that needs to cover a distance of a few inches, but uses a few feet of wire to wrap around your capacitors before doubling back on itself to make its final connection. Why is that? Is it because you know that would be a bad design choice? Now explain the recurrent laryngeal nerve as intelligent design.

Actually there are a couple of wires (the 6.3v heater feeds for the tubes) that take a very roundabout path to get where they are going (to reduce 60hz hum). I'm sure this would strike a person who doesn't understand tube amps not only as odd, but a waste of wire and an example of poor engineering. And there are other wires and components that appear in unexpected places for other reasons: balancing the look and feel of the outside with the necessities of the circuit on the inside, keeping similarly packaged (but functionally unrelated) parts together, economies of assembly, concern for the future repairman, aesthetics, etc. In short, the design really shouldn't be evaluated by anyone who doesn't understand all of the competing objectives and constraints that were being considered by the designer. I suspect there is an equally reasonable explanation for the "recurrent laryngeal nerve".
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 22, 2014, 09:35:55 PM
But c'mon. I'm trying to understand how you folks think. And if you all think alike on this matter, or differently. Help me out by simply answering (a) or (b) or (c) -- you can elaborate after that. Here's the question posed by the stories in my own words and pictures:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi58.tinypic.com%2F2jg5ax4.jpg&hash=ebc4f9ae68824d5e9215cee88d2f3416818fff5d)

On the top, we have three images of a guitar amp I designed and built: from the outside; with the "skin" removed; and a close-up of one portion. On the bottom, similar photos of a person.

Now to me the parallel, the analogy, is obvious. The one system I know to be designed, and the other appears to be designed. The important point is that this appearance, no matter whether I look from far or near, is so striking, so compelling, so obvious and overwhelming -- the complexity so vast and the engineering so subtle and the functioning so sublime -- indeed, the elegance and grace and overall beauty of the whole is so moving that I really can't imagine the human body not being the result of design. It's all I can do to hold myself back from saying something like, "Praise be to the Creator!" (which I realize is not the kind of thing that is welcome on this forum, but you did ask for my own words).

My question is this: Do you folks (a) not see the parallel at all? (b) see it but don't find it striking and compelling? or (c) do you see it as clearly as I do, but have convinced yourself on other grounds that the striking and otherwise compelling similarities are completely illusory?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Biggus Dickus on December 22, 2014, 10:49:43 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 22, 2014, 09:35:55 PM
But c'mon. I'm trying to understand how you folks think. And if you all think alike on this matter, or differently. Help me out by simply answering...

Sorry Gerry, but I'm drawing the curtains closed on the cell of my zoo cage. Others here can do as they wish.

Again, you want to try and make compelling arguments for a god, or a creator, and get us to somehow find common ground with you, first it was a photoshopped picture of a beach with some writing in the sand, now it's some half-ass amplifier you supposedly built; yet in the end we'll just come full circle and find ourselves in the same place as we are now won't we.

You believe you know and understand a god. To the point that others who don't believe as you do are wrong, and you want to dictate how others should live their lives.

You want to dare tell me what to make of my life? What have you made of yours, who are you to dictate to me whether I have made something of my life, or whether or not it meets your standards.

And that is what all of this is about, you wanting others to accept your way of life over theirs, as if they way I live my life is somehow not as meaningful as yours because you happen to be so misguided as to place your faith in a god.

I don't like you. Or others like you who need others to believe and lives as they do so as to help themselves feel smug and superior.

I'm an atheist, I don't believe in a god(s), but more importantly I don't need or require a belief in a god or religion to give my life reason or purpose.




Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: xSilverPhinx on December 23, 2014, 12:03:36 AM
Again, it's a fallacy...and repeating that has gotten tiring. Read up on fallacious thinking and on evolutionary theory and we might have something to talk about.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Magdalena on December 23, 2014, 03:31:56 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 22, 2014, 09:35:55 PM
But c'mon. I'm trying to understand how you folks think. And if you all think alike on this matter, or differently. Help me out by simply answering(a) or (b) or (c) -- you can elaborate after that. Here's the question posed by the stories in my own words and pictures:
Sounds as if we?re some kind of strange creatures to you, and you?re here to observe our behavior. I can see you around your friends, laughing, talking, and drinking. You guys decide to talk about The Happy Atheist Forum and you say, ?They are fascinating creatures, I try to understand them, I try to communicate with them...but?.nothing...I don?t know how their mind works...and I want to know...Ah?.yessssss...my ignorance amuses me.?
:D
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Asmodean on December 23, 2014, 04:22:03 AM
...Except of course The Asmo. His Grayly-Divine Mind is omniunknowable. So it is.  >:(
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Magdalena on December 23, 2014, 04:40:06 AM
Asmo, you're lucky to have some type of Magneto's Helmet.
I'm sure it protects you from telepaths, Cerebro, and Gerry.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fth00.deviantart.net%2Ffs71%2FPRE%2Fi%2F2011%2F334%2F3%2Fb%2Fmagneto__s_helmet_by_yuelune-d4hr3o7.jpg&hash=ce5c5685be7b4f80788fcf59516f87e4e2c1356d)
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Asmodean on December 23, 2014, 04:57:33 AM
Yes. His Grayly-Divine Tinfoil Hat. It works.  >:(
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Tank on December 23, 2014, 07:15:42 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 22, 2014, 08:25:17 PM
Quote from: Davin on December 22, 2014, 02:55:25 PMAll I'm asking is that you cut the bullshit and get to your points, address all criticisms to your points, answer all questions, and to do so in your own words. You know, like we're having a conversation.

Okay, here's the question posed by the stories in my own words and pictures:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi58.tinypic.com%2F2jg5ax4.jpg&hash=ebc4f9ae68824d5e9215cee88d2f3416818fff5d)

On the top, we have three images of a guitar amp I designed and built: from the outside; with the "skin" removed; and a close-up of one portion. On the bottom, similar photos of a person.

Now to me the parallel, the analogy, is obvious. The one system I know to be designed, and the other appears to be designed. The important point is that this appearance, no matter whether I look from far or near, is so striking, so compelling, so obvious and overwhelming -- the complexity so vast and the engineering so subtle and the functioning so sublime -- indeed, the elegance and grace and overall beauty of the whole is so moving that I really can't imagine the human body not being the result of design. It's all I can do to hold myself back from saying something like, "Praise be to the Creator!" (which I realize is not the kind of thing that is welcome on this forum, but you did ask for my own words).

My question is this: Do you folks (a) not see the parallel at all? (b) see it but don't find it striking and compelling? or (c) do you see it as clearly as I do, but have convinced yourself on other grounds that the striking and otherwise compelling similarities are completely illusory?

Bait and switch.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Davin on December 23, 2014, 02:02:55 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 22, 2014, 09:35:55 PM
But c'mon. I'm trying to understand how you folks think.
I answered you and am awaiting you to address my points and questions.

Quote from: Gerry RzeppaAnd if you all think alike on this matter, or differently.
The answer should be obvious to anyone with a moderate level of intelligence, but since you asked and you don't seem to know: we all think differently. Many of us may come to the same conclusions to this silly little thing you've presented here, but that is just because you are using fallacious logic.

Also, any time you want act like an honest adult and come back into our conversation, that would be great.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Recusant on December 23, 2014, 05:06:11 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 22, 2014, 08:41:37 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 21, 2014, 07:23:12 PMThere are many things that a deity could do that I would consider as evidence for its existence. Here's one rather famous one: Heal an amputee.

. . . I'm also reminded of a story where some people found the healing of someone like an amputee infuriating, rather than convincing: "[Jesus] said to the man [with the withered hand], Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other. Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him." Others, I'm sure, found the event inspiring; but I suspect they were leaning that way before the healing. The bottom line, I think, is found at the end of the parable in Luke 16:19-31: "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Miracles have a very poor track record when it comes to convincing people.

You asked a question and I gave an honest answer. All the above is a non sequitur.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 22, 2014, 08:41:37 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 21, 2014, 07:23:12 PMOne can produce hypotheses through the use of analogy, but then these hypotheses need to be tested to produce actual evidence.

Agreed. But sometimes such hypotheses cannot be directly tested, but are indirectly tested by accepting them as postulates, and seeing what kind of logical fruit they bear. And example of this kind of reasoning can be found in one of my posts from another thread which I've pasted here for convenience:

The beauty of the design paradigm is that it works the same through and through and has but a single difficulty. We dream up things and make them happen; God dreams up things and makes them happen. The only part that's difficult to imagine is that God isn't just a creator, He's a self-existent creator. So one difficulty (an adjective, "self-existent", that occurs just once in the paradigm); the rest is familiar territory.

The alternative paradigm is much more complicated. It postulates two altogether different kinds of creation: the kind we all know and do, and the kind that nature does. We dream up things (that are less than ourselves) and make them happen. Nature doesn't dream at all, and yet somehow makes things that are greater than what she had to work with in the first place. So in this paradigm we've got at least two difficulties: creation without anyone dreaming up anything; and greater things inexplicably emerging from lesser things. And those difficulties are not isolated: they permeate the whole of nature from end to end and from the beginning to the indeterminate future. Well, except in us. We somehow emerged from that unfamiliar system and decided to work in the opposite way all the time.

I don't consider "logical fruit" to be evidence. Unlike fruit trees, logic does not convert crap into something delicious. Use crap to feed your logic, and all you produce is more crap.

You assume that the processes of the natural world can legitimately be equated with "creation" which humans engage in. This seems ridiculous to me. We long ago learned that the forces of nature are not personal in the way that human beings are. Thunder and lightning are not the manifestations of some petulant god; they're completely explainable as products of the energy of the atmosphere. You've maintained the same sort of thinking which created thunder gods when you try to personalize the natural world as a "creator."

Despite the fact that there are still many things to learn, the workings of nature are not "inexplicable," except to the ignorant. We continue to learn more about those workings, and have yet to discover any indication of a deity. Not in thunder and lightning, not in the formation of stars, and not in the evolution of life on this planet. You want to call all of that your god's doing, fine. Just don't expect anybody who's trying to learn what is actually happening in our universe to take you seriously.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 22, 2014, 08:41:37 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 21, 2014, 07:23:12 PMYou've dodged the issue here. We're talking about the supernatural, not "most of our lives." The issue is that the supposed evidence for the supernatural is not verifiable, and given that, I question whether it can even be considered evidence. It seems to me that you're basically saying it's a waste of time to consider this question, and it's too hard to even try.

I'm saying that believers approach the supernatural the same way they approach the rest of their lives: they believe, then act on those beliefs. For example, I believe (but am not certain) that writing this post is a worthwhile endeavor; but since I believe it is, I take the time and effort to do it. I also believe (but am not certain) that I'm going to be stuck with the kind of person I've made myself for all eternity; so I try to develop into the kind of person that I wouldn't mind having around forever. The same approach in both cases.

Now let's say I was an atheist. I might believe, for one reason or another, that writing a (somewhat different) post was worthwhile; and so I would take the time and effort to do it. Same as the theist version of me. But then I get stuck: since I believe that my final (and soon to come) end is non-existence, frankly, I feel lost. Perhaps that's because I think more philosophically than others; perhaps it's because I'm a naturally goal-oriented person. Perhaps it's something else. But whatever it is, it depresses me; if that's my ultimate (and not too far off end), what's the point?

So I go back to postulating God (as in the blue, above). And as I do, I notice that once again I've chosen the simpler, more familiar, and more consistent paradigm: the one that works the same for nature and super-nature; both here and hereafter.

Your belief makes you feel more comfortable and helps you avoid depression, but that is not any indication that your belief is correct.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 22, 2014, 08:41:37 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 21, 2014, 07:23:12 PMI've come to reject the existence of the supernatural as described by religion and preachers... I don't see any deep mysteries of the sort you're describing (one foot in the universe, the other somewhere else) going on. It all looks like this universe to me. Certainly there are unknowns waiting to be explored, but I've still seen no credible evidence that anything which could be honestly described as "supernatural" exists.

And that brings us back to our stories. Smullyan's planet where some "see humor in everything" while others can't see it in anything. Well's country where one guy sees everything and the rest see nothing. Abbott's flatland where some manage to "reach out" into that third dimension, while the rest are unable to get beyond the two. Those with ears to hear and those without.

None of those stories are evidence of anything except the capacity of human beings to tell stories.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 23, 2014, 09:28:39 PM
I must admit I'm surprised that you folks are so reluctant to answer this question. (And no, Davin, you didn't answer. You made comments on (a) and (b) and (c), but didn't clearly and unambiguously choose one.)

I think it would help the conversation a great deal if I knew what you each thought on this issue because I'm obviously going to reply to people "who can't see the parallel at all" differently than I'm going to answer people "who see it but don't find it compelling," etc. (And no, Tank, this is not bait and switch; this whole thread has been about what people can and can't "see": in Smullyan's story it's humor, in Well's story it's visible objects, in Abbott's story it's the third dimension; in this post it's evidence of design. I realize you and I got off on a tangent about belief and facts, but that often happens in threads with multiple participants. The thread is about "seeing".)

So again, c'mon. You folks are always bugging me to answer your questions, show me how it's done so I'll have your good example to follow. It really doesn't seem like that much to ask. Please answer the following question with an initial and unambiguous (a) or (b) or (c) -- you can elaborate, if you like, after that. Here's the question again, with the context:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi58.tinypic.com%2F2jg5ax4.jpg&hash=ebc4f9ae68824d5e9215cee88d2f3416818fff5d)

On the top, we have three images of a guitar amp I designed and built: from the outside; with the "skin" removed; and a close-up of one portion. On the bottom, similar photos of a person.

Now to me the parallel, the analogy, is obvious. The one system I know to be designed, and the other appears to be designed. The important point is that this appearance, no matter whether I look from far or near, is so striking, so compelling, so obvious and overwhelming -- the complexity so vast and the engineering so subtle and the functioning so sublime -- indeed, the elegance and grace and overall beauty of the whole is so moving that I really can't imagine the human body not being the result of design. It's all I can do to hold myself back from saying something like, "Praise be to the Creator!".

My question is this: Do you folks (a) not see the parallel at all? (b) see it but don't find it striking and compelling? or (c) do you see it as clearly as I do, but have convinced yourself on other grounds that the striking and otherwise compelling similarities are completely illusory?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Davin on December 23, 2014, 09:44:34 PM
I must admit that I'm not surprised that Gerry is avoiding having an honest adult discussion.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 12:56:46 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 22, 2014, 09:35:55 PMBut c'mon.

. . .

My question is this: Do you folks (a) not see the parallel at all? (b) see it but don't find it striking and compelling? or (c) do you see it as clearly as I do, but have convinced yourself on other grounds that the striking and otherwise compelling similarities are completely illusory?

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi62.tinypic.com%2F2lkd5ic.jpg&hash=00277c475e915c10e65db3a229936e8076c4e854)  You didn't include a choice (d) "none of the above, and I'll explain why".

It's not like you haven't been presenting this in various forms since you first started posting here. 

As I've explained to you before, when I look at nature I see it operating in a completely natural way, and it doesn't look designed to me in the same way human artifacts look designed. Can I see the parallel you find so compelling? Yes. Hackenslash posted an image which looked like a shingle beach. All the stones except one in that image are natural, in the sense that they were shaped by natural forces and not by a hominin. They all appear to be natural, but appearances (while sometimes useful) aren't a reasonable basis on which to draw definitive conclusions. If you feel a need to cram me into one of your categories, I think "b," while not a completely accurate reflection of my position, is the closest.

There is evidence, verifiable, tangible, unequivocal evidence which shows that life on this planet evolves. I find that much more compelling than the parallels you keep nattering on about.

Do you think Homo erectus looks designed?  How about Homo habilis? Does Australopithecus afarensis look designed to you? Do you find the similarities and differences in these species compelling at all? If so, what conclusions (if any) would you draw from those similarities and differences?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: xSilverPhinx on December 24, 2014, 01:40:46 AM
For the umpteenth time, it's a fallacy, Gerry.   ::) If I believed that praying worked then I would pray to the FSM that you would finally understand that.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 03:53:56 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 12:56:46 AMCan I see the parallel you find so compelling? Yes... If you feel a need to cram me into one of your categories, I think "b," while not a completely accurate reflection of my position, is the closest.

Thank you.

Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 12:56:46 AMDo you think Homo erectus looks designed? How about Homo habilis? Does Australopithecus afarensis look designed to you?

Yes: they strike me as being designed by believers in evolution, with scant evidence, specifically to support their theories.

Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 12:56:46 AMDo you find the similarities and differences in these species compelling at all?

No, because I don't find the evidence given for the existence of the species compelling. Too little data; too much (clearly biased) speculation.

I know how things get made, because I've been dreaming up things and making them happen for decades. You're asking me to believe in a process I've never seen. I've never seen anything significant arise by chance alone, nor by chance plus any kind of filtering mechanism -- unless, of course, (a) the desired result already existed in the initial domain, and (b) the selection mechanism was specifically designed to progressively narrow the domain to the desired end.

So if you want to convince me that there's a compelling alternative to the concept-design-creation paradigm, you're going to have to show me how that alternative process works. Simulate it for me, on a small scale, so I can understand it, study it, play around with it.

See the difference? The creationist paradigm is all around us, understood by everyone, used by everyone, is easy to simulate, and is exceeding fruitful -- everything from last night's dessert to tomorrow's iPhone has been and will be created using that paradigm. But the paradigm you're advocating is utterly foreign to all of us: nobody has ever used it to produce anything meaningful, and nobody has ever successfully simulated it.


Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Asmodean on December 24, 2014, 04:02:00 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 03:53:56 AM
So if you want to convince me that there's a compelling alternative to the concept-design-creation paradigm, you're going to have to show me how that alternative process works. Simulate it for me, on a small scale, so I can understand it, study it, play around with it.
Take a trip to the closest university with a decent microbiology department. If you suck up to the right people, they may actually run a small scale experiment for you.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 05:56:37 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 03:53:56 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 12:56:46 AMDo you think Homo erectus looks designed? How about Homo habilis? Does Australopithecus afarensis look designed to you?

Yes: they strike me as being designed by believers in evolution, with scant evidence, specifically to support their theories.

Please clarify this. Are you telling me you believe that these fossils are all fabrications? Because what you say below seems to confirm that's exactly what you believe.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 03:53:56 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 12:56:46 AMDo you find the similarities and differences in these species compelling at all?

No, because I don't find the evidence given for the existence of the species compelling. Too little data; too much (clearly biased) speculation.

So in your mind, all of the fossils of hominids found in Africa, Europe and Asia aren't evidence for the existence of these species? What exactly do you mean by "too little data; too much (clearly biased) speculation"?

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 03:53:56 AMI know how things get made, because I've been dreaming up things and making them happen for decades. You're asking me to believe in a process I've never seen. I've never seen anything significant arise by chance alone, nor by chance plus any kind of filtering mechanism -- unless, of course, (a) the desired result already existed in the initial domain, and (b) the selection mechanism was specifically designed to progressively narrow the domain to the desired end.

So if you want to convince me that there's a compelling alternative to the concept-design-creation paradigm, you're going to have to show me how that alternative process works. Simulate it for me, on a small scale, so I can understand it, study it, play around with it.

See the difference? The creationist paradigm is all around us, understood by everyone, used by everyone, is easy to simulate, and is exceeding fruitful -- everything from last night's dessert to tomorrow's iPhone has been and will be created using that paradigm. But the paradigm you're advocating is utterly foreign to all of us: nobody has ever used it to produce anything meaningful, and nobody has ever successfully simulated it.

"Automated Antenna Design with Evolutionary Algorithms" |American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics [PDF] (http://alglobus.net/NASAwork/papers/Space2006Antenna.pdf)

QuoteThe current practice of designing and optimizing antennas by hand is limited in its ability to develop new and better antenna designs because it requires significant domain expertise and is both time and labor intensive. As an alternative, researchers have been investigating evolutionary antenna design and optimization since the early 1990s, and the field has grown in recent years as computer speed has increased and electromagnetics simulators have improved. This techniques is based on evolutionary algorithms (EAs), a family stochastic search methods, inspired by natural biological evolution, that operate on a population of potential solutions using the principle of survival of the fittest to produce better and better approximations to a solution. Many antenna types have been investigated, including antenna arrays and quadrifilar helical antennas. In addition, evolutionary algorithms have been used to evolve antennas in-situ, that is, taking into account the effects of surrounding structures, which is very difficult for antenna designers to do by hand due to the complexities of electromagnetic interactions. Most recently, we have used evolutionary algorithms to evolve an antenna for the three spacecraft in NASA?s Space Technology 5 (ST5) mission and are working on antennas for other upcoming NASA missions, such as one of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellites (TDRS).

Now you can quibble and move the goalposts. This isn't the only example of scientists using simulations of the process of biological evolution to produce something meaningful.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 08:10:52 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 05:56:37 AMPlease clarify this. Are you telling me you believe that these fossils are all fabrications?

I do not believe all fossils are fabrications, though some, accepted by the scientific community for years, have been turned out to be frauds or serious mistakes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man). My personal view, as an amateur historian who studied probability while getting a degree in mathematics, is that we can barely tell what happened just a few hundred years ago, even when we have written records to guide us -- what's the chance that we're going to get a accurate account of pre-historical things that occurred, say, 100,000 years ago? Assuming, of course, that the earth existed then: there are differing opinions on that matter, as well. In short, to even speculate about something that long ago, you have to pile assumption on assumption and that kind of reasoning doesn't appeal to me. Give me something I can see and feel and test, experiment with, simulate.

Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 05:56:37 AMSo in your mind, all of the fossils of hominids found in Africa, Europe and Asia aren't evidence for the existence of these species?

All of the fossils of tiny pieces of a handful of possible hominids hold no interest for me, wherever they may be found, for the reasons stated above.

Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 05:56:37 AMWhat exactly do you mean by "too little data; too much (clearly biased) speculation"?

What I said above. I've seen how hard it is to get good data from just a hundred years ago; so I suspect that it's nearly impossible to get good data from 100,000 years ago.

Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 05:56:37 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 03:53:56 AMI've never seen anything significant arise by chance alone, nor by chance plus any kind of filtering mechanism -- unless, of course, (a) the desired result already existed in the initial domain, and (b) the selection mechanism was specifically designed to progressively narrow the domain to the desired end.
"Automated Antenna Design with Evolutionary Algorithms" |American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics [PDF] (http://alglobus.net/NASAwork/papers/Space2006Antenna.pdf)

Have you read that article? Every page has intelligent design written all over it. Recall my points (a) and (b) above. The selected antenna designs were (a) already in the initial domain, and (b) the selection mechanisms were specifically designed to progressively narrow the domain to the desired ends. Their algorithms are not "evolutionary" algorithms any more than Dawkin's WEASEL program was; they're just algorithms, designed with the target state known in advance. Here's the authors' own description of one of their algorithms:

"An antenna design is created by starting with an initial feedwire and adding wires. The initial feed wire was set to start at the origin with a length of 0.4 cm along the Z-axis. In addition the radius of the wire segments was fixed at the start of a run, with all wire segments in all antenna designs having the same radius. To produce antennas that are four-way symmetric about the Z-axis, the construction process is restricted to producing antenna wires that are fully contained in the positive XY quadrant and then after construction is complete, this arm is copied three times and these copies are placed in each of the other quadrants through rotations of 90â—¦/180â—¦/270â—¦.

The fitness function used to evaluate antennas is a function of the VSWR and gain values on the transmit and receive frequencies. The gain component of the fitness function uses the gain (in dBic) in 5◦ increments about the angles of interest ? from 40◦ ≤ θ ≤ 90◦ and 0◦ ≤ φ ≤ 360◦ ? and consists of a gainerror component and an gainoutlier component. The gainerror component of the fitness function is a modified version of the Least Squares Error function, and was later modified to evolve the antenna for the revised mission specifications. The gainoutlier component is a scaled count of the number of sample points in which the gain value is below the minimum acceptable. The VSWR component of the fitness function is constructed to put strong pressure toward evolving antennas with receive and transmit VSWR values below the required amounts of 1.2 and 1.5, reduced pressure at a value below these requirements (1.15 and 1.25) and then no pressure to go below 1.1.

The three components are multiplied together to produce the overall fitness score of an antenna design: F = vswr ? gainerror ? gainoutlier. The objective of the EA is to produce antenna designs that minimize F."


Please tell me which part of that sounds like random mutation and natural selection?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Niya on December 24, 2014, 11:31:56 AM
Hi Gerry, I am sorry I am not part of the discussion but I'd like to chime in, I'd say you are asking for something that is not there.

We already know that to form the human population and the diversity you see in it, you need more than a single pair of humans, that just throws the story of Adam and Eve completely out of the equation.

Evolution is not about simulating and seeing if it works. DNA and genes that is where the answers lie, even if you discard all the fossils. Common DNA proves evolution. For the same fact that your child gets half of its chromosomes from you and you share 96-98 % dna with a chimp and 50% with a banana.

I had a hard time wrapping my head around evolution in the start but it makes sense to me now. We don't have a complete unified record for proving evolution via fossils but the evidence in genetics is irrefutable.

A small example:
QuoteWe do know the human gene known as caspase-12, has sustained several knockout blows, though it is found in the identical relative location in the chimp. The chimp caspase-12 gene works just fine, as does the similar gene in nearly all mammals, including mice. But it doesn't work in us. That just points to one conclusion common ancestry.

The placement of humans in the evolutionary tree of life is only further strengthened by a comparison with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. The chimpanzee genome sequence has now been unveiled, and it reveals that humans and chimps are 96 percent identical at the DNA level. A further example of this close relationship stems from examination of the anatomy of human and chimpanzee chromosomes. Chromosomes are the visible manifestation of the DNA genome, apparent in the light microscope at the time that a cell divides. Each chromosome contains hundreds of genes. Figure 5.3 shows a comparison of the chromosomes between a human and a chimpanzee. The human has twenty-three pairs of chromosomes, but the chimpanzee has twenty-four.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pandasthumb.org%2Farchives%2Fimages%2FORcluster.jpg&hash=a82e31fc46ed6098160fd328e5c561271dfc3bcc)
The difference in the chromosome number appears to be a consequence of two ancestral chromosomes having fused together to generate human chromosome 2. That the human must be a fusion is further suggested by studying the gorilla and orangutan?they each have twenty-four pairs of chromosomes, looking much like the chimp.

Also with the determination of the complete sequence of the human genome, it has become possible to look at the precise location where this proposed chromosomal fusion must have happened. The sequence at that location?along the long arm of chromosome 2?is truly remarkable. Without getting into the technical details, let me just say that special sequences occur at the tips of all primate chromosomes. Those sequences generally do not occur elsewhere. But they are found right where evolution would have predicted, in the middle of our fused second chromosome. The fusion that occurred as we evolved from the apes has left its DNA imprint here. It is very difficult to understand this observation without postulating a common ancestor.
The diagram and related information is from From The language of God, by Francis Collins. chapter DECIPHERING GOD'S INSTRUCTION BOOK, pp. 132-139

If you can tell your objections to evolution, may be we could discuss those. ID to me is simply a God of the gaps argument.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Tank on December 24, 2014, 03:15:16 PM
 :-* :-* :-* Niya!
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Niya on December 24, 2014, 04:56:38 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 24, 2014, 03:15:16 PM
:-* :-* :-* Niya!

:-* :-* :-* Hello!  :)
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 08:10:52 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 05:56:37 AMPlease clarify this. Are you telling me you believe that these fossils are all fabrications?

I do not believe all fossils are fabrications, though some, accepted by the scientific community for years, have been turned out to be frauds or serious mistakes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man).

I didn't ask about known hoaxes and fabrications. Please answer my question about the hominid fossils honestly.

There were several in the scientific community who never accepted the "Piltdown Man" hoax, and it was the scientific community which exposed it for what it was. Archaeoraptor liaoningensis was constructed by an unscrupulous "fossil hunter" farmer, not by a scientist, and again, there were questions about its authenticity practically as soon as it appeared. As with "Piltdown Man," it was the scientific community which showed that it was not what it had been presented as. This same pattern holds true for the "Nebraska Man" tooth. Its identification was questioned pretty much as soon as it was presented, and its true identity was soon shown by the scientific community.

The fossils which are evidence for species like Homo erectus and Australopithecus afarensis are in a completely different category, yet it seems to me that you blithely implied that they're fakes. Do you believe that?

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 08:10:52 AMMy personal view, as an amateur historian who studied probability while getting a degree in mathematics, is that we can barely tell what happened just a few hundred years ago, even when we have written records to guide us -- what's the chance that we're going to get a accurate account of pre-historical things that occurred, say, 100,000 years ago? Assuming, of course, that the earth existed then: there are differing opinions on that matter, as well. In short, to even speculate about something that long ago, you have to pile assumption on assumption and that kind of reasoning doesn't appeal to me. Give me something I can see and feel and test, experiment with, simulate.

The only people who deny that the Earth existed 100,000 years ago are those who insist that when the findings of science conflict with what the Bible says, the Bible is always correct and the science is wrong. There are multiple sources of empirical, verifiable evidence which converge to support the age of the Earth, and the universe. Those whose religious zeal takes priority over their ability to honestly assess evidence and draw reasonable conclusions don't care about that, though. Denying that the Earth is over 100,000 years old is simply religiously motivated delusion. On the other hand, if we accept the religious zealot's view then the only reasonable conclusion is that their god is a deceiver on a grand scale who seeks to purposely mislead human beings.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 08:10:52 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 05:56:37 AMSo in your mind, all of the fossils of hominids found in Africa, Europe and Asia aren't evidence for the existence of these species?

All of the fossils of tiny pieces of a handful of possible hominids hold no interest for me, wherever they may be found, for the reasons stated above.

This sounds like willful ignorance to me. Hardly the approach of a scientist, it's more in line with what I'd expect to hear from somebody who is blinkered by their religion.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 08:10:52 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 05:56:37 AMWhat exactly do you mean by "too little data; too much (clearly biased) speculation"?

What I said above. I've seen how hard it is to get good data from just a hundred years ago; so I suspect that it's nearly impossible to get good data from 100,000 years ago.

Ignoring empirical evidence because you're able to convince yourself that somehow it's irrelevant shows that your status as a scientist is very likely to actually be something you've bestowed on yourself to try to give your statements some credibility. It's having the opposite effect on me. You're unable to give sound scientific reasons for questioning the validity of the scientific evidence, so you resort to transparently lame justifications for what appears to be outright rejection of it.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 08:10:52 AMHave you read that article? Every page has intelligent design written all over it. Recall my points (a) and (b) above. The selected antenna designs were (a) already in the initial domain, and (b) the selection mechanisms were specifically designed to progressively narrow the domain to the desired ends.
Living organisms are "already in the initial domain." Natural selection in biological evolution progressively narrows the domain to produce viable organisms. The algorithm used by the NASA scientists replicates that process. Your bland denial of this merely serves to show that you're unwilling to accept a fact that directly contradicts your assertions.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Davin on December 24, 2014, 05:25:07 PM
Gerry is interesting to watch. Specifically what points he decides to avoid, and the points he keeps on preaching which ignore the points he decided to avoid. I wonder if he thinks he is being clever or if he realizes that most can see right through the pathetically obvious tactic.

Gerry, like many others we have seen, sets himself up as an authority so that he can commit an appeal to authority with himself as the authority. It's hilarious to see people commit the fallacy in such a way.

Oh well, it is mildly interesting to see how far down the wrong path he will get before he gives up, says that he will leave the forum, then just comes right back a few days later.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Magdalena on December 24, 2014, 05:33:29 PM
Quote from: Davin on December 24, 2014, 05:25:07 PM
Gerry is interesting to watch. Specifically what points he decides to avoid, and the points he keeps on preaching which ignore the points he decided to avoid. I wonder if he thinks he is being clever or if he realizes that most can see right through the pathetically obvious tactic.

Gerry, like many others we have seen, sets himself up as an authority so that he can commit an appeal to authority with himself as the authority. It's hilarious to see people commit the fallacy in such a way.

Oh well, it is mildly interesting to see how far down the wrong path he will get before he gives up, says that he will leave the forum, then just comes right back a few days later.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.taubenschlag.de%2Fcms_pics%2Fpssst.jpg&hash=1ba38726d9e0b17421009fe5efca7d03f411fccb)
He's like MLA,
QuoteI would prefer if you didn't refer to me at all, and just discussed the ideas I present.

>:( I told you guys they might be related, but did anyone listen to me? Nnnnnooooo!  ::)
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Magdalena on December 24, 2014, 05:39:35 PM
It's good to see you again, Niya.  :-*  :-*  :-*
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: OldGit on December 24, 2014, 05:45:25 PM
Niya!  How lovely to hear from you!  Have a very Happy Christmas.! ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Davin on December 24, 2014, 05:45:44 PM
Quote from: Magdalena on December 24, 2014, 05:33:29 PM
Quote from: Davin on December 24, 2014, 05:25:07 PM
Gerry is interesting to watch. Specifically what points he decides to avoid, and the points he keeps on preaching which ignore the points he decided to avoid. I wonder if he thinks he is being clever or if he realizes that most can see right through the pathetically obvious tactic.

Gerry, like many others we have seen, sets himself up as an authority so that he can commit an appeal to authority with himself as the authority. It's hilarious to see people commit the fallacy in such a way.

Oh well, it is mildly interesting to see how far down the wrong path he will get before he gives up, says that he will leave the forum, then just comes right back a few days later.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.taubenschlag.de%2Fcms_pics%2Fpssst.jpg&hash=1ba38726d9e0b17421009fe5efca7d03f411fccb)
He's like MLA,
QuoteI would prefer if you didn't refer to me at all, and just discussed the ideas I present.

>:( I told you guys they might be related, but did anyone listen to me? Nnnnnooooo!  ::)
They do seem to be similar. I did address what he said, then he avoided my contentions and then altogether ignored me.  :D

It is funny watch him go though.  ;D
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Niya on December 24, 2014, 05:53:17 PM
Quote from: Magdalena on December 24, 2014, 05:39:35 PM
It's good to see you again, Niya.  :-*  :-*  :-*

Same Here Mag  :-*. I have been lurking around lately and trying to read the posts.   :)
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Niya on December 24, 2014, 05:54:10 PM
Quote from: OldGit on December 24, 2014, 05:45:25 PM
Niya!  How lovely to hear from you!  Have a very Happy Christmas.! ;D ;D ;D

Thanks a lot OG. hope you are doing great.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 08:06:10 PM
Quote from: Niya on December 24, 2014, 11:31:56 AMWe already know that to form the human population and the diversity you see in it, you need more than a single pair of humans, that just throws the story of Adam and Eve completely out of the equation.

We do not "already know that to form the human population and the diversity you see in it, you need more than a single pair of humans," Niya. Such assertions are disputed (see, for example, http://creation.com/genetics-primal-couple). That's why I think it is best not to prematurely base any argument on the speculations of either side, but rather stick with things we have first-hand personal experience with.

Quote from: Niya on December 24, 2014, 11:31:56 AMIf you can tell your objections to evolution, may be we could discuss those. ID to me is simply a God of the gaps argument.

My objections to the evolution paradigm, all based on first-hand experiences, are many; I'll give you four:

First, the process is utterly foreign to me. I understand (and have fruitfully employed) the concept-design-creation paradigm to add new facts to reality in every area of my life since I was a child; this post is itself an example. But I haven't seen a single example of the proposed random-mutation-natural-selection paradigm being used to create new information in any field; nobody uses it for anything useful.

Secondly, I find the creationist paradigm simpler and thus more likely true. As simple as possible, in fact, but no simpler. As I said above:

The beauty of the design paradigm is that it works the same through and through and has but a single difficulty. We dream up things and make them happen; God dreams up things and makes them happen. The only part that's difficult to imagine is that God isn't just a creator, He's a self-existent creator. So one difficulty (an adjective, "self-existent", that occurs just once in the paradigm); the rest is familiar territory.

The alternative paradigm is much more complicated. It postulates two altogether different kinds of creation: the kind we all know and do, and the kind that nature does. We dream up things (that are less than ourselves) and make them happen. Nature doesn't dream at all, and yet somehow makes things that are greater than what she had to work with in the first place. So in this paradigm we've got at least two difficulties: creation without anyone dreaming up anything; and greater things inexplicably emerging from lesser things. And those difficulties are not isolated: they permeate the whole of nature from end to end and from the beginning to the indeterminate future. Well, except in us. We somehow emerged from that unfamiliar system and decided to work in the opposite way all the time.


Thirdly, I find the evolutionary paradigm not just intellectually unsatisfying, but emotionally and aesthetically lacking as well. Downright depressing, in fact. Here's an example. This morning I received an email update from a Christian song site where some of my own songs are posted. It said:

"It started out as a little chorus that I sang to my children. Then we found out my father had cancer, our "adopted" son was shipped off to Iraq, and our youngest child and only daughter passed away - all within 3 months. I completed the song and we began to use it just before Papa started his treatments. He developed terrible nightmares due to the medication. One night he woke up in a cold sweat, panic stricken with his heart racing. This song came to his mind and he began to sing it! The reality of it struck him and he was able to chuckle, lay down and go back to sleep. The song literally pulled him through......us, too, I guess! Our church still requests it nearly every service. After all, it really DOESN'T matter what is on your plate, because with Jesus in your heart, EVERYTHING'S GONNA BE ALRIGHT!" I hope this song will bless all who hear it - feel free to pass it on and God bless you! Much Shalom, Rebecca"

I don't see where the evolutionary paradigm offers such people any comfort in times like those described above; and I certainly don't see how it could ever inspire the kind of song she's talking about. Here's a link to the song: http://4praise.com/cgi-bin/files/mp3/5668.mp3

Fourthly, the evolutionary paradigm is diametrically opposed to every intuitive perception I have developed (and have found reliable) over the years. Again, from above:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi58.tinypic.com%2F2jg5ax4.jpg&hash=ebc4f9ae68824d5e9215cee88d2f3416818fff5d)

On the top, we have three images of a guitar amp I designed and built: from the outside; with the "skin" removed; and a close-up of one portion. On the bottom, similar photos of a person. Now to me the parallel, the analogy, is obvious. The one system I know to be designed, and the other appears to be designed. The important point is that this appearance, no matter whether I look from far or near, is so striking, so compelling, so obvious and overwhelming -- the complexity so vast and the engineering so subtle and the functioning so sublime -- indeed, the elegance and grace and overall beauty of the whole is so moving that I really can't imagine the human body not being the result of design. It's all I can do to hold myself back from saying something like, "Praise be to the Creator!"

In short, I can easily and intuitively "see" the creationist's point of view; but I just don't "see" the evolutionary paradigm producing anything of value, large or small, no matter how much time you give it. The evolutionary way is simply -- according to all of my 60-plus years experience -- not how things work.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Tank on December 24, 2014, 08:14:47 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 08:06:10 PM
Quote from: Niya on December 24, 2014, 11:31:56 AMWe already know that to form the human population and the diversity you see in it, you need more than a single pair of humans, that just throws the story of Adam and Eve completely out of the equation.

We do not "already know that to form the human population and the diversity you see in it, you need more than a single pair of humans," Niya. Such assertions are disputed (see, for example, http://creation.com/genetics-primal-couple). That's why I think it is best not to prematurely base any argument on the speculations of either side, but rather stick with things we have first-hand personal experience with.

Quote from: Niya on December 24, 2014, 11:31:56 AMIf you can tell your objections to evolution, may be we could discuss those. ID to me is simply a God of the gaps argument.

My objections to the evolution paradigm, all based on first-hand experiences, are many; I'll give you four:

First, the process is utterly foreign to me. I understand (and have fruitfully employed) the concept-design-creation paradigm to add new facts to reality in every area of my life since I was a child; this post is itself an example. But I haven't seen a single example of the proposed random-mutation-natural-selection paradigm being used to create new information in any field; nobody uses it for anything useful.

Secondly, I find the creationist paradigm simpler and thus more likely true. As simple as possible, in fact, but no simpler. As I said above:

The beauty of the design paradigm is that it works the same through and through and has but a single difficulty. We dream up things and make them happen; God dreams up things and makes them happen. The only part that's difficult to imagine is that God isn't just a creator, He's a self-existent creator. So one difficulty (an adjective, "self-existent", that occurs just once in the paradigm); the rest is familiar territory.

The alternative paradigm is much more complicated. It postulates two altogether different kinds of creation: the kind we all know and do, and the kind that nature does. We dream up things (that are less than ourselves) and make them happen. Nature doesn't dream at all, and yet somehow makes things that are greater than what she had to work with in the first place. So in this paradigm we've got at least two difficulties: creation without anyone dreaming up anything; and greater things inexplicably emerging from lesser things. And those difficulties are not isolated: they permeate the whole of nature from end to end and from the beginning to the indeterminate future. Well, except in us. We somehow emerged from that unfamiliar system and decided to work in the opposite way all the time.


Thirdly, I find the evolutionary paradigm not just intellectually unsatisfying, but emotionally and aesthetically lacking as well. Downright depressing, in fact. Here's an example. This morning I received an email update from a Christian song site where some of my own songs are posted. It said:

"It started out as a little chorus that I sang to my children. Then we found out my father had cancer, our "adopted" son was shipped off to Iraq, and our youngest child and only daughter passed away - all within 3 months. I completed the song and we began to use it just before Papa started his treatments. He developed terrible nightmares due to the medication. One night he woke up in a cold sweat, panic stricken with his heart racing. This song came to his mind and he began to sing it! The reality of it struck him and he was able to chuckle, lay down and go back to sleep. The song literally pulled him through......us, too, I guess! Our church still requests it nearly every service. After all, it really DOESN'T matter what is on your plate, because with Jesus in your heart, EVERYTHING'S GONNA BE ALRIGHT!" I hope this song will bless all who hear it - feel free to pass it on and God bless you! Much Shalom, Rebecca"

I don't see where the evolutionary paradigm offers such people any comfort in times like those described above; and I certainly don't see how it could ever inspire the kind of song she's talking about. Here's a link to the song: http://4praise.com/cgi-bin/files/mp3/5668.mp3

Fourthly, the evolutionary paradigm is diametrically opposed to every intuitive perception I have developed (and have found reliable) over the years. Again, from above:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi58.tinypic.com%2F2jg5ax4.jpg&hash=ebc4f9ae68824d5e9215cee88d2f3416818fff5d)

On the top, we have three images of a guitar amp I designed and built: from the outside; with the "skin" removed; and a close-up of one portion. On the bottom, similar photos of a person. Now to me the parallel, the analogy, is obvious. The one system I know to be designed, and the other appears to be designed. The important point is that this appearance, no matter whether I look from far or near, is so striking, so compelling, so obvious and overwhelming -- the complexity so vast and the engineering so subtle and the functioning so sublime -- indeed, the elegance and grace and overall beauty of the whole is so moving that I really can't imagine the human body not being the result of design. It's all I can do to hold myself back from saying something like, "Praise be to the Creator!"

In short, I can easily and intuitively "see" the creationist's point of view; but I just don't "see" the evolutionary paradigm producing anything of value, large or small, no matter how much time you give it. The evolutionary way is simply -- according to all of my 60-plus years experience -- not how things work.

In a nutshell. Gerry is right and the whole scientific community is wrong.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: xSilverPhinx on December 24, 2014, 08:41:01 PM
You should be getting your Nobel Prize soon, Gerry.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 11:10:33 PM
Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PMI didn't ask about known hoaxes and fabrications. Please answer my question about the hominid fossils honestly... The fossils which are evidence for species like Homo erectus and Australopithecus afarensis are in a completely different category, yet it seems to me that you blithely implied that they're fakes. Do you believe that?

I do not believe they are what they are claimed to be; I may be wrong. But there are too many assumptions that precede the conclusions reached for me to even get interested in the subject. Let me put it this way: my interest in scientific investigation ends with that which can be experimentally reproduced and verified; the rest is not science in my mind, but historical and/or philosophical speculations disguised as science.

Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PMThe only people who deny that the Earth existed 100,000 years ago are those who insist that when the findings of science conflict with what the Bible says, the Bible is always correct and the science is wrong.

And the people who promote evolutionary theory are, by and large, people who also have an axe to grind: specifically, that God does not exist. So (a) the issues are hotly contested, and (b) both sides are obviously biased. Which is why I don't argue those points.

Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PMThere are multiple sources of empirical, verifiable evidence which converge to support the age of the Earth, and the universe.

There are also multiple sources of empirical, verifiable evidence which converge to support a young Earth, and a young universe. The interpretation of the data depends on one's initial assumptions. Which is why the issue is contested, debated, and anything but settled. So I don't use that kind of thing -- either way -- to support my positions. I'm arguing from direct personal experience; stuff we all know and do every day.

Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PM...if we accept the religious zealot's view then the only reasonable conclusion is that their god is a deceiver on a grand scale who seeks to purposely mislead human beings.

We've been over that. Think of God as an artist, not a mechanic, and the problem vanishes. When I write a book where one character is older than another, but the younger character actually existed before the younger in my universe, I'm not deceiving anyone in the story's universe, nor am I deceiving the reader. That's simply how creation sometimes works.

Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PMThis sounds like willful ignorance to me. Hardly the approach of a scientist, it's more in line with what I'd expect to hear from somebody who is blinkered by their religion.

No, it's the difference between a scientist who prefers to work empirically, on subjects where lots of tangible data and working simulations are available, and those who prefer to imagine possible origin scenarios that can never be conclusively established.

Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PMIgnoring empirical evidence because you're able to convince yourself that somehow it's irrelevant shows that your status as a scientist is very likely to actually be something you've bestowed on yourself to try to give your statements some credibility.

That's a very loose use of the word "empirical". I'm ignoring hypothetical historical scenarios based on scant evidence and an assumed philosophical perspective, not repeatable empirical evidence.

Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PMIt's having the opposite effect on me. You're unable to give sound scientific reasons for questioning the validity of the scientific evidence, so you resort to transparently lame justifications for what appears to be outright rejection of it.

I'm simply describing how I see things. Many others, in all walks of life, see the same things I do. And find them compelling. That's what the stories I've mentioned in this thread are all about. I don't expect you to adopt my point of view based on my say-so; but I do think you should be able to see that it is a rational point of view given the uncontested data that I'm working with.

Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PM
Living organisms are "already in the initial domain."

But not living organisms with the degree of complexity that is claimed to have evolved.

Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PMNatural selection in biological evolution progressively narrows the domain to produce viable organisms.

So natural selection takes a domain that doesn't include, say, people, and narrows that domain to produce people?

Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PMThe algorithm used by the NASA scientists replicates that process.

The algorithm in question was designed to produce a certain kind of result. Both the so-called mutation process and the selection filter in that program were specifically designed and tuned to produce the desired result -- which was known ahead of time. There's nothing "evolutionary" in the program, and certainly nothing "evolutionary" in the way it was created.

Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PMYour bland denial of this merely serves to show that you're unwilling to accept a fact that directly contradicts your assertions.

The example doesn't contradict my assertions, it supports them. The algorithm was clearly designed to produce antennas of a certain type; every line in the program was written with that goal in mind. And when it runs, it does what the designers intended it to do.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Asmodean on December 24, 2014, 11:46:06 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 11:10:33 PM
Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PMI didn't ask about known hoaxes and fabrications. Please answer my question about the hominid fossils honestly... The fossils which are evidence for species like Homo erectus and Australopithecus afarensis are in a completely different category, yet it seems to me that you blithely implied that they're fakes. Do you believe that?

I do not believe they are what they are claimed to be; I may be wrong. But there are too many assumptions that precede the conclusions reached for me to even get interested in the subject. Let me put it this way: my interest in scientific investigation ends with that which can be experimentally reproduced and verified; the rest is not science in my mind, but historical and/or philosophical speculations disguised as science.
Well, then it's you mind that's the problem, not science, is it not?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Niya on December 24, 2014, 11:47:11 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 08:06:10 PM
Quote from: Niya on December 24, 2014, 11:31:56 AMWe already know that to form the human population and the diversity you see in it, you need more than a single pair of humans, that just throws the story of Adam and Eve completely out of the equation.

We do not "already know that to form the human population and the diversity you see in it, you need more than a single pair of humans," Niya. Such assertions are disputed (see, for example, http://creation.com/genetics-primal-couple). That's why I think it is best not to prematurely base any argument on the speculations of either side, but rather stick with things we have first-hand personal experience with.


That article is really very awkward and poor Gerry. It fails to mention or identify that we have Genetic markers belonging to more than a single couple as we dig into DNA. We have mitochondrial DNA that effectively proves more than a single ancestor. This is no assumption, this is pure evidence Gerry. We have more than a single couple dna. So it is beyond any doubt whatsoever.

Infact the bottle neck being reference was atleast 3000 persons at its minimum and around 12000 at max. But it was never in single digits, nor the genepool could afford it to bring out the diverse human beings on this planet.

And to be honest, there is nothing wrong with making an assumption as long as we have merit to make one. The only assumption which is not acceptable is the one which has no spine to back it up. In this case particular, we not only have merited assumption (which is not arbitrary at all) regarding the bottle neck size but we have evidence of more than a single pair in our DNA, it is proof in it self and that kind of makes the bottleneck quite insignificant.

I'm short on time so I will respond to the rest of your post later. Merry Christmas.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 11:55:58 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 11:10:33 PM
Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PMI didn't ask about known hoaxes and fabrications. Please answer my question about the hominid fossils honestly... The fossils which are evidence for species like Homo erectus and Australopithecus afarensis are in a completely different category, yet it seems to me that you blithely implied that they're fakes. Do you believe that?

I do not believe they are what they are claimed to be; I may be wrong. But there are too many assumptions that precede the conclusions reached for me to even get interested in the subject. Let me put it this way: my interest in scientific investigation ends with that which can be experimentally reproduced and verified; the rest is not science in my mind, but historical and/or philosophical speculations disguised as science.

Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PMThe only people who deny that the Earth existed 100,000 years ago are those who insist that when the findings of science conflict with what the Bible says, the Bible is always correct and the science is wrong.

And the people who promote evolutionary theory are, by and large, people who also have an axe to grind: specifically, that God does not exist. So (a) the issues are hotly contested, and (b) both sides are obviously biased. Which is why I don't argue those points.

Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PMThere are multiple sources of empirical, verifiable evidence which converge to support the age of the Earth, and the universe.

There are also multiple sources of empirical, verifiable evidence which converge to support a young Earth, and a young universe. The interpretation of the data depends on one's initial assumptions. Which is why the issue is contested, debated, and anything but settled. So I don't use that kind of thing -- either way -- to support my positions. I'm arguing from direct personal experience; stuff we all know and do every day.

Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PM...if we accept the religious zealot's view then the only reasonable conclusion is that their god is a deceiver on a grand scale who seeks to purposely mislead human beings.

We've been over that. Think of God as an artist, not a mechanic, and the problem vanishes. When I write a book where one character is older than another, but the younger character actually existed before the younger in my universe, I'm not deceiving anyone in the story's universe, nor am I deceiving the reader. That's simply how creation sometimes works.

Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PMThis sounds like willful ignorance to me. Hardly the approach of a scientist, it's more in line with what I'd expect to hear from somebody who is blinkered by their religion.

No, it's the difference between a scientist who prefers to work empirically, on subjects where lots of tangible data and working simulations are available, and those who prefer to imagine possible origin scenarios that can never be conclusively established.

Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PMIgnoring empirical evidence because you're able to convince yourself that somehow it's irrelevant shows that your status as a scientist is very likely to actually be something you've bestowed on yourself to try to give your statements some credibility.

That's a very loose use of the word "empirical". I'm ignoring hypothetical historical scenarios based on scant evidence and an assumed philosophical perspective, not repeatable empirical evidence.

Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PMIt's having the opposite effect on me. You're unable to give sound scientific reasons for questioning the validity of the scientific evidence, so you resort to transparently lame justifications for what appears to be outright rejection of it.

I'm simply describing how I see things. Many others, in all walks of life, see the same things I do. And find them compelling. That's what the stories I've mentioned in this thread are all about. I don't expect you to adopt my point of view based on my say-so; but I do think you should be able to see that it is a rational point of view given the uncontested data that I'm working with.

Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PM
Living organisms are "already in the initial domain."

But not living organisms with the degree of complexity that is claimed to have evolved.

Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PMNatural selection in biological evolution progressively narrows the domain to produce viable organisms.

So natural selection takes a domain that doesn't include, say, people, and narrows that domain to produce people?

Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PMThe algorithm used by the NASA scientists replicates that process.

The algorithm in question was designed to produce a certain kind of result. Both the so-called mutation process and the selection filter in that program were specifically designed and tuned to produce the desired result -- which was known ahead of time. There's nothing "evolutionary" in the program, and certainly nothing "evolutionary" in the way it was created.

Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PMYour bland denial of this merely serves to show that you're unwilling to accept a fact that directly contradicts your assertions.

The example doesn't contradict my assertions, it supports them. The algorithm was clearly designed to produce antennas of a certain type; every line in the program was written with that goal in mind. And when it runs, it does what the designers intended it to do.


(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi152.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs165%2FSpaghettiSawUs%2Foh-boy_zps3e892b26.gif&hash=0fd7d680ff3edac8285342a0b6779558cbf0016f)

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi62.tinypic.com%2Fat4id.jpg&hash=d38ec88a27a6795a31e693bcd8b48968b3c3f66f)  What a wonderful Christmas gift! I really do appreciate posts full of Creationist malarkey. Gerry Rzeppa, you do a fine job. I've seen better, but not all that many.

I'll enjoy knowing it's here, but am not going to involve myself with a proper response just now.  

Merry Christmas to you and your family. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi40.tinypic.com%2F20t0a6a.gif&hash=12b9e79da6613ca1b0f1224682d586ee9ec59ff7)
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 25, 2014, 02:03:37 AM
Quote from: Tank on December 24, 2014, 08:14:47 PMIn a nutshell. Gerry is right and the whole scientific community is wrong.

Well, they've been wrong before, and in big ways. When I was born, the universe was 5 billion years old. Now it's 13.8 billion years old. But scientists are especially bad at spotting elephants in the room.

And here's the biggest of those elephants. The creationist paradigm is inescapable, while the evolutionary paradigm is clearly optional. I can easily escape the evolutionary paradigm simply by doing what I normally do: dream things up and make them happen. But the reverse is not true. Even the most dedicated evolutionists must plan their work and work their plans. Every experiment that has ever attempted to demonstrate evolutionary principles, every article ever written in the defense of evolutionary principles, every speech promoting evolutionary principles, has been conceived, designed, and implemented in a thoroughly creationist way. Even to say I'm wrong in a reply to this post, you have to dream up what you want to say, choose the words to express it, and then force the laws of nature to bend to your will as you strike the appropriate keys. Irony of ironies! It's necessary to become a creator -- in thought, word, and deed -- in order to deny the existence of my Creator!


Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 25, 2014, 02:07:36 AM
Quote from: NiyaMerry Christmas.

Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 11:55:58 PMMerry Christmas to you and your family.

I'm one of those who "esteems all days alike" (Rom 14:5), but thank you anyway. And the best to you and yours as well.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Tank on December 25, 2014, 08:29:24 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 25, 2014, 02:03:37 AM
Quote from: Tank on December 24, 2014, 08:14:47 PMIn a nutshell. Gerry is right and the whole scientific community is wrong.

Well, they've been wrong before, and in big ways. Especially when it comes to missing the elephant in the room.

And here's the biggest of those elephants. The creationist paradigm is inescapable, while the evolutionary paradigm is clearly optional. I can easily escape the evolutionary paradigm simply by doing what I normally do: dream things up and make them happen. But the reverse is not true. Even the most dedicated evolutionists must plan their work and work their plans. Every experiment that has ever attempted to demonstrate evolutionary principles, every article ever written in the defense of evolutionary principles, every speech promoting evolutionary principles, has been conceived, designed, and implemented in a thoroughly creationist way. Even to say I'm wrong in a reply to this post, you have to dream up what you want to say, choose the words to express it, and then force the laws of nature to bend to your will as you strike the appropriate keys. Irony of ironies! It's necessary to become a creator -- in thought, word, and deed -- in order to deny your Creator!


Gerry, you do not understand science and you are not a scientist. Science will quite possibly always be wrong to some extent. It is a progression of understanding based on the continuous discovery of new information and/or the refinement of existing information based on new data/insights. Science works, the evidence is the computer you are sitting at. You can't deny the efficacy of the scientific method. If you use a computer you can't deny the same process that produced the Theory of Evolution. Your personal dislikes and prejudices don't count Gerry.

Now if you're going to attempt to discredit science on the basis of a few fraudulent claims you had better watch you back. Why? Because the history of religion is a story of lies, deception, delusion and fraud. There isn't one jot of truth in any Institutionalised Superstition at all. Religions are built on fraud and deception. If you have any doubts then just take Scientology and Mormonism. Just two religions created by charlatans. There is no religion that does not ultimately rely for its existence on the willing suspension of dis-belief of reality on the part of it's followers.

You are a victim of your own evolved human desires to feel empowered and important in a universe that is utterly ambivalent to your, and my, existence. We're apes with just enough brains to be dangerous. And when our ancestors sat in the dark of the night hearing sound they didn't understand, sleeping and dreaming things that terrified them they imagined a Great Sky Daddy to make existence bearable. That is when mythology took root and in your case it's still deep in your mind. Only when you realise that will you see the universe for what it really is.

Gerry, we have no common ground when it comes to our views of the universe and its origins. But 24 hours a day every day science grows our understanding of reality and 24 hours a day every day creationists have to create ever more torturous excuses/explanations as to why their fairy tales true.

Merry Christmas Gerry
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 25, 2014, 09:50:57 AM
Quote from: Tank on December 25, 2014, 08:29:24 AMScience works, the evidence is the computer you are sitting at. You can't deny the efficacy of the scientific method.

The programmable computer was originated by Charles Babbage, a English polymath -- mathematician, philosopher, mechanical engineer, and yes, a Christian. After a fruitful lifetime of study and invention, at the age of 73, he wrote, "Almost all thinking men who have studied the laws which govern the animate and inanimate world around us, agree that the belief in the existence of one Supreme Creator, possessed of infinite wisdom and power, is open to far less difficulties than the supposition of the absence of any cause, or of the existence of a plurality of causes."

Quote from: Tank on December 25, 2014, 08:29:24 AMIf you use a computer you can't deny the same process that produced the Theory of Evolution.

The computer and the theory of evolution are not comparable, and were obviously not produced by the same methods. Computers are physical electro-mechanical devices, and everybody agrees that they actually work. The theory of evolution is an amorphous and fickle collection of ideas regarding the origin and history of life in the universe -- and a much disputed theory it is.

Quote from: Tank on December 25, 2014, 08:29:24 AMWe're apes with just enough brains to be dangerous.

So why does an ape like you care what an ape like me has to say? What danger to I pose to you and yours? Pass me a banana.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Asmodean on December 25, 2014, 10:02:33 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 25, 2014, 09:50:57 AM
and a much disputed theory it is.
Actually, no, it is not. Like any other scientific theory, it expands and changes to reflect the current knowledge, but the myth that it is being overall disputed by any one worth listening to is just that - a myth.

Evolution the theory explains evolution the fact and both are better documented than many other mainstream scientific facts and theories.

To be clear, you and your creationist ilk disputing evolution does not make it disputed in the sense you seem to imply.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Tank on December 25, 2014, 10:26:49 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 25, 2014, 09:50:57 AM
Quote from: Tank on December 25, 2014, 08:29:24 AMScience works, the evidence is the computer you are sitting at. You can't deny the efficacy of the scientific method.

The programmable computer was originated by Charles Babbage, a English polymath -- mathematician, philosopher, mechanical engineer, and yes, a Christian. After a fruitful lifetime of study and invention, at the age of 73, he wrote, "Almost all thinking men who have studied the laws which govern the animate and inanimate world around us, agree that the belief in the existence of one Supreme Creator, possessed of infinite wisdom and power, is open to far less difficulties than the supposition of the absence of any cause, or of the existence of a plurality of causes."
When he wrote that most people were Christian. That doesn't make what he wrote true. Another pointless appeal to authority. How long ago did he say that?

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 25, 2014, 09:50:57 AM
Quote from: Tank on December 25, 2014, 08:29:24 AMIf you use a computer you can't deny the same process that produced the Theory of Evolution.

The computer and the theory of evolution are not comparable, and were obviously not produced by the same methods. Computers are physical electro-mechanical devices, and everybody agrees that they actually work. The theory of evolution is an amorphous and fickle collection of ideas regarding the origin and history of life in the universe -- and a much disputed theory it is.
Another example of you avoiding the point. The ToE is only disputed by idiots and idealogs. No reputable scientist disputes it. All science, physics, chemistry and biology are driven and based on the scientific method. Evolution is the underpinning of all biology. Your personal needs and consequent disingenuous rhetoric are irrelevant to science and the scientific method. Your beliefs are just futile hand waving. 

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 25, 2014, 09:50:57 AM
Quote from: Tank on December 25, 2014, 08:29:24 AMWe're apes with just enough brains to be dangerous.

So why does an ape like you care what an ape like me has to say? What danger to I pose to you and yours? Pass me a banana.
Because you're a liar and deceiver Gerry. You're the intellectual version of Osama Bin Ladin. People like you have had it your own way ever since the first ancestor screamed in fear waking up from a dream. But no longer Gerry. Your mythological and superstitious ideas are going to wither and die because they are wrong. Get over yourself Gerry, you and your kind have got nothing, you're playing with a busted flush and no amount of bluffing is going to work this time.  ;D
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Ecurb Noselrub on December 25, 2014, 12:25:01 PM
Gerry, if you could see God, wouldn't you intuitively think he was designed?  Would you be correct?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: OldGit on December 25, 2014, 02:35:02 PM
Bruce is right: faithheads pack up all the hard questions into one box labelled "God did these".  Easy.  But the faithheads won't see that they've now set themselves a much bigger and harder set of questions concerning God.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 25, 2014, 08:35:40 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on December 25, 2014, 10:02:33 AM...the myth that [the theory of evolution] is being overall disputed by any one worth listening to is just that - a myth.

Quote from: TankThe ToE is only disputed by idiots and idealogs. No reputable scientist disputes it.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

So these 800 scientists are a myth? are idiots? aren't reputable? C'mon. Dispute is dispute. And it's always the minority view that advances science. Always.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Tank on December 25, 2014, 08:46:50 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 25, 2014, 08:35:40 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on December 25, 2014, 10:02:33 AM...the myth that [the theory of evolution] is being overall disputed by any one worth listening to is just that - a myth.

Quote from: TankThe ToE is only disputed by idiots and idealogs. No reputable scientist disputes it.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

So these 800 scientists are a myth? are idiots? aren't reputable? C'mon. Dispute is dispute. And it's always the minority view that advances science. Always.

The Discovery Institute! Fuck the liars! Authors of the Wedge Document. You're citing those cunts! You must be off your head Gerry. Do you think I was born yesterday? What the fuck are you on?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: xSilverPhinx on December 25, 2014, 08:50:08 PM
Mega facepalm.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 25, 2014, 08:57:31 PM
Quote
Tank: We're apes with just enough brains to be dangerous.
Gerry: So why does an ape like you care what an ape like me has to say?
Tank: Because you're a liar and deceiver Gerry.
You're a curious creature, Chris. You claim you're an "ape with just enough brains to be dangerous," yet you write like a son of God who believes in an objective standard of morality that transcends all of us and to which all of us ought to submit; a standard which includes the command: Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Tank on December 25, 2014, 08:58:01 PM
Oh Gerry if you think numbers are important then have a look at Project Steve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve).

QuoteProject Steve is a list of scientists with the given name Steven or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who "support evolution". It was originally created by the National Center for Science Education as a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of creationist attempts to collect a list of scientists who "doubt evolution," such as the Answers in Genesis' list of scientists who accept the biblical account of the Genesis creation narrative[1] or the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. The list pokes fun at such endeavors to make it clear that, "We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!" It also honors Stephen Jay Gould.[2]

I take your 800 and raise you 1,200 scientists, just the ones called Steve, who do uphold that the Theory of Evolution as scientifically valid. The other thing of note is that there is not one single lab anywhere on Earth using creationism to develop any new concept or theory that benefits humanity in any way whatsoever.

So that's another huge fail on your part Gerry.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Tank on December 25, 2014, 09:04:44 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 25, 2014, 08:57:31 PM
Quote
Tank: We're apes with just enough brains to be dangerous.
Gerry: So why does an ape like you care what an ape like me has to say?
Tank: Because you're a liar and deceiver Gerry.
You're a curious creature, Chris. You claim you're an "ape with just enough brains to be dangerous," yet you write like a son of God who believes in an objective standard of morality that transcends all of us and to which all of us ought to submit; a standard which includes the command: Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Gerry you are a liar. You know full well that evolution theory is not in dispute, except by idiots and liars. As a creationist you must, by definition, endorse lying. So be the morality objective or subjective you Gerry are a deceiver. So get over your mythology, self-deceit and delusion. Oh and the 'quote mining' is another typical disingenuous creationist tactic. I would expect no better from you and you continue to prove me right and reinforce my already low opinion of your kind.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Tank on December 25, 2014, 09:12:07 PM
And Gerry here are details of the Wedge Strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy) and the Wedge Document (http://ncse.com/files/pub/creationism/The_Wedge_Strategy.pdf) produced by them. Citing the Discovery Institute utterly destroyed any credibility you ever had.   
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: xSilverPhinx on December 25, 2014, 09:18:09 PM
Well Gerry, when defending belief in god you said that there are millions of people who believe so therefore it must be true. Why now are you saying that the minority view must be right this time?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Asmodean on December 25, 2014, 09:19:33 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 25, 2014, 08:46:50 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 25, 2014, 08:35:40 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on December 25, 2014, 10:02:33 AM...the myth that [the theory of evolution] is being overall disputed by any one worth listening to is just that - a myth.

Quote from: TankThe ToE is only disputed by idiots and idealogs. No reputable scientist disputes it.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

So these 800 scientists are a myth? are idiots? aren't reputable? C'mon. Dispute is dispute. And it's always the minority view that advances science. Always.

The Discovery Institute! Fuck the liars! Authors of the Wedge Document. You're citing those cunts! You must be off your head Gerry. Do you think I was born yesterday? What the fuck are you on?
Ha! And here The Asmo was, preparing to get all bluntly-rude. No need, apparently.  :D
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 25, 2014, 09:55:57 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 25, 2014, 12:25:01 PM
Gerry, if you could see God...

Let me stop you there. If I could see God how? When a sphere is thrust into (or perhaps I should say, through) Flatland, Flatlanders perceive it first as (a) a small circle that has appeared out of nowhere; then (b) as a circle that grows bigger and bigger; then (c) as a circle that shrinks; and finally (d) as a circle that simply vanishes. What can such people really know about spheres? And with more complex three-dimensional objects, things get more confusing from their point of view: a hand, for example, may appear as a single oval (if only one fingertip is passing through), or as multiple disconnected ovals (if more than one finger is partially inserted), or as an oddly-shaped but connected whole that bears no resemblance to ovals at all (when the hand is inserted parallel to their country), etc. What can such people really ever know about hands? [By the way, I've found this analogy very helpful when considering Ezekiel's visions of God.]

Now let's look at your question again in this light:

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 25, 2014, 12:25:01 PMIf you could see [the teensy portion of God that can be reduced to dimensions that are within the grasp of your current faculties] wouldn't you intuitively think he was designed?

I might. More likely, I would think that what I could see of Him was unique; like nothing I had ever seen before: appearing out of nowhere, growing, shrinking, disappearing, taking on all kinds of connected and disconnected shapes in the process; completely unlike created objects, and utterly outside of my control.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 25, 2014, 12:25:01 PMWould you be correct?

Never entirely correct; I might get a glimpse of the truth or a helpful insight here or there, but the Subject is clearly far outside the range of my faculties; outside the whole of universe, in fact.

Another way of looking at the question is this: holy men and theologians typically describe God not a possessing attributes, but as being those things: God IS love, for example. So perhaps someday my faculties will be extended to where I can comprehend more of God and I will see then, not that God "appears to be designed" but rather that "God IS design". But I think holy men and theologians talk that way simply because they're reached the limits of our faculties (and thus our natural languages). "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever..."
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Asmodean on December 25, 2014, 10:35:33 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 25, 2014, 09:55:57 PM
Let me stop you there. If I could see God how? When a sphere is thrust into (or perhaps I should say, through) Flatland, Flatlanders perceive it first as (a) a small circle that has appeared out of nowhere; then (b) as a circle that grows bigger and bigger; then (c) as a circle that shrinks; and finally (d) as a circle that simply vanishes.
No. They would observe a hole in their Flatland. If that land was elastic enough to indeed shrink back after the sphere's equator passed through, it would not be a huge effort for Flatlanders to determine exactly what kind of geometry has passed through their world.

Quote
What can such people really know about spheres?
In your example, as much as we can, excepting visual perception.

...but the whole thought experiment is in fact stupid, unless you can demonstrate why a god would occupy dimensions other than spacetime.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 26, 2014, 01:44:08 AM
Quote from: Tank on December 25, 2014, 08:58:01 PM...there is not one single lab anywhere on Earth using creationism to develop any new concept or theory that benefits humanity in any way whatsoever.

On the contrary; there is not a single lab anywhere on Earth using the evolutionary paradigm to develop any new concept or theory that benefits humanity in any way whatsoever. Every lab that has ever developed anything that benefits humanity has employed the creationist paradigm: Individuals conceive ideas, design experiments, develop products. In that order. A thoroughly top-down, creationist way of doing things. It's how the world (including the entire scientific enterprise) works.

Hey, look! I just used that same creationist paradigm to create this post. As you did, when you replied to my previous post. It's inescapable. If you want to get anything done at all, you're going to have to think, speak, and act like a creationist.

Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 26, 2014, 02:02:43 AM
Quote from: Tank on December 25, 2014, 09:04:44 PMGerry you are a liar. You know full well that evolution theory is not in dispute, except by idiots and liars.

I do not know that. From my dictionary: "Idiot, noun: A person of subnormal intelligence; liar, noun: a person who tells an untruth with the intent to deceive." I'm pretty sure that Michael Behe is not a person of subnormal intelligence, and I'm pretty sure he writes without any intent to deceive. Ditto for scores of other creationist scientists whose works I've studied. Evolutionary theory is clearly disputed by lots of intelligent, well-informed people.

And then there's "the rest of us". The 42% of Americans who (according to this recent poll: http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx) believe in the creationist view of human origins. Are all of them idiots and liars as well? And what about the 31% that think the evolutionary process, without God's guiding hand, would not be up to the job? Idiots and liars again? That's almost three out of every four people!



Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Ecurb Noselrub on December 26, 2014, 02:46:47 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 25, 2014, 09:55:57 PM

Let me stop you there. If I could see God how?

However God could be seen, that's how. It's a hypothetical.  Assume that you could, at one time, contemplate the full complexity of God. This is a thought experiment. Wouldn't you intuitively think that such complexity had been designed?  Of course you would!  God is more complex than the human brain or the guitar amp you built.  Your a priori presumption in your argument is that this level of complexity (amps and brains) requires a creator.  You would presume that something exponentially more complex would also require a creator. You can't apply a presumption to an amp or a brain and then not apply it when you get to God. Classic Christian theology says that God was not created - he is the uncreated creator.  If something as complex as God was not created, then neither is it necessary for anything else to be created.

If you want to believe in God, that's fine.  So do I.  But don't base your argument on a logic that cannot be substantiated.  Furthermore, to say that "God is Design" is coming pretty close to pantheism - it appears to equate God with the forces of the cosmos. 

Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 26, 2014, 05:56:16 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 25, 2014, 09:18:09 PM
Well Gerry, when defending belief in god you said that there are millions of people who believe so therefore it must be true.

I did say that there are millions of people who believe, but I did not say "therefore it must be true". I said that ubiquitous belief needed to be accounted for, and that a blanket statement like "There's no proof of god so I win," didn't quite do the job.

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 25, 2014, 09:18:09 PMWhy now are you saying that the minority view must be right this time?

You need to read more carefully. I said that scientific advances are always the result of the minority view because, by definition, scientific advances address either (a) current majority thinking that is in error, or (b) new areas of research that haven't yet been addressed by the majority. That's different, of course, than saying that any and every minority view will prove to be true.

In general I believe that sometimes the majority are right, sometimes they're wrong.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 26, 2014, 06:01:45 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on December 25, 2014, 10:35:33 PM...but the whole thought experiment is in fact stupid, unless you can demonstrate why a god would occupy dimensions other than spacetime.

Seems to me it's a given that the God who, "in the beginning [of time] created the heavens [space] and the earth [matter]," would be outside of that particular time-space-matter configuration.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Asmodean on December 26, 2014, 06:27:14 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 26, 2014, 06:01:45 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on December 25, 2014, 10:35:33 PM...but the whole thought experiment is in fact stupid, unless you can demonstrate why a god would occupy dimensions other than spacetime.

Seems to me it's a given that the God who, "in the beginning [of time] created the heavens [space] and the earth [matter]," would be outside of that particular time-space-matter configuration.

No.

1. You are imbuing words with meaning which they do not necessarilly posess. Earth is a subset of matter. Heaven is, if defined as "that which is above ground", a subset of space. A beginning does not have to denote the beginning of time at all.

2. You can build a house and still live in it, be composed of the same kind of matter as it and be perfectly observable by it. A cheap metaphor, I know, but it follows the logic you have been pushing for quite some time now.

Now, rather than getting bogged down in some ridiculous semantc argument, would you kindly do the following if you wish to maintain that your thought experiment is valid:

Quote from: Asmodean on December 25, 2014, 10:35:33 PMdemonstrate why a god would occupy dimensions other than spacetime.

A [weak] philosphical construct is not a proof of concept.

EDIT: Come to think of it, I guess I should define "why" in this context. There are two components to it: that a god could occupy dimensions other than spacetime and that it would, in the sense that the dimensions we can easly percieve are insufficent for such a creature.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 26, 2014, 07:06:45 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 26, 2014, 02:46:47 AMIt's a hypothetical. Assume that you could, at one time, contemplate the full complexity of God. This is a thought experiment. Wouldn't you intuitively think that such complexity had been designed?  Of course you would! 

Obviously, to "contemplate the full complexity of God" I would have to have faculties that I don't currently possess -- faculties I frankly can't even imagine. Now since I can't even imagine the kind of faculties necessary for such comprehension, it would be silly for me to speculate on the kind of intuitions that those unimaginable faculties might cause to arise in someone so endowed.

Most mathematicians tell me that the number of positive integers, and the number of positive integers that are odd, is equal (because the one set can be mapped onto the other); maybe they're right; maybe they're not. I don't know. But I strongly suspect (as other mathematicians do) that the question is beyond our comprehension. I put your thought experiment in the same category.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 26, 2014, 02:46:47 AMGod is more complex than the human brain or the guitar amp you built.

I think you're making the same kind of implicit assumptions with that statement as above. You're assuming that complexity in our minds and time-space-matter universe is the same kind of thing as complexity in God's domain and that the two can thus be compared. I'm not sure that's the case. Theologians for centuries have been telling us that God is simple, not complex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity).

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 26, 2014, 02:46:47 AMYour a priori presumption in your argument is that this level of complexity (amps and brains) requires a creator. You would presume that something exponentially more complex would also require a creator.

Just to be clear, my argument in this case could be boiled down to:

Major premise: I know that I have designed and constructed complex mechanisms like guitar amps.
Minor premise: The human body has many attributes in common with those complex mechanisms.
Conclusion: It is not unreasonable to believe that the human body was designed and constructed by somebody.

But I wasn't arguing the existence of God with my pictures of amps and bodies (see my next response). I was simply asking if the parallel was as obvious and compelling to others as it was with me. And I'm still surprised at how difficult it is to get a simple response to that query.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 26, 2014, 02:46:47 AMYou can't apply a presumption to an amp or a brain and then not apply it when you get to God.

Sure I can -- because God is not a conclusion in my way of thinking, but a postulate: "a proposition that is accepted as true (without proof) in order to provide a basis for logical reasoning." I've made this clear in numerous posts. I assume that God exists, and see where that logically leads me; I don't try to prove the existence of God by any means because I don't think it's possible to do so; I think that's starting at the wrong end. I also assume, in a different train of thought, that God does not exist and see where that logically leads me. Then I choose between the postulates (God, no God) based on the logical fruit that each postulate bears.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 26, 2014, 02:46:47 AMClassic Christian theology says that God was not created - he is the uncreated creator. If something as complex as God was not created, then neither is it necessary for anything else to be created.

You're forgetting that Classic Christian theology also says that God is not complex, but simple. See above.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 26, 2014, 02:46:47 AMIf you want to believe in God, that's fine. So do I. But don't base your argument on a logic that cannot be substantiated.

Again, I'm not arguing for the existence of God; I'm assuming the existence of God and seeing where that leads.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 26, 2014, 02:46:47 AMFurthermore, to say that "God is Design" is coming pretty close to pantheism - it appears to equate God with the forces of the cosmos.

I understand that such statements can be misunderstood. As when "God IS love" is taken to mean "Love is God." :) But I think it would be difficult for anyone to mistake me for a pantheist; that's been made clear on the numerous occasions where I've defined Theology as "the Study of God and His Works" (with all the specialized sciences as contributors to that overarching study).
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Magdalena on December 26, 2014, 07:15:28 AM
Quote from: Tank on December 25, 2014, 10:26:49 AM
...People like you have had it your own way ever since the first ancestor screamed in fear waking up from a dream. But no longer Gerry. Your mythological and superstitious ideas are going to wither and die because they are wrong...
I'm gonna have to agree with Tank...
(https://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5hbo4cfKW1r00g1wo1_500.gif)
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 26, 2014, 07:19:51 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on December 26, 2014, 06:27:14 AM1. You are imbuing words with meaning which they do not necessarilly posess. Earth is a subset of matter. Heaven is, if defined as "that which is above ground", a subset of space. A beginning does not have to denote the beginning of time at all.

It's poetry, dude. Poetry. You've got to read it like it was written.

Quote from: Asmodean on December 26, 2014, 06:27:14 AM2. You can build a house and still live in it, be composed of the same kind of matter as it and be perfectly observable by it. A cheap metaphor, I know, but it follows the logic you have been pushing for quite some time now.

I don't know about your metaphor being cheap, but I don't think it's helpful. I can build a house because I have existence outside of and prior to the house. A more appropriate analogy for a God within a universe creating that universe would be a guy building his own body before that body existed; which is unimaginable. Hence the need for the Creator to be outside of and prior to His creations.

Quote from: Asmodean on December 26, 2014, 06:27:14 AM...would you kindly do the following if you wish to maintain that your thought experiment is valid: demonstrate why a god would occupy dimensions other than spacetime.

See immediately above. A God who is part of a universe can't exist unless that universe first exists, and thus wouldn't be there to do the necessary creating.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Asmodean on December 26, 2014, 07:33:18 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 26, 2014, 07:19:51 AM
I don't know about your metaphor being cheap, but I don't think it's helpful. I can build a house because I have existence outside of and prior to the house. A more appropriate analogy for a God within a universe creating that universe would be a guy building his own body before that body existed; which is unimaginable. Hence the need for the Creator to be outside of and prior to His creations.
No. You latched on to the wrong end of the metaphor fo starters. And then, we are not talking about the Universe. We are talking about spacetime and your claim that a god occupies more or other dimensions. Your analogy is no more appropriate than the one I provided in that regard.

Quote from: Asmodean on December 26, 2014, 06:27:14 AM...would you kindly do the following if you wish to maintain
See immediately above. A God who is part of a universe can't exist unless that universe first exists, and thus wouldn't be there to do the necessary creating.
No. You can not just make a presupposition that a god created the Universe, even if we assume for a moment that one did create this planet, or even this galaxy. Not without at the very least explaining the process of thir creation.

Secondly, a sytem that predates another can very well become a part of the newer system. Sewer networks and building foundations come to mind. Solar systems, if you want to scale things up a bit.

As I said, a weak philosophical construct does not constitute a successful proof of concept.

EDIT: I have a case of keyboard failure (I type a lot faster than it can process), so point out any incoherence that slips my proofreading.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Tank on December 26, 2014, 07:41:35 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 26, 2014, 02:02:43 AM
Quote from: Tank on December 25, 2014, 09:04:44 PMGerry you are a liar. You know full well that evolution theory is not in dispute, except by idiots and liars.

I do not know that. From my dictionary: "Idiot, noun: A person of subnormal intelligence; liar, noun: a person who tells an untruth with the intent to deceive." I'm pretty sure that Michael Behe is not a person of subnormal intelligence, and I'm pretty sure he writes without any intent to deceive. Ditto for scores of other creationist scientists whose works I've studied. Evolutionary theory is clearly disputed by lots of intelligent, well-informed people.
If you didn't know that the ToE is not 'a theory in crisis', consider yourself informed and your ignorance lifted. And the scientist you referred to are agenda driven idealogs and therefore cannot be trusted they put their delusions before their scientific professionalism. The may call themselves scientists but their delusions rule their output.

Michael Behe, that joke of a man! Even the university he worked for distanced themselves from his stupidity. He admitted that by his own definition of science that astrology would be considered scientific.

Transcript of Kitzmer v Dover page 11 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html)

QuoteQ Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?

A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.

Q And just to be clear, why don't we pull up the definition of astrology from Merriam-Webster.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: If you would highlight that.

BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:

Q And archaically it was astronomy; right, that's what it says there?

A Yes.

Q And now the term is used, "The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects."

That's the scientific theory of astrology?

A That's what it says right there, but let me direct your attention to the archaic definition, because the archaic definition is the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community.

Astrology -- I think astronomy began in, and things like astrology, and the history of science is replete with ideas that we now think to be wrong headed, nonetheless giving way to better ways or more accurate ways of describing the world.

And simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory.

Q I didn't take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?

A I'm sorry?

Q I did not take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?

A It seems like that.

Q Okay. It seems like that since we started yesterday. But could you turn to page 132 of your deposition?

A Yes.

Q And if you could turn to the bottom of the page 132, to line 23.

A I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

Q Page 132, line 23.

A Yes.

Q And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be, yes." Right?

A That's correct.

Q Not, it used to be, right?

A Well, that's what I was thinking. I was thinking of astrology when it was first proposed. I'm not thinking of tarot cards and little mind readers and so on that you might see along the highway. I was thinking of it in its historical sense.

Q I couldn't be a mind reader either.

A I'm sorry?

Q I couldn't be a mind reader either, correct?

A Yes, yes, but I'm sure it would be useful.

Q It would make this exchange go much more quickly.

THE COURT: You d have to include me, though.

BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:

Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Tank on December 26, 2014, 07:46:26 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 26, 2014, 01:44:08 AM
Quote from: Tank on December 25, 2014, 08:58:01 PM...there is not one single lab anywhere on Earth using creationism to develop any new concept or theory that benefits humanity in any way whatsoever.

On the contrary; there is not a single lab anywhere on Earth using the evolutionary paradigm to develop any new concept or theory that benefits humanity in any way whatsoever. Every lab that has ever developed anything that benefits humanity has employed the creationist paradigm: Individuals conceive ideas, design experiments, develop products. In that order. A thoroughly top-down, creationist way of doing things. It's how the world (including the entire scientific enterprise) works.

Hey, look! I just used that same creationist paradigm to create this post. As you did, when you replied to my previous post. It's inescapable. If you want to get anything done at all, you're going to have to think, speak, and act like a creationist.
Gerry I take it all back. You're as thick as shit. You appear to be capable of stringing words together in quite a superficially clever way while completely failing to understand that what you're producing is utter drivel. You're playing pigeon chess Gerry.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Siz on December 26, 2014, 09:12:05 AM
Quote from: Gerry RzeppaI assume that God exists, and see where that logically leads me; I don't try to prove the existence of God by any means because I don't think it's possible to do so; I think that's starting at the wrong end. I also assume, in a different train of thought, that God does not exist and see where that logically leads me. Then I choose between the postulates (God, no God) based on the logical fruit that each postulate bears.

Really?
Sincerely, truthfully?!

Didn't think so.


Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 26, 2014, 09:13:21 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on December 26, 2014, 07:33:18 AMAnd then, we are not talking about the Universe. We are talking about spacetime...

I don't find the concept of spacetime helpful. Space and time are two very different things to me, not to be confounded. As Edwin Bevan put it, "...this coupling together of Time and Space has been the cause of a good deal of confusion in thinking. Time and Space are not analogous, except in respect to a few of their characteristics -- such as that of being measurable. Time is unique. Time also, it is plain, belongs much more intimately to the life of the spirit than space. Spatial objects are around us, outside us; our feelings and thoughts have no spatial dimensions but they do have temporal succession. We can, I think, imagine a universe in which there was no space, but only a succession of feelings and emotions: we cannot imagine a universe in which these was no Time, that is to say, no [succession of] events."

Quote from: Asmodean on December 26, 2014, 07:33:18 AM...and your claim that a god occupies more or other dimensions. Your analogy is no more appropriate than the one I provided in that regard.

I think it is a good analogy. The creator of something (say, the builder of a house) typically has existence outside of, and prior to, the existence of the thing he is creating. This is the normal concept of creation, and what (I believe) is typically pictured by Christians everywhen and everywhere. How many spatial dimensions exist in God's domain, I of course don't know. Maybe, considering the importance of the Trinity in Christian thought, it is just three. But that's not the point of the Flatland analogy.

The Flatland analogy is about things beyond our experiences and capabilities and how they might appear to us if we were to get a glimpse of them crammed into our limited domain. It's a clue regarding why the God of the Bible may appear in one instance as a burning bush that isn't consumed, in another as someone hovering over wheels within wheels full of eyes, and in yet another as a Man who can walk on water and give sight to the blind.

Quote from: Asmodean on December 26, 2014, 07:33:18 AMNo. You can not just make a presupposition that a god created the Universe, even if we assume for a moment that one did create this planet, or even this galaxy. Not without at the very least explaining the process of their creation.

Sure I can; people accept all sorts of things they can't explain. Exactly how do I move my fingers to type these words? I don't really know; it just sort of happens. So I accept it as a reality (even though I don't understand it), and move on. The God of the Bible, as I've said elsewhere, is not a conclusion for me, He's a postulate: "a proposition that is accepted as true (though unproven) in order to provide a basis for logical reasoning." And we can choose any postulates we like.

Quote from: Asmodean on December 26, 2014, 07:33:18 AMSecondly, a system that predates another can very well become a part of the newer system. Sewer networks and building foundations come to mind. Solar systems, if you want to scale things up a bit.

Sure, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the creator of a system who by definition must exist outside of, and prior to, the system he creates -- not mere parts of a larger assembly. Now that creator may later choose to "enter into" that system and thus become part of it (as a playwrite making a cameo appearance in his own play) -- but he still must exist first. (Christians believe this kind of thing happened in the Incarnation). Or he may even create the system out of pieces taken from himself (like a work of art made of toenail clippings) or even pieces still connected to himself (like a fancy hairdo) -- but the toenails and hairs must exist first. (Christians believe this kind of thing also -- "in Him we live and move and have our being," etc.)

But I fear we're talking past each other. Perhaps you could describe how you picture something that is part of something else (that doesn't yet exist) creating that something else.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: xSilverPhinx on December 26, 2014, 09:30:41 AM
Quote from: Tank on December 26, 2014, 07:46:26 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 26, 2014, 01:44:08 AM
Quote from: Tank on December 25, 2014, 08:58:01 PM...there is not one single lab anywhere on Earth using creationism to develop any new concept or theory that benefits humanity in any way whatsoever.

On the contrary; there is not a single lab anywhere on Earth using the evolutionary paradigm to develop any new concept or theory that benefits humanity in any way whatsoever. Every lab that has ever developed anything that benefits humanity has employed the creationist paradigm: Individuals conceive ideas, design experiments, develop products. In that order. A thoroughly top-down, creationist way of doing things. It's how the world (including the entire scientific enterprise) works.

Hey, look! I just used that same creationist paradigm to create this post. As you did, when you replied to my previous post. It's inescapable. If you want to get anything done at all, you're going to have to think, speak, and act like a creationist.
Gerry I take it all back. You're as thick as shit. You appear to be capable of stringing words together in quite a superficially clever way while completely failing to understand that what you're producing is utter drivel. You're playing pigeon chess Gerry.

Wow Gerry. Your ignorance is obvious here. Now I'm so not sure whether you're incapable of grasping concepts or if you just don't want to.

You lost what little credibility you had and I agree that this has turned into a board game with a pigeon. I feel for you Gerry, as if I were at a funeral. 
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 26, 2014, 09:33:25 AM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on December 26, 2014, 09:12:05 AM
Quote from: Gerry RzeppaI assume that God exists, and see where that logically leads me... I also assume, in a different train of thought, that God does not exist and see where that logically leads me. Then I choose between the postulates (God, no God) based on the logical fruit that each postulate bears.
Really? Sincerely, truthfully?!

Yes. I described four of my reasons for choosing the creationist paradigm above; I'll repeat them here:

First, the evolutionary process is utterly foreign to me. I understand (and have fruitfully employed) the concept-design-creation paradigm to add new facts to reality in every area of my life since I was a child; this post is itself an example. But I haven't seen a single example of the proposed random-mutation-natural-selection paradigm being used to create new information in any field; nobody uses it for anything useful.

Secondly, I find the creationist paradigm simpler and thus more likely true. As simple as possible, in fact, but no simpler. Specifically:

The beauty of the design paradigm is that it works the same through and through and has but a single difficulty. We dream up things and make them happen; God dreams up things and makes them happen. The only part that's difficult to imagine is that God isn't just a creator, He's a self-existent creator. So one difficulty (an adjective, "self-existent", that occurs just once in the paradigm); the rest is familiar territory.

The alternative paradigm is much more complicated. It postulates two altogether different kinds of creation: the kind we all know and do, and the kind that nature does. We dream up things (that are less than ourselves) and make them happen. Nature doesn't dream at all, and yet somehow makes things that are greater than what she had to work with in the first place. So in this paradigm we've got at least two difficulties: creation without anyone dreaming up anything; and greater things inexplicably emerging from lesser things. And those difficulties are not isolated: they permeate the whole of nature from end to end and from the beginning to the indeterminate future. Well, except in us. We somehow emerged from that unfamiliar system and decided to work in the opposite way all the time.


Thirdly, I find the evolutionary paradigm not just intellectually unsatisfying, but emotionally and aesthetically lacking as well. Downright depressing, in fact. Here's an example. This morning I received an email update from a Christian song site where some of my own songs are posted. It said:

"It started out as a little chorus that I sang to my children. Then we found out my father had cancer, our "adopted" son was shipped off to Iraq, and our youngest child and only daughter passed away - all within 3 months. I completed the song and we began to use it just before Papa started his treatments. He developed terrible nightmares due to the medication. One night he woke up in a cold sweat, panic stricken with his heart racing. This song came to his mind and he began to sing it! The reality of it struck him and he was able to chuckle, lay down and go back to sleep. The song literally pulled him through......us, too, I guess! Our church still requests it nearly every service. After all, it really DOESN'T matter what is on your plate, because with Jesus in your heart, EVERYTHING'S GONNA BE ALRIGHT!" I hope this song will bless all who hear it - feel free to pass it on and God bless you! Much Shalom, Rebecca"

I don't see where the evolutionary paradigm offers such people any comfort in times like those described above; and I certainly don't see how it could ever inspire the kind of song she's talking about. Here's a link to the song: http://4praise.com/cgi-bin/files/mp3/5668.mp3

Fourthly, the evolutionary paradigm is diametrically opposed to every intuitive perception I have developed (and have found reliable) over the years. Again, from above:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi58.tinypic.com%2F2jg5ax4.jpg&hash=ebc4f9ae68824d5e9215cee88d2f3416818fff5d)

On the top, we have three images of a guitar amp I designed and built: from the outside; with the "skin" removed; and a close-up of one portion. On the bottom, similar photos of a person. Now to me the parallel, the analogy, is obvious. The one system I know to be designed, and the other appears to be designed. The important point is that this appearance, no matter whether I look from far or near, is so striking, so compelling, so obvious and overwhelming -- the complexity so vast and the engineering so subtle and the functioning so sublime -- indeed, the elegance and grace and overall beauty of the whole is so moving that I really can't imagine the human body not being the result of design. It's all I can do to hold myself back from saying something like, "Praise be to the Creator!"

In short, the creationist paradigm is simple, familiar, intuitive, hopeful, and actually gets things done. The evolutionary paradigm is none of those things. So I choose the former.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Eric V Arachnid on December 26, 2014, 10:10:00 AM
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fq6XuAVS.jpg&hash=0c0f3c04d9a6f56984e897ab3ee18e6ed1390c7c)

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 26, 2014, 09:33:25 AM
In short, the creationist paradigm is simple, familiar, intuitive, hopeful, and actually gets things done. The evolutionary paradigm is none of those things. So I choose the former.

Evolution through natural selection may not be cosy and comforting but it does at least fit.
Creationism simple? it's got more patches on it than a boy scout field marshal.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Siz on December 26, 2014, 10:27:05 AM
I don't want to converse with you, dude, I just wanna tell you what I think then move on.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Asmodean on December 26, 2014, 11:14:37 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 26, 2014, 09:13:21 AM
I don't find the concept of spacetime helpful. Space and time are two very different things to me, not to be confounded.
What they are to you has no bearing on what they actually are.

QuoteAs Edwin Bevan put it, "...this coupling together of Time and Space has been the cause of a good deal of confusion in thinking. Time and Space are not analogous, except in respect to a few of their characteristics -- such as that of being measurable. Time is unique. Time also, it is plain, belongs much more intimately to the life of the spirit than space. Spatial objects are around us, outside us; our feelings and thoughts have no spatial dimensions but they do have temporal succession. We can, I think, imagine a universe in which there was no space, but only a succession of feelings and emotions: we cannot imagine a universe in which these was no Time, that is to say, no [succession of] events."
Bah! Time belongs where ever energy changes state. That happens on a much larger scale with inanimate objects, so that time vs life bit sounds like drivel to me. That's not unusual in philosophy, by the way. If you insist on quoting pople to try to make your point, I am generally prepared to accept prof. Stephen Hawking, prof. Lawrence Kraus or, for example, prof. Leonard Susskind as authorities on matters of physics of spacetime. You can try quoting those gentlemen to me.

If spacetime confuses you, that is your problem, not spacetime's.

Quote
The Flatland analogy is about things beyond our experiences and capabilities and how they might appear to us if we were to get a glimpse of them crammed into our limited domain.
Other dimensions are not.

Quote
It's a clue regarding why the God of the Bible may appear in one instance as a burning bush that isn't consumed, in another as someone hovering over wheels within wheels full of eyes, and in yet another as a Man who can walk on water and give sight to the blind.
Do you seriously find those tings even remotely impressive or possibly accurate? Beause the simplest explanation for a bush on fire is wood burns. Bullshit may very well accont for the rest. Religions are generally a product of unintelligent, uneducated, nasty societies and people living simple, yet often brutal lives. Those people are too unsophisticated to even fantasize about the actual complexity of the world around them, and so they fantasize about equally simple gods to explain what they see and therefore tend to trust. Thus, the bullshit of religion is born. Now would you not say this scenario is more likely than "divine significance" of a flammable object on fire?

Quote from: Asmodean on December 26, 2014, 07:33:18 AM
Sure I can; people accept all sorts of things they can't explain. Exactly how do I move my fingers to type these words?
You really don't know? Well, that's beside the point. Yes, presuppose all you want, but few people of intellect will take you seriously if you just pull assumptions out of your ass.

Quote
The God of the Bible, as I've said elsewhere, is not a conclusion for me, He's a postulate: "a proposition that is accepted as true (though unproven) in order to provide a basis for logical reasoning." And we can choose any postulates we like.
Logical reasoning? You do know that logic can be perfectly sound, and yet dead wrong, yes? I postulate that your postulate is wrong for the aforementioned reason.

Quote from: Asmodean on December 26, 2014, 07:33:18 AM
Sure, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the creator of a system who by definition must exist outside of, and prior to, the system he creates -- not mere parts of a larger assembly.
Sorry, read several religious texts and that definition just. Wasn't. There. If you define something through some effort of philosophy or personal interpretation of an unverifiabe souce, it's definition may well be worthless. It is then up to you to build up a framework around it so it can support its own weigt.

Quote
But I fear we're talking past each other. Perhaps you could describe how you picture something that is part of something else (that doesn't yet exist) creating that something else.
A gas cloud collapses due to gravity and forms a new star. The disk of debris around it frms a system of planets and moons. The matter, its energy, gravity, etc predating the new solar system are still very much within it, even after having created the system.

EDIT: Still on the same faulty keyboard. Can not be bothered to right all the small flaws; the post is a bit too long for that.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Crow on December 26, 2014, 11:46:26 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 26, 2014, 09:30:41 AM
Wow Gerry. Your ignorance is obvious here. Now I'm so not sure whether you're incapable of grasping concepts or if you just don't want to.

Davin clearly highlighted that this was the case multiple times in other Gerry threads. No different than any other moronic creationist trying to obfuscate their agenda by imitating the posturing of academia without actually having any of the learning or credentials to back it up. With any attempt to gain credibility highlighting how basic their understanding of different industries is that no professional would even take seriously and appearing as nothing more than a postulating cowboy. What's even worse and I haven't personally seen before is trying to gain credibility and authority by name dropping frauds, disreputable individuals and disgraced self proclaimed intellectuals that were disgraced specifically for the topic at hand.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 26, 2014, 12:08:39 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on December 26, 2014, 11:14:37 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 26, 2014, 09:13:21 AMPerhaps you could describe how you picture something that is part of something else (that doesn't yet exist) creating that something else.
A gas cloud collapses due to gravity and forms a new star. The disk of debris around it forms a system of planets and moons. The matter, its energy, gravity, etc predating the new solar system are still very much within it, even after having created the system.

That's not an example of creation; that's just inanimate stuff doing what it was designed and constructed and programmed to do. You've jumped in in the middle. The actual creation -- the design and construction and programming of the overall environment and the critical elements within it (time, space, matter, energy, physical laws, etc) -- took place before the events you describe and is the thing that needs description.

I hope you can see that examples from nature aren't going to work here, because it's the origin of such natural things that is under dispute. My answer to all such examples will be the same: they were designed and constructed and programmed to operate as you describe by a Creator you haven't mentioned. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. But more examples from an already operational nature won't help. What would help is an example where the creator (or lack thereof) and the means of creation were both known and undisputed. Then we could extrapolate from there.

But that's the problem, isn't it. Nothing we creators make is ever made the evolutionary way: it's always the concept-design-construction paradigm that we employ. Which means, as I've pointed out elsewhere, that you're asking me to believe that we work one way whenever we want to get something done, but nature works the opposite way -- even when "she" is unintentionally "creating" beings like us!

I find that thought incredible (ie, unbelievable). That random mutations and unguided filtering could ever produce, from purely inanimate materials, conscious beings that specialize in creationist ways of getting things done -- beings who compose music, and write books, and paint pictures, and laugh, and love, and cry, and hope, and dream, and pray -- is simply fantastic (as in, "a fantasy"); and absurd (as in, absurd). You ask too much.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Ecurb Noselrub on December 26, 2014, 02:52:33 PM
Gerry, would it work for you if the creation act were just moved back a little farther; in other words, instead of God directly creating and designing a tree or a turtle, he created the laws of nature, and then we had evolution as part of the program he developed?  Evolution, despite its lack of aesthetic appeal to you, is simply supported by the fossil record and genetics.  But that does not have to be inconsistent with a creator God who programmed the entire cosmos to run in a particular way.  Even many non-believers think that the cosmos is some sort of virtual reality program that is running in a prescribed manner.  I think it's the insistence that a human was specifically designed and manufactured as a opposed to evolving over millions of years that has everyone at your throat.  There are simply to many of the experts that agree with evolution compared with the relatively few that hold the modern creationist model.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: jumbojak on December 26, 2014, 03:13:31 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 26, 2014, 02:02:43 AMI'm pretty sure that Michael Behe is not a person of subnormal intelligence, and I'm pretty sure he writes without any intent to deceive. Ditto for scores of other creationist scientists whose works I've studied.

But you said you hadn't actually read anything by Michael Behe:

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on October 20, 2014, 07:04:21 AMRegarding microbiology, try Michael Behe. I haven't read him myself (except for bits and pieces quoted here and there), but I hear he's very good.

Aside from those bits and pieces of course. And now you're saying you've "studied" his work. Or did you just drop Behe's name while meaning you studied other people's work? Or is all your studying just hearsay?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Niya on December 26, 2014, 05:25:59 PM
Gerry, have you looked at the DNA evidence, genetic markers I mentioned earlier?

QuoteThat article is really very awkward and poor Gerry. It fails to mention or identify that we have Genetic markers belonging to more than a single couple as we dig into DNA. We have mitochondrial DNA that effectively proves more than a single ancestor. This is no assumption, this is pure evidence Gerry. We have more than a single couple dna. So it is beyond any doubt whatsoever.

Infact the bottle neck being reference was atleast 3000 persons at its minimum and around 12000 at max. But it was never in single digits, nor the genepool could afford it to bring out the diverse human beings on this planet.

And to be honest, there is nothing wrong with making an assumption as long as we have merit to make one. The only assumption which is not acceptable is the one which has no spine to back it up. In this case particular, we not only have merited assumption (which is not arbitrary at all) regarding the bottle neck size but we have evidence of more than a single pair in our DNA, it is proof in it self and that kind of makes the bottleneck quite insignificant.

Comments?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Niya on December 26, 2014, 05:33:33 PM
QuoteMy objections to the evolution paradigm, all based on first-hand experiences, are many; I'll give you four:

First, the process is utterly foreign to me. I understand (and have fruitfully employed) the concept-design-creation paradigm to add new facts to reality in every area of my life since I was a child; this post is itself an example. But I haven't seen a single example of the proposed random-mutation-natural-selection paradigm being used to create new information in any field; nobody uses it for anything useful.

On the contrary modern medicine and genetic research are all at heart because of evolutionary studies. It is not only helpful its impact is immense. You should read this paper "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" by evolutionary biologist and a Christian, Theodosius Dobzhansky.

QuoteSecondly, I find the creationist paradigm simpler and thus more likely true. As simple as possible, in fact, but no simpler.
Simplicity may be a pre-requisite for a belief system it is simply not for science.

QuoteThirdly, I find the evolutionary paradigm not just intellectually unsatisfying, but emotionally and aesthetically lacking as well.
I find its awesome, it just shows how majestic and beautiful the whole thing really is.

QuoteFourthly, the evolutionary paradigm is diametrically opposed to every intuitive perception I have developed (and have found reliable) over the years.
Like what? I don't find that at all.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 26, 2014, 09:25:40 PM
Quote from: jumbojak on December 26, 2014, 03:13:31 PMBut you said you hadn't actually read anything by Michael Behe:

I haven't read his book, but I've read various things he's written on the internet; mostly replies to evolutionists. I find him anything but an "idiot" and a "liar".

Quote from: jumbojak on December 26, 2014, 03:13:31 PMAnd now you're saying you've "studied" his work. Or did you just drop Behe's name while meaning you studied other people's work? Or is all your studying just hearsay?

Sometimes a random sampling of someone's work can be quite revealing. That's what the book I mentioned at the top of this thread is all about (Donald Knuth's Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About  -- http://www.amazon.com/dp/157586326X ). It's certainly enough to decide if someone is an idiot or not.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: jumbojak on December 26, 2014, 09:38:53 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 26, 2014, 09:25:40 PM
Quote from: jumbojak on December 26, 2014, 03:13:31 PMBut you said you hadn't actually read anything by Michael Behe:

I haven't read his book, but I've read various things he's written on the internet; mostly replies to evolutionists. I find him anything but an "idiot" and a "liar".

Quote from: jumbojak on December 26, 2014, 03:13:31 PMAnd now you're saying you've "studied" his work. Or did you just drop Behe's name while meaning you studied other people's work? Or is all your studying just hearsay?

Sometimes a random sampling of someone's work can be quite revealing. That's what the book I mentioned at the top of this thread is all about (Donald Knuth's Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About  -- http://www.amazon.com/dp/157586326X ). It's certainly enough to decide if someone is an idiot or not.


So, have you actually studied any creationist authors in depth, or is it all a random sampling on your part? You didn't answer the question Gerry.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 26, 2014, 09:43:50 PM
Quote from: Niya on December 26, 2014, 05:33:33 PMYou should read this paper "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" by evolutionary biologist and a Christian, Theodosius Dobzhansky.

No need to rehash what's wrong with that idea here. See https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/nothing-in-biology-makes-sense-except-in-the-light-of-evolution-myth-evalutation/ for objections similar to my own.

Quote from: Niya on December 26, 2014, 05:33:33 PMSimplicity may be a pre-requisite for a belief system it is simply not for science.

On the contrary, the scientist must have a belief system in place to even get started. And a lot of faith in various things. Think about it:

Broadly speaking, we have four different sources of information at our disposal. Bottom-to-top, they are: experience, reason, authority, and revelation.

Experiential (or experimental) evidences are gathered, with varying degrees of precision, every time someone says, "I wonder what will happen when we do this" -- and then proceeds to actually find out. This sort of thing, executed with persnickety attention to detail, is the heart of the scientific method. Note that we accept experimental evidence based on our faith in a uniform and consistent universe -- that tomorrow will be a lot like today (which is a very difficult thing to prove).

Evidences from reason are the result of logical transformations applied to previously acquired data. "If a man is bigger than a dog, and a dog is bigger than a flea, then a man must be bigger than a flea." Great leaps are possible with reason, but great errors are possible as well. That?s why conclusions reached by reason should be tested by experiment whenever possible. "Show me," as they say in Missouri. Note that we accept evidence from reason based on our faith in the existence of a rational universe, not to mention the existence of rational minds able to digest it. Note also that belief in reason is not a reasonable thing -- it?s a premise, not a conclusion. But it is a good idea. "I think, therefore I am [able to get off square one]!"

Evidences from authority are provided by those who have gone before us and have gathered significant bodies of evidence from both reason and experiment. I include historical evidences in this category. "The guy with the missing foot over there says we should never cut with the tip of a chainsaw. And I?m inclined to accept him as an authority on the matter." Evidences from authority are essential because no man lives long enough to start from scratch; but they are also dangerous because they tend to propagate former errors. "That guy?s mother says we should never use chainsaws at all. Ever." Note that we accept evidence from authority based on our faith in a uniform, consistent, rational universe, as above, plus our faith in the integrity and rationality of our forebears.

Which brings us to revealed evidence -- evidence that is thrust into the natural universe from without. Like when the author of an adventure story tells one of the characters -- perhaps in a dream or a vision -- that there is Glory beyond the Great Sea. This kind of information is the most precious, of course, since it can?t be acquired in any natural way; but it is the most difficult to substantiate, since it typically can?t be verified by the usual means. Very few cross the Great Sea and come back to tell the tale. Note that we accept revealed knowledge based on our faith in a benevolent Creator who wants to reveal Himself and His works to His creatures. This faith, unfortunately, is less common than the other faiths I?ve mentioned.


Quote from: Niya on December 26, 2014, 05:33:33 PMI find [the evolutionary paradigm] awesome [not emotionally and aesthetically lacking], it just shows how majestic and beautiful the whole thing really is.

Until something bad happens and someone needs comfort or hope as in my example (about Rebecca and her family and her song) above. What does the evolutionary paradigm have to offer the suffering? the dying?

Quote from: Niya on December 26, 2014, 05:33:33 PMLike what? I don't find that [the evolutionary paradigm is diametrically opposed to every intuitive perception I have developed (and have found reliable) over the years] at all.

Like the fact that in almost every case where something appears to me to be designed, and I'm able to ascertain exactly how that thing came to be, it turns out that the thing actually was designed. I'm talking about human artifacts here, of course, because it's only in those cases that we can ascertain exactly how they came to be. But an intuition that works so well in almost every case where it can be checked is not likely to mislead me in the majority of cases where I can't check.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 26, 2014, 09:53:06 PM
Quote from: jumbojak on December 26, 2014, 09:38:53 PMSo, have you actually studied any creationist authors in depth, or is it all a random sampling on your part? You didn't answer the question Gerry.

Yes, I've read lots of Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Paul, etc; Henry, Chaffer, Chesterton, Lewis, Bevan, McCosh, Mansell, Sayers, etc; Newton, Brown, Berlinski, Dembski, Batten, Knuth, Carter, Catchpoole, Hartnett, Harwood, Mason, Sarfati, Silvestru, Walker, Carter; and many, many others, all the way through. What's the point?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Crow on December 26, 2014, 09:56:08 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 26, 2014, 09:25:40 PM
It's certainly enough to decide if someone is an idiot or not.

Like this?

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1335354839/art-for-the-rest-of-us
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 26, 2014, 10:45:53 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 26, 2014, 02:52:33 PM
Gerry, would it work for you if the creation act were just moved back a little farther; in other words, instead of God directly creating and designing a tree or a turtle, he created the laws of nature, and then we had evolution as part of the program he developed?

Funny you should ask; I woke up this morning thinking specifically about simulating this "middle ground" on my computer. So I got out my favorite programming language (www.osmosian.com) and went to work. And my simulation of random mutation and natural selection actually worked! Here are the details.

I started by defining a viable organism as a thing with three parts (an operation code and two operands) that would actually execute on my virtual machine. The op codes were numbers representing ADD, SUBTRACT, and MULTIPLY operations (I left out division to avoid difficulties with division by zero); the operands were simply numbers.

I then defined a mutation process where random bits in the organisms were changed at a certain rate. Some such mutations would, of course, be (a) harmless, changing the numbers (but not the op code) in an organism, which would make it produce a different output value, but would not cause it to fail or do something truly new; others would be (b) harmful, changing the op code to something invalid, which would make the organism no longer viable; and still others would be (c) beneficial, changing the op code from ADD to SUBTRACT or to MULTIPLY, which would introduce greater variety in the population.

Finally, I defined a selection process that eliminated non-viable organisms while allowing viable organisms to reproduce (make copies of themselves at a certain rate).

I started it up (with just a single organism that knew how to ADD) and let it run. Unfortunately, there were failures at first: depending on the mutation and reproduction rates, I would either get a population that quickly died out altogether, or a population that grew so fast it would overwhelm the machine and crash. But after carefully adjusting the mutation-to-fertility ratio, I found that starting with just a single organism, the system could produce a reasonably stable population of thousands of viable -- and note this -- varied organisms (ie, not just adders, but subtractors and multipliers as well). Random mutation and natural selection at work! Amazing.

Then I sat back and thought about what I had done. Three things immediately came to mind: (1) The system didn't design itself; I did that. (2) The system didn't code itself; I did that. (3) The system didn't tune itself; I did that. I also had some suspicions that the system wouldn't scale well: it would require a prodigious amount of additional design, coding, and precise tuning if I wanted the system to produce anything resembling a bacterium, much less a human being; in short, it was obvious that there are much easier ways of achieving such ends at any level of complexity.

So where does this little "thought experiment" leave me? Pretty much where I started, though perhaps with a little more empathy for theistic evolutionists -- but note that I've always allowed for the possibility that they may be right (though the artist and engineer and mathematician in me tend to think that kind of inefficient design unworthy of the Creator I've come to know and love). Of course I still don't see how non-theistic evolution is a viable alternative: that a system with the required complexity and fine-tuning could itself arise by chance is simply beyond my ability to conceive. And so I'm back to special creation (with perhaps some minor "evolutionary variations" -- coat colorings, beak lengths, etc -- as decoration). And I think that's a perfectly reasonable view given the uncontested historical (not pre-historical) and other kinds of data available to me. Note that I'm not saying I'm right -- I'm just saying that one doesn't have to be an idiot or a liar to hold such view.


Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Recusant on December 27, 2014, 01:44:24 AM
Quote from: Tank on December 26, 2014, 07:46:26 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 26, 2014, 01:44:08 AM
Quote from: Tank on December 25, 2014, 08:58:01 PM...there is not one single lab anywhere on Earth using creationism to develop any new concept or theory that benefits humanity in any way whatsoever.

On the contrary; there is not a single lab anywhere on Earth using the evolutionary paradigm to develop any new concept or theory that benefits humanity in any way whatsoever. Every lab that has ever developed anything that benefits humanity has employed the creationist paradigm: Individuals conceive ideas, design experiments, develop products. In that order. A thoroughly top-down, creationist way of doing things. It's how the world (including the entire scientific enterprise) works.

Hey, look! I just used that same creationist paradigm to create this post. As you did, when you replied to my previous post. It's inescapable. If you want to get anything done at all, you're going to have to think, speak, and act like a creationist.

Gerry I take it all back. You're as thick as shit. You appear to be capable of stringing words together in quite a superficially clever way while completely failing to understand that what you're producing is utter drivel. You're playing pigeon chess Gerry.

Tank, that post was definitely out of bounds. You do a lot of work here, and certainly deserve respect and consideration for that (not to mention that I think you're a fine person in your own right), but we all agreed to engage in civil discourse by becoming members of HAF.

When somebody like Gerry Rzeppa comes here to discuss his ideas with us, I think it's important to maintain that standard, because if nothing else, personalizing the discussion as you've done above can be a distraction from the more effective arguments against his position.

Among other things, the civility rule is meant to protect every member's ability to participate in discussions here without having to face such unproductive personal comments. I don't think that Gerry Rzeppa's arguments for Creationism deserve to be treated respectfully, but as a member of this site he's covered by the rules just as much as any other member.

I suppose that this post could be in red type, but since as far as I know it's the first moderation note addressed to you, there's no need to escalate to that level here.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Tank on December 27, 2014, 07:31:14 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 27, 2014, 01:44:24 AM
Quote from: Tank on December 26, 2014, 07:46:26 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 26, 2014, 01:44:08 AM
Quote from: Tank on December 25, 2014, 08:58:01 PM...there is not one single lab anywhere on Earth using creationism to develop any new concept or theory that benefits humanity in any way whatsoever.

On the contrary; there is not a single lab anywhere on Earth using the evolutionary paradigm to develop any new concept or theory that benefits humanity in any way whatsoever. Every lab that has ever developed anything that benefits humanity has employed the creationist paradigm: Individuals conceive ideas, design experiments, develop products. In that order. A thoroughly top-down, creationist way of doing things. It's how the world (including the entire scientific enterprise) works.

Hey, look! I just used that same creationist paradigm to create this post. As you did, when you replied to my previous post. It's inescapable. If you want to get anything done at all, you're going to have to think, speak, and act like a creationist.

Gerry I take it all back. You're as thick as shit. You appear to be capable of stringing words together in quite a superficially clever way while completely failing to understand that what you're producing is utter drivel. You're playing pigeon chess Gerry.

Tank, that post was definitely out of bounds. You do a lot of work here, and certainly deserve respect and consideration for that (not to mention that I think you're a fine person in your own right), but we all agreed to engage in civil discourse by becoming members of HAF.

When somebody like Gerry Rzeppa comes here to discuss his ideas with us, I think it's important to maintain that standard, because if nothing else, personalizing the discussion as you've done above can be a distraction from the more effective arguments against his position.

Among other things, the civility rule is meant to protect every member's ability to participate in discussions here without having to face such unproductive personal comments. I don't think that Gerry Rzeppa's arguments for Creationism deserve to be treated respectfully, but as a member of this site he's covered by the rules just as much as any other member.

I suppose that this post could be in red type, but since as far as I know it's the first moderation note addressed to you, there's no need to escalate to that level here.
You are of course quite right and I apologise unreservedly to you, the other staff, forum members and Gerry. I will in future not personalise my comments.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 27, 2014, 09:14:30 AM
Here's the Plain English code for my little "Random Mutation and Natural Selection Simulation" described above in case anyone is interested in that kind of thing:

An organism is a thing with an op code and a first operand and a second operand.

The population is some organisms.

To run:
Bang in a big way.
Evolve.
Maximize entropy.

To bang in a big way:
Start up.
Seed the random number generator.
Create an organism.

To create an organism:
Allocate memory for the organism.
Put 1 [add] into the organism's op code.
Append the organism to the population.

To evolve:
Randomly mutate.
Naturally select.
Add 1 to the generation count.
If the generation count is less than 5000, repeat.
Report.

The generation count is a number.

To randomly mutate:
Get an organism from the population.
If the organism is nil, exit.
Pick a random number between 1 and 255.
Pick a number between 1 and 4.
If the number is 1, put the random number into the organism's op code.
If the number is 2, put the random number into the organism's first operand.
If the number is 3, put the random number into the organism's second operand.
Repeat.

To naturally select:
Get an organism from the population (backwards).
If the organism is nil, exit.
If the organism is dead, repeat.
If we don't feel like making a baby organism, repeat.
Make the baby organism from the organism.
Repeat.

To decide if an organism is living:
If the organism's op code is 1 [add], say yes.
If the organism's op code is 2 [subtract], say yes.
If the organism's op code is 3 [multiply], say yes.
Say no.

To decide if we do feel like making a baby organism:
Pick a number between 1 and 100.
If the number is less than 12, say yes.
Say no.

To make a baby organism from a parent organism:
Allocate memory for the baby organism.
Put the parent's op code into the baby's op code.
Append the baby organism to the population.

To maximize entropy:
Destroy the population.
Shut down.


I left out the reporting routines because they're just a bunch of counting and number formatting stuff, but the results on the screen for a typical run look like this:

generations=5,000   total organisms=123,144   living=2,329   dead=120,815   adders=794   subtractors=800   multipliers=735


Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Ecurb Noselrub on December 27, 2014, 02:57:13 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 26, 2014, 10:45:53 PM

So where does this little "thought experiment" leave me? Pretty much where I started, though perhaps with a little more empathy for theistic evolutionists --

So your own program established the possibility of evolution, and you, as you surely would agree, are not nearly as intelligent as God.  Imagine what his program, his laws, could accomplish.  Why would God put together a universe that operated this way?  Maybe building in this struggle for life is the best way to develop beings such as us who have a moral sense.  "In this world you will have tribulation."  Maybe God enjoys observing the elegance of his own program.  Time is not an issue for him.  Watching a program develop for 13.5 billion years is the same to him as 6000 years, right?  "A day is to the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 

So, if the vast majority of scientists today accept evolution and an old universe, why should that be an obstacle to the existence of a creator God?  If you really wanted to find common ground, you would accept the elegance of Darwinian evolution, which is supported by the evidence, and maintain your faith in a creator God.  Evolution, an old earth, and an old universe have nothing to do with the gospel or Jesus or the resurrection.  The only thing you have to adjust is your interpretation of some scripture.  And the scripture is flexible enough to accommodate evolution, as long as you are not hyper-literalistic with your hermeneutics. Evolution is not a necessary "hill upon which to die", and you are compromising nothing by accepting it.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 27, 2014, 10:29:03 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 27, 2014, 02:57:13 PMSo your own program established the possibility of evolution, and you, as you surely would agree, are not nearly as intelligent as God.  Imagine what his program, his laws, could accomplish.

I was convinced of the possibility before I wrote the program; the simulation simply gives me further insights. Insights that still leave me ambiguous regarding a firm conclusion, but also still leaning toward special creation (with perhaps some minor "evolutionary variations" -- coat colorings, beak lengths, etc -- as decoration).

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 27, 2014, 02:57:13 PMWhy would God put together a universe that operated this way?  Maybe building in this struggle for life is the best way to develop beings such as us who have a moral sense.  "In this world you will have tribulation."  Maybe God enjoys observing the elegance of his own program.  Time is not an issue for him.  Watching a program develop for 13.5 billion years is the same to him as 6000 years, right?  "A day is to the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

And maybe that's all true. I don't know. But I do know that I wouldn't consider doing it that way, and I'm (according to Christian theology) made in the image of my Creator. The 25 verses of the first chapter of Genesis that lead up to "Let us make man in our image" strike me more as a description of special creation (with perhaps some minor "evolutionary variations" -- coat colorings, beak lengths, etc -- as decoration) than of a grand evolutionary scheme. And the hard evidence that I've seen leans that way as well: lots of examples of so-called micro-evolution, nothing substantial to support macro-evolution.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 27, 2014, 02:57:13 PMSo, if the vast majority of scientists today accept evolution and an old universe, why should that be an obstacle to the existence of a creator God?

Careful, Bruce, or somebody here will be jumping on you for "appealing to the majority" :) But while we're on the subject, I'd like to say that I'm very skeptical of the today's "mainstream science". Two books that were exceptionally helpful to me in this regard -- both written by non-Christians -- were Kicking the Sacred Cow by James P. Hogan (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0743488288) and The Virtue of Heresy: Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer by Hilton Ratcliffe (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1419695568). Both of these books document how today's scientific establishment is driven more by money, peer pressure, and politics than by a search for actual facts. Curious how we're allowed to be skeptical of everything but mainstream science.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 27, 2014, 02:57:13 PMIf you really wanted to find common ground, you would accept the elegance of Darwinian evolution, which is supported by the evidence, and maintain your faith in a creator God.

In my mind, the jury is still out regarding the extent of overlap between the creationist and evolutionary perspectives; I think firm attachment to either paradigm alone is certainly premature and most likely an error. I think young-earthers and those who believe in a worldwide flood make a lot of good points and that at least some of the evidence seems to point their way. On the other hand, even just based on my own little study of evolutionary mechanisms above, I have to admit the possibility of an entirely different interpretation of the data.

But I think it's important to keep some perspective here. It seems to me (as a believer in a good God who wants to reveal Himself to his creatures using both that which is within them, and that which is outside of them) that He wouldn't require us to become experts in archaeology or have to invent the electron microscope before we could reach the proper conclusions on matters of faith and morals; on the existence of God; etc. For example, I like it better when Behe talks about mousetraps than microscopic motors (though I have to admit those "positronic engines" are cool). In short, we should be able to discuss the stuff I'm concerned with here using only data and faculties readily accessible to "the rest of us".

Note, however, that either way -- whether we discuss in microscopic detail or with obvious analogies -- I think proof will elude us. I think, in the end, God wants each of us to reveal the kind of people we are and wish to be by making our best guesses and living accordingly. How the creation/evolution of the universe progressed doesn't significantly affect those kinds of choices; whether the universe was created or not, however, does.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 27, 2014, 02:57:13 PMEvolution, an old earth, and an old universe have nothing to do with the gospel or Jesus or the resurrection.

Yes; I think I just said as much.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 27, 2014, 02:57:13 PMThe only thing you have to adjust is your interpretation of some scripture.  And the scripture is flexible enough to accommodate evolution, as long as you are not hyper-literalistic with your hermeneutics. Evolution is not a necessary "hill upon which to die", and you are compromising nothing by accepting it.

Again, I see your point. But in my personal case, I would be compromising my intuitions regarding the matter; intuitions that are based on 60-some years of first-hand experience. I'm not as willing as Dawkins and Crick to simply set aside the "illusion of design" that is so striking everywhere we look. And again, while it's true that "God's ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts higher than our thoughts," I don't think (on the grounds that we were created in His image) that His ways and thoughts are necessarily or utterly different in kind than ours; I believe it has to be more a matter of degree in any subject that is essential to us.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Recusant on December 28, 2014, 04:26:07 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 11:10:33 PM
Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PMI didn't ask about known hoaxes and fabrications. Please answer my question about the hominid fossils honestly... The fossils which are evidence for species like Homo erectus and Australopithecus afarensis are in a completely different category, yet it seems to me that you blithely implied that they're fakes. Do you believe that?

I do not believe they are what they are claimed to be; I may be wrong. But there are too many assumptions that precede the conclusions reached for me to even get interested in the subject.

Okay, you say "there are too many assumptions" in the scientific classification of fossil evidence for ancient hominins. What sort of assumptions are you talking about? You say that you can't get interested in the subject because of those assumptions. Given the fact that scientists who have actually studied this field in depth consider these fossils to be from our very close relatives (and therefore of genuine interest to most thinking people), you must have very clear ideas about the assumptions, and be able to state them in a coherent manner. Please do so.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 11:10:33 PMLet me put it this way: my interest in scientific investigation ends with that which can be experimentally reproduced and verified; the rest is not science in my mind, but historical and/or philosophical speculations disguised as science.

It appears to me that you're saying we can never have reliable information about the past--it's all speculation. You say you "may be wrong," but your other statements don't jibe with that. You seem to be thoroughly convinced that you're right, otherwise you'd be willing to consider the evidence. How then can you be so sure that your ideas about the past are correct? What verifiable support do you have for holding that position? You believe that the fossil evidence is only good for "speculation"; is your position any different?  If so, in what way?

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 11:10:33 PM
Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PMThe only people who deny that the Earth existed 100,000 years ago are those who insist that when the findings of science conflict with what the Bible says, the Bible is always correct and the science is wrong.

And the people who promote evolutionary theory are, by and large, people who also have an axe to grind: specifically, that God does not exist. So (a) the issues are hotly contested, and (b) both sides are obviously biased. Which is why I don't argue those points.

That's not correct. You've tried to deflect from the actual issue, but I will pursue it. The fact is that many Christians (I'd say the majority of scientifically literate Christians) do not consider the scientific evidence for the age of the Earth and the universe to be dubious at all. Surely you must be aware of that fact, yet you ignore it and instead promote the view of the zealots who refuse to accept the evidence. Atheists are by no means the only ones who accept the scientific evidence for the age of the universe. In fact, given the reality that believers are still by far the majority, it's extremely likely that most of the people who accept that evidence are religious.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 11:10:33 PM
Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PMThere are multiple sources of empirical, verifiable evidence which converge to support the age of the Earth, and the universe.

There are also multiple sources of empirical, verifiable evidence which converge to support a young Earth, and a young universe. The interpretation of the data depends on one's initial assumptions. Which is why the issue is contested, debated, and anything but settled. So I don't use that kind of thing -- either way -- to support my positions. I'm arguing from direct personal experience; stuff we all know and do every day.

Please present this "empirical, verifiable evidence" which supports "a young Earth," or at least direct me to a reputable source which does so. Reputable sources do not include the deceitful charlatans (http://infidels.org/kiosk/article/ten-falsehoods-and-misconceptions-peddled-by-quotanswers-in-genesisquot-791.html) at Answers in Genesis, nor the duplicitous mountebanks (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-rutgers/gish-draft.txt) at the Institute for Creation Research, nor the medacious grifters (http://faculty.smu.edu/jwise/big_problems_with_intelligent_design.htm#Was_the_Discovery_Institute_being_intellectually_honest) at the Discovery Institute, though if you can show that specific evidence they present is empirical and verifiable, it would be of interest.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 11:10:33 PM
Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PM...if we accept the religious zealot's view then the only reasonable conclusion is that their god is a deceiver on a grand scale who seeks to purposely mislead human beings.

We've been over that. Think of God as an artist, not a mechanic, and the problem vanishes. When I write a book where one character is older than another, but the younger character actually existed before the younger in my universe, I'm not deceiving anyone in the story's universe, nor am I deceiving the reader. That's simply how creation sometimes works.

You've attempted to hand-wave away this issue, but that doesn't mean the problem has "vanished." There is strong evidence which contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible on any number of points, and specifically regarding the age of the Earth and the universe. If the Bible's chronology is true, then your god created evidence which leads those who engage in honest inquiry to a false conclusion. In this context, "an artist" is the same thing as a liar. What you're saying is that your artist god created a "work of art" that misleads those who examine the evidence it contains. How is that honest?

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 11:10:33 PM
Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PMThis sounds like willful ignorance to me. Hardly the approach of a scientist, it's more in line with what I'd expect to hear from somebody who is blinkered by their religion.

No, it's the difference between a scientist who prefers to work empirically, on subjects where lots of tangible data and working simulations are available, and those who prefer to imagine possible origin scenarios that can never be conclusively established.

The scientific evidence (in the form of fossils and artifacts) for the existence of various species of hominins predating anatomically modern humans may hold no interest for you, but it's still very significant. It corresponds with genetic evidence which situates Homo sapiens within a cladistic framework that includes the still living great apes, and in a larger context, the primates. Any scientifically valid "possible origin scenario" must take both these lines of evidence into account. Using the excuse that it holds no interest for you, you've chosen to ignore relevant data, and therefore your argument loses any semblance of credibility.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 11:10:33 PM
Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PMIgnoring empirical evidence because you're able to convince yourself that somehow it's irrelevant shows that your status as a scientist is very likely to actually be something you've bestowed on yourself to try to give your statements some credibility.

That's a very loose use of the word "empirical". I'm ignoring hypothetical historical scenarios based on scant evidence and an assumed philosophical perspective, not repeatable empirical evidence.

What a steaming puddle of hogwash. You're ignoring empirical evidence (in the form of fossils) for the existence of ancient hominid species because that evidence doesn't jibe with your apparently literalist biblical world view. You tried to duck and weave by referring to known hoaxes as if they were relevant, and since that didn't work, you're going to play Humpty Dumpty (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/when_i_use_a_word-humpty_dumpty_said_in_rather_a/214617.html) with the defintion of the word "empirical." This is an intellectually dishonest approach to discussion.

QuoteMerriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical) : originating in or based on observation or experience

QuoteOxford Dictionaries (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/empirical): Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

QuoteOxford English Dictionary: That pursues knowledge by means of direct observation, investigation, or experiment (as distinct from deductive reasoning, abstract theorizing, or speculation); that relates to or derives from this method of pursuing knowledge.

Fossil evidence is empirical evidence, despite your assertion to the contrary. Scientists observe the location and surrounding material where fossils are found, and they observe the conformation of the fossils. As the correct definition of the term shows, empirical evidence is not just the evidence gained by performing experiments, but also that which is gained by direct observation.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 11:10:33 PM
Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PMIt's having the opposite effect on me. You're unable to give sound scientific reasons for questioning the validity of the scientific evidence, so you resort to transparently lame justifications for what appears to be outright rejection of it.

I'm simply describing how I see things. Many others, in all walks of life, see the same things I do. And find them compelling. That's what the stories I've mentioned in this thread are all about. I don't expect you to adopt my point of view based on my say-so; but I do think you should be able to see that it is a rational point of view given the uncontested data that I'm working with.

What "uncontested data" are you referring to?

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 11:10:33 PM
Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PM
Living organisms are "already in the initial domain."

But not living organisms with the degree of complexity that is claimed to have evolved.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. However, empirical evidence shows that it's possible for more complex forms to arise from simpler antecedents through the process of evolution.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 11:10:33 PM
Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PMNatural selection in biological evolution progressively narrows the domain to produce viable organisms.

So natural selection takes a domain that doesn't include, say, people, and narrows that domain to produce people?

The narrowing due to natural selection (while very important, it's only part of the process of evolution) merely eliminates less viable organisms, or those which for various reasons are less capable of reproducing. The process of evolution (there is no goal, per se) is survival and reproduction.  

Natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow make it possible for new forms to arise, including people. People are not the goal of evolution, they're merely one of many results of the process.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 11:10:33 PM
Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PMThe algorithm used by the NASA scientists replicates that process.

The algorithm in question was designed to produce a certain kind of result. Both the so-called mutation process and the selection filter in that program were specifically designed and tuned to produce the desired result -- which was known ahead of time. There's nothing "evolutionary" in the program, and certainly nothing "evolutionary" in the way it was created.

The process used by the NASA scientists was never meant to be an exact replica of the process of evolution, it was a rough simulation of it. The only reason I brought it into the discussion is because you had asserted that "the [evolutionary] paradigm you're advocating is utterly foreign to all of us: nobody has ever used it to produce anything meaningful, and nobody has ever successfully simulated it." Despite your attempt to dismiss the NASA example, it refutes your assertion. The NASA scientists did not design the antennae, they were the result of a simulation of the process of evolution.

You attempt to dismiss this example because the scientists designed the process, and gave it a rubric to define viable results. But if we use those standards to eliminate the NASA example, then all examples of people using the evolutionary paradigm to produce something meaningful are automatically eliminated. Any simulation of evolution is ruled out, because any simulation must be designed. You've moved the goalposts from your original assertion to create a standard that is imposssible to meet. How convenient for you.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 24, 2014, 11:10:33 PM
Quote from: Recusant on December 24, 2014, 04:58:44 PMYour bland denial of this merely serves to show that you're unwilling to accept a fact that directly contradicts your assertions.

The example doesn't contradict my assertions, it supports them. The algorithm was clearly designed to produce antennas of a certain type; every line in the program was written with that goal in mind. And when it runs, it does what the designers intended it to do.

The NASA scientists didn't design the antennae. They designed a simulation of evolution which produced something meaningful (working antennae). Something you said had never been done. You were wrong.

Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Asmodean on December 28, 2014, 04:48:30 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 26, 2014, 12:08:39 PM
That's not an example of creation; that's just inanimate stuff doing what it was designed and constructed and programmed to do. You've jumped in in the middle. The actual creation -- the design and construction and programming of the overall environment and the critical elements within it (time, space, matter, energy, physical laws, etc) -- took place before the events you describe and is the thing that needs description.
I think you have it slightly backwards here. We have laws of physics because matter and energy interact in certain ways. It's not the other way around.

Quote
I hope you can see that examples from nature aren't going to work here, because it's the origin of such natural things that is under dispute.
No, it is not. The origin of the solar system is pretty clear, as is the origin of your left eye or a bandicoot. If you are looking for a "first cause" (Which I understand you are), there is no need to impose gods upon it.

Quote
My answer to all such examples will be the same: they were designed and constructed and programmed to operate as you describe by a Creator you haven't mentioned. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. But more examples from an already operational nature won't help. What would help is an example where the creator (or lack thereof) and the means of creation were both known and undisputed. Then we could extrapolate from there.
Fine. I recommend A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing by Lawrence Krauss. Read that, then we can discuss it. I am underqualified to explain that stuff here.

Quote
But that's the problem, isn't it. Nothing we creators make is ever made the evolutionary way: it's always the concept-design-construction paradigm that we employ. Which means, as I've pointed out elsewhere, that you're asking me to believe that we work one way whenever we want to get something done, but nature works the opposite way -- even when "she" is unintentionally "creating" beings like us!
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stupidedia.org%2Fimages%2F7%2F71%2F1885Benz.jpg%3Ffiletimestamp%3D20100115234147&hash=892a1f1da4d05beda705e6a46e3e7d89a519512f)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_RwabUf0AUjE%2FTO3khzACChI%2FAAAAAAAAAFM%2FYV3yppXxsUE%2Fs1600%2FBugatti_Veyron%2Bexpensive%2Bcar.jpg&hash=eda13b27a2e4be18ad5b8426e59813a9830fce07)

Everything, or as near as, in technology evolves.

Quote
I find that thought incredible (ie, unbelievable). That random mutations and unguided filtering could ever produce, from purely inanimate materials, conscious beings that specialize in creationist ways of getting things done -- beings who compose music, and write books, and paint pictures, and laugh, and love, and cry, and hope, and dream, and pray -- is simply fantastic (as in, "a fantasy"); and absurd (as in, absurd). You ask too much.
I ask nothing of you. What you believe has absolutely no impact on what is and what isn't and is, therefore, not my problem. However, I do find this leaping between the very simple "first cause" and the complex systems we see today in order to try and justify your highly problematic world view dishonest.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 28, 2014, 09:19:19 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 28, 2014, 04:26:07 AMOkay, you say "there are too many assumptions" in the scientific classification of fossil evidence for ancient hominins. What sort of assumptions are you talking about?

As I've said before, I have no interest in bickering about fossils; it's all been said elsewhere. So to keep this short, I'll just say that what makes the whole topic of no interest to me is the assumption that we can put an accurate date on anything that old.

From Wikipedia: "In 1988, scientists at three separate laboratories dated samples from the Shroud [of Turin] to a range of AD 1260?1390." We might assume, then, that the thing was at most 728 years old (at the time of the dating). And yet three labs could only narrow it down to a range of 130 years -- 17.8% of the total. If that's the best science can do dating things less than a thousand years old, I'm not inclined to put much stock in the conclusions of people who tell me they know what happened hundreds of thousands (or even millions and billions) of years ago.

Further, even those dates are disputed by other scientists (and this is where other assumptions start showing): some say the samples came from a part of the Shroud that was repaired; others that the samples were not representative of the rest of the piece; still others argue that the samples were contaminated by bacteria, cleaning fluids, even ashes from a fire; some say the way the Shroud has been recently stored produces false readings; some say "a determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggest the shroud is between 1300 and 3000 years old; others say "a reaction with carbon monoxide in the atmosphere could add additional fresh C14 to the sample"; and still others say they "identified statistical errors in the conclusions published." Etc, etc. Obviously, dating is far from an exact science. And that's just with relatively recent stuff. Such difficulties can only multiply as the age of a sample increases and its quality is thus seriously degraded.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 28, 2014, 09:38:12 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on December 28, 2014, 04:48:30 AM
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi60.tinypic.com%2F20su5fs.jpg&hash=f315d9c7be8328e296dc91ebbc742b4f0bf5be7f)
Everything, or as near as, in technology evolves.

We didn't get from cars like those on the left to cars like those on the right by evolutionary means; no random mutation, no natural selection. Intelligent designers thought up the original, the intermediate, and the final concepts and built them.

But let me go back to fossils for Recusant's sake for a moment: Do you really think that anyone 100,000 years from now will be able to find enough fossil remains of the two vehicles shown above, plus enough of the intermediate forms, to write an accurate and precise "History of the Automobile during the 20th Century"? I don't think so. In fact, I don't think they'll find a single part from any of those vehicles.


Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: OldGit on December 28, 2014, 09:53:27 AM
Quote from: Gerry. Obviously, dating is far from an exact science. And that's just with relatively recent stuff. Such difficulties can only multiply as the age of a sample increases and its quality is thus seriously degraded.

Gerry, you are easily intelligent enough to understand the difference between carbon dating and the methods used to date fossils.  They are totally different, as you must be well aware, yet you are trying to project the uncertainties of carbon dating pro rata back into geological time.

Since I'm sure you know this full well, I'm afraid I must accuse you of wilful dishonesty.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Dobermonster on December 28, 2014, 10:10:10 AM
Gerry, do you think you are better at science than the vast majority of scientists, or that they are all conspiring to support a false theory?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Tank on December 28, 2014, 10:55:31 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 28, 2014, 09:19:19 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 28, 2014, 04:26:07 AMOkay, you say "there are too many assumptions" in the scientific classification of fossil evidence for ancient hominins. What sort of assumptions are you talking about?

As I've said before, I have no interest in bickering about fossils; it's all been said elsewhere. So to keep this short, I'll just say that what makes the whole topic of no interest to me is the assumption that we can put an accurate date on anything that old.

From Wikipedia: "In 1988, scientists at three separate laboratories dated samples from the Shroud [of Turin] to a range of AD 1260?1390." We might assume, then, that the thing was at most 728 years old (at the time of the dating). And yet three labs could only narrow it down to a range of 130 years -- 17.8% of the total. If that's the best science can do dating things less than a thousand years old, I'm not inclined to put much stock in the conclusions of people who tell me they know what happened hundreds of thousands (or even millions and billions) of years ago.

Further, even those dates are disputed by other scientists (and this is where other assumptions start showing): some say the samples came from a part of the Shroud that was repaired; others that the samples were not representative of the rest of the piece; still others argue that the samples were contaminated by bacteria, cleaning fluids, even ashes from a fire; some say the way the Shroud has been recently stored produces false readings; some say "a determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggest the shroud is between 1300 and 3000 years old; others say "a reaction with carbon monoxide in the atmosphere could add additional fresh C14 to the sample"; and still others say they "identified statistical errors in the conclusions published." Etc, etc. Obviously, dating is far from an exact science. And that's just with relatively recent stuff. Such difficulties can only multiply as the age of a sample increases and its quality is thus seriously degraded.

The Shroud of Turin was dated 'accurately'; given the sample they took. There is a fascinating program about it. The sample was taken from the very edge of the shroud. It turned out it had been repaired there. So the sample was a combination of new and old material. The original results turned out to be spaced in exact proportion to the proportions of new and old material. This was discovered because only parts of the original sample were tested so they could go back and check them again. A later test took material from around the scorch marks from the fire, this area had to be original material. The big problem now is that a while ago the case was doused in an insecticide which contains modern C14 so we'll can't carry out more tests. It looks like the shroud is a lot older than the scientists first thought. And the combination of old and new material was the cause of the initial wide variation. So the problem was sample contamination not a fundamental inaccuracy of the dating process.

Radiometric dating comes in many different forms Gerry, not just C14. And of course if radiometric dating is wrong your computer shouldn't work because they are both based on the same physics. Yet we don't see you claiming your computer doesn't work do do we. Gerry, you can't cherry pick your science  based on your personal and unqualified opinion.

You need to consider and understand Radiocarbon Calibration (http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=calibration.html). This page is produced by the University of Oxford a far more reliable source of information than any political and agenda driven organisation like The Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis. If you don't trust me Gerry trust these scientists, they know infinity more about the subject than you do.

QuoteContributions by:

    Dr Tom Higham, Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit,Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, Oxford, United Kingdom.
    Prof Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit,Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, Oxford, United Kingdom.
    Dr Alan Hogg, Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
    Dr Fiona Petchey, Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
    Dr Richard Cresswell, Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Group, Research School of Physical Sciences and Engineering, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

The issues are with the sample Gerry, not the process.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Tank on December 28, 2014, 11:06:49 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 28, 2014, 09:38:12 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on December 28, 2014, 04:48:30 AM
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi60.tinypic.com%2F20su5fs.jpg&hash=f315d9c7be8328e296dc91ebbc742b4f0bf5be7f)
Everything, or as near as, in technology evolves.

We didn't get from cars like those on the left to cars like those on the right by evolutionary means; no random mutation, no natural selection. Intelligent designers thought up the original, the intermediate, and the final concepts and built them.

But let me go back to fossils for Recusant's sake for a moment: Do you really think that anyone 100,000 years from now will be able to find enough fossil remains of the two vehicles shown above, plus enough of the intermediate forms, to write an accurate and precise "History of the Automobile during the 20th Century"? I don't think so. In fact, I don't think they'll find a single part from any of those vehicles.
Gerry how are fossils formed? Do you understand the processes involved? Your comment about the cars is a false analogy, cars are not living creatures so they won't fossilise in the same way an animal carcass would. However, as cars developed they contained a higher and higher proportion of plastics. And one of the characteristics of plastics is they don't degrade. So 100,000 years from now they'll still be plenty of plastic car parts buried. More than enough to draw conclusions from. 
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Tank on December 28, 2014, 11:12:44 AM
If you want to see a selection process in action look at aircraft, in particular combat aircraft, specifically fighters. Early on there were hundreds of different types. By WWII they were almost all propeller driven low wing monoplanes. Then along came the jet and the propeller driven fighter became extinct. Now there are only a handful of fighter types in production, all jets. That's technological evolution and the selection pressure was simple. Those fighters that were not up to the job were shot out of the sky.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: xSilverPhinx on December 28, 2014, 11:42:43 AM
Gerry I suggest you read
Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501), written by a Christian and a   scientist, Kenneth Miller.  
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Asmodean on December 28, 2014, 04:13:09 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 28, 2014, 09:38:12 AM
We didn't get from cars like those on the left to cars like those on the right by evolutionary means; no random mutation, no natural selection. Intelligent designers thought up the original, the intermediate, and the final concepts and built them.
Wrong, actually. Every new idea that was implemented, but was not a response to a problem in regard to the general purpose of the vehicle is in this case a random mutation. There have been thousands of the damned things over the years. In fact, the standard controls in a car are the way they are because of that process.

Natural selection is precisely what killed off LandRover in Africa and filled the place with Toyotas.

Who thought up what concepts is irrelevant with regard to the tech as a whole.

Quote
But let me go back to fossils for Recusant's sake for a moment: Do you really think that anyone 100,000 years from now will be able to find enough fossil remains of the two vehicles shown above, plus enough of the intermediate forms, to write an accurate and precise "History of the Automobile during the 20th Century"? I don't think so. In fact, I don't think they'll find a single part from any of those vehicles.
Barring the Sun going nova, yes, they certainly will.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Recusant on December 28, 2014, 04:39:12 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 28, 2014, 09:19:19 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 28, 2014, 04:26:07 AMOkay, you say "there are too many assumptions" in the scientific classification of fossil evidence for ancient hominins. What sort of assumptions are you talking about?

As I've said before, I have no interest in bickering about fossils; it's all been said elsewhere. So to keep this short, I'll just say that what makes the whole topic of no interest to me is the assumption that we can put an accurate date on anything that old.

Some homework for you: "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective" by Dr. Roger C. Wiens (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html)

QuoteRadiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: jumbojak on December 28, 2014, 05:15:40 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 26, 2014, 09:53:06 PM
Quote from: jumbojak on December 26, 2014, 09:38:53 PMSo, have you actually studied any creationist authors in depth, or is it all a random sampling on your part? You didn't answer the question Gerry.

Yes, I've read lots of Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Paul, etc; Henry, Chaffer, Chesterton, Lewis, Bevan, McCosh, Mansell, Sayers, etc; Newton, Brown, Berlinski, Dembski, Batten, Knuth, Carter, Catchpoole, Hartnett, Harwood, Mason, Sarfati, Silvestru, Walker, Carter; and many, many others, all the way through. What's the point?


The point was to work out the contradiction in what you said here, in this thread, and your statements in your original thread on common ground. Clarification was all I was after.

The reason I ask is that, at some of my other online haunts, I see people every day who claim to have "studied" a particular person's work, and yet have almost zero understanding of what that person was actually trying to say. They can parrot one-liners but and excerpts but are lost whenever anything that contradicts their views are presented.

Lenin provides an excellent case study: there is a segment of the left which takes the concept of Leninism to dogmatic extremes. These individuals tend to come in two flavours 1) old school party hand-raisers who can't get past their chosen organization's particular reading of Lenin and 2) young people drawn to the left who view Lenin's body of work as a step-by-step instruction manual.

Both flavours are seemingly incapable of gaining a deeper understanding of what Lenin probably got right because they fail to look past his prescriptions for the RSDLP or his analysis of early 20th century politics and gain and understanding of why he thought the way he did. What's the reason for this? By and large it's because they haven't "studied" more than a few excerpts. Or if they have, anything that might contradict their view is ignored.

Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 28, 2014, 08:39:02 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 28, 2014, 11:12:44 AM
If you want to see a selection process in action look at aircraft, in particular combat aircraft, specifically fighters. Early on there were hundreds of different types. By WWII they were almost all propeller driven low wing monoplanes. Then along came the jet and the propeller driven fighter became extinct. Now there are only a handful of fighter types in production, all jets. That's technological evolution and the selection pressure was simple. Those fighters that were not up to the job were shot out of the sky.

I don't see how that helps. First you (not some unguided selection process) narrow the field to "combat aircraft, specifically fighters" -- leaving out all non-military aircraft, not to mention lots of military types (like bombers and transports and drones). Then you expect me to equate the various observations of intelligent pilots, designers, scientists, and engineers -- and the subsequent actions they consciously take as a result of those observations -- as the equivalent of an unplanned and unguided "survival of the fittest" mechanism. Sorry, don't see it.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Tank on December 28, 2014, 08:46:19 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 28, 2014, 08:39:02 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 28, 2014, 11:12:44 AM
If you want to see a selection process in action look at aircraft, in particular combat aircraft, specifically fighters. Early on there were hundreds of different types. By WWII they were almost all propeller driven low wing monoplanes. Then along came the jet and the propeller driven fighter became extinct. Now there are only a handful of fighter types in production, all jets. That's technological evolution and the selection pressure was simple. Those fighters that were not up to the job were shot out of the sky.

I don't see how that helps. First you (not some unguided selection process) narrow the field to "combat aircraft, specifically fighters" -- leaving out all non-military aircraft, not to mention lots of military types (like bombers and transports and drones). Then you expect me to equate the various observations of intelligent pilots, designers, scientists, and engineers -- and the subsequent actions they consciously take as a result of those observations -- as the equivalent of an unplanned and unguided "survival of the fittest" mechanism. Sorry, don't see it.
Sorry Gerry. I was trying to simplify the nature of selection for you. Seems I failed.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 28, 2014, 08:49:48 PM
Quote from: OldGit on December 28, 2014, 09:53:27 AM
Gerry, you are easily intelligent enough to understand the difference between carbon dating and the methods used to date fossils.  They are totally different, as you must be well aware, yet you are trying to project the uncertainties of carbon dating pro rata back into geological time.

Yes, I'm aware that different methods are used to date different kinds of things. But I'm not projecting "the uncertainties of carbon dating pro rata back into geological time." I'm simply saying that if we have such trouble with near things, I suspect we'll have even more trouble with the far -- because (a) there's less data to go on, and (b) no chance of conclusively confirming the effectiveness of the dating method. For example, if I want to convince myself that carbon dating works, I can take something whose age is known and undisputed, and use that method to date it. But I can't do that with a method that only works on things so old that no known and undisputed samples are available.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 28, 2014, 09:01:26 PM
Quote from: Dobermonster on December 28, 2014, 10:10:10 AM
Gerry, do you think you are better at science than the vast majority of scientists, or that they are all conspiring to support a false theory?

Of course I'm not better at science than the vast majority of scientists. And I don't think they are all conspiring to support a false theory. Conspiring is the wrong word. I have a friend who is a doctor of medicine (and claims to be a Christian) and he readily confesses that he gave answers on tests in medical school that he knew to be contrary to what he believed simply to get the degree he needed to further his career. I'm sure that sort of thing is rife in the scientific community. The books I mentioned earlier document some striking cases: Kicking the Sacred Cow by James P. Hogan (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0743488288) and The Virtue of Heresy: Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer by Hilton Ratcliffe (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1419695568). That's enough to make me suspicious of the whole enterprise, especially when it speaks with certainty about philosophical and historical things that (I think) are clearly outside of its proper scope. Not because I'm smarter than most scientists, or think they're conspiring together, but simply because I'm old enough to know the wickedness of the human heart, first hand.

Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 28, 2014, 09:28:33 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 28, 2014, 10:55:31 AMSo the problem [dating the Shroud] was sample contamination not a fundamental inaccuracy of the dating process.

And exactly how uncontaminated can we expect a 100,000-year-old sample to be?

Quote from: Tank on December 28, 2014, 10:55:31 AMAnd of course if radiometric dating is wrong your computer shouldn't work because they are both based on the same physics.

That's simply not true; my computer does not depend on an estimated and unproven value for the half-life of carbon-14 to operate. (I say "estimated and unproven" because the currently accepted value is 5730 years -- it was 5568 in the 1950's and 60's -- and nobody has lived long enough to actually check those values.) Nor does the operation of my computer depend on the uncertain amount of carbon-14 that might leach into (or out of) the motherboard from (or into) the atmosphere over the years. Can you see that computers and radiometric dating of artifacts are two very different kinds of things?

Quote from: Tank on December 28, 2014, 10:55:31 AMGerry, you can't cherry pick your science  based on your personal and unqualified opinion.

Sure I can. I'm ultimately responsible for my own philosophy of life and the decisions I make based on that philosophy. So it's up to me to evaluate the available information to my own personal satisfaction; and since there is so much information -- more than anyone could even scan in a lifetime -- I have to somehow focus on the kinds of information I think meaningful and reliable, and weed out the kinds of information that I think is less so. So I choose (a) actual reproducible empirical results, and (b) historical data that is confirmed by written records. And that gives me more than enough to work with for the rest of my life.

Quote from: Tank on December 28, 2014, 10:55:31 AMThe issues are with the sample Gerry, not the process.

Again, I have my doubts about getting reliable, uncontaminated samples from 100,000 years ago. We can't even get them from 768 years ago, under the most stringent of rules and procedures.

Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Tank on December 28, 2014, 09:56:22 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 28, 2014, 09:28:33 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 28, 2014, 10:55:31 AMSo the problem [dating the Shroud] was sample contamination not a fundamental inaccuracy of the dating process.

And exactly how uncontaminated can we expect a 100,000-year-old sample to be?
Depends on the sample and if it were contaminated it wouldn't be used would it? Do you think the scientists involved in this field are imbeciles? Apparently you do.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 28, 2014, 09:28:33 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 28, 2014, 10:55:31 AMAnd of course if radiometric dating is wrong your computer shouldn't work because they are both based on the same physics.

That's simply not true; my computer does not depend on an estimated and unproven value for the half-life of carbon-14 to operate. (I say "estimated and unproven" because the currently accepted value is 5730 years -- it was 5568 in the 1950's and 60's -- and nobody has lived long enough to actually check those values.) Nor does the operation of my computer depend on the uncertain amount of carbon-14 that might leach into (or out of) the motherboard from (or into) the atmosphere over the years. Can you see that computers and radiometric dating of artifacts are two very different kinds of things?
Missing, or more to the point avoiding, the point again Gerry. What a surprise. Your computer relies on material sciences at the atomic level. The same fundamental physics that underpin the function your computer underpin radiometric dating. You don't understand how radiometric dating works Gerry. Please stop pretending that you do.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 28, 2014, 09:28:33 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 28, 2014, 10:55:31 AMGerry, you can't cherry pick your science  based on your personal and unqualified opinion.

Sure I can. I'm ultimately responsible for my own philosophy of life and the decisions I make based on that philosophy. So it's up to me to evaluate the available information to my own personal satisfaction; and since there is so much information -- more than anyone could even scan in a lifetime -- I have to somehow focus on the kinds of information I think meaningful and reliable, and weed out the kinds of information that I think is less so. So I choose (a) actual reproducible empirical results, and (b) historical data that is confirmed by written records. And that gives me more than enough to work with for the rest of my life.
Nope Gerry. It doesn't work that way. You may think it does but again you'd be wrong. Your choices are wrong but you can't/won't see that. And the reason they are wrong is because there is far too much subjectivity and ego on your part.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 28, 2014, 09:28:33 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 28, 2014, 10:55:31 AMThe issues are with the sample Gerry, not the process.

Again, I have my doubts about getting reliable, uncontaminated samples from 100,000 years ago. We can't even get them from 768 years ago, under the most stringent of rules and procedures.
Your doubts are superfluous Gerry. Who discovered the dating was wrong? Guess what Gerry, it was scientists. 98% of the time they know what they are doing and things go well. The 2% where it doesn't does not invalidate the 98% they get right. Your continual focus on the 2% simply reveals your agenda driven bias. I see you haven't addressed the Wedge Strategy. Again no surprise there. I'm also not surprised to see you dismissing out of hand the entire efforts of the science of palaeontology. You don't understand it so you dismiss it as a minor inconvenience.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 28, 2014, 10:03:36 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 28, 2014, 11:06:49 AMGerry how are fossils formed? Do you understand the processes involved?

My understanding is that a fossil can be formed when something is quickly buried by mud, silt, volcanic ash, or sand; or quickly frozen in ice, mummified in hot or cold deserts, or preserved in tar. I suspect there are other ways, as well -- each "contaminating" the samples in their own way.

Quote from: Tank on December 28, 2014, 11:06:49 AMYour comment about the cars is a false analogy, cars are not living creatures so they won't fossilise in the same way an animal carcass would.

Not exactly the same, of course not. But they still might be preserved by rapid encasement in mud, ash, sand, ice, tar, etc.

Quote from: Tank on December 28, 2014, 11:06:49 AMHowever, as cars developed they contained a higher and higher proportion of plastics. And one of the characteristics of plastics is they don't degrade.

That's not quite true. Most plastics decompose when exposed to sunlight (in or out of water), and many of the newer plastics are intentionally made to be biodegradable.

Quote from: Tank on December 28, 2014, 11:06:49 AMSo 100,000 years from now they'll still be plenty of plastic car parts buried. More than enough to draw conclusions from. 

May be; But you and I will never know for sure.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 28, 2014, 10:33:41 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 28, 2014, 11:42:43 AM
Gerry I suggest you read
Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501), written by a Christian and a scientist, Kenneth Miller.  

Frankly, I'm not interested in finding "Common Ground Between God and Evolution" -- that's Bruce's bailiwick. I'm interested in investigating the common ground that has been common to all people throughout all of recorded history -- and that is still clearly evident today. And for which there are the two kinds of evidence I find compelling: (a) repeatable experiments, and (b) written historical records. Two examples:

1. People all throughout recorded history have recognized differences in kind (and not just degree) in living creatures. A writer 2000 years ago, for example, said, "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." And he wasn't trying to convince his audience of this; he was talking about something else and using this as an example that he knew would be immediately accepted by all. I submit that we feel the same way today: we recognize that fish, for example, don't have the same rights as humans and can be eaten for dinner if we please.

2. People all throughout recorded history have recognized the appearance of design in nature. Another author from 2000 years ago said it this way: "Every house is built by some man; but he that built all things is God." And again, he wasn't trying to convince his audience of this fact; he was talking about something else and using this as an example that he knew would be immediately accepted by all. I submit that even dyed-in-the-wool evolutionists can't help but see design in nature: which is why a guy like Francis Crick has to remind his disciples, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved" -- in other words, they must intentionally deny the obvious evidences provided by their senses and intuitions.

The thing that most strikes me is how the evolutionary paradigm attempts to turn these two historic and ubiquitous concepts on their heads; it's a 180-degree reversal. The evolutionary paradigm requires us to abandon any real distinctions in kind, and to write off the appearance of design in nature as an illusion. Personally, I don't think it's wise to glibly reverse that which has been so obvious, so practical, and so fruitful for people everywhere throughout all of recorded history. In my personal view, it smacks of diabolical thinking. And I haven't seen any good fruit grow from that questionable tree, either; just the opposite: society, all told, seems to me to be degraded in every area where the evolutionary paradigm has held sway.

Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 28, 2014, 10:50:55 PM
Quote from: Recusant on December 28, 2014, 04:39:12 PMSome homework for you: "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective" by Dr. Roger C. Wiens (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html)

Right back at you: http://creation.com/images/pdfs/other/5292wiens_dating.pdf

The whole matter is under dispute and mostly concerns pre-history (which, as I've said above, falls outside the range of my primary interests).

Different kinds of people find different kinds of things persuasive; I'm sure you know this. I am a polymath, not a specialist; a general practitioner, if you will. Or perhaps you'd prefer "Jack of all Trades, Master of None"! :) So be it. I'd consider that a compliment. But since I'm now 61 years old and have but nine years before my three-score-and-ten run out, I need to carefully allocate my remaining years; restrict my studies and activities to the areas I find most fruitful for me, my wife, my kids, my grandkids, and my students in various fields. Call me arbitrary, but I've decided to place all of pre-history out of bounds, and focus only on those obvious and fundamental things that can and have been helpful to people everywhere throughout all of recorded history.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 28, 2014, 11:01:05 PM
Quote from: jumbojak on December 28, 2014, 05:15:40 PMThe point was to work out the contradiction in what you said here, in this thread, and your statements in your original thread on common ground. Clarification was all I was after.

The reason I ask is that, at some of my other online haunts, I see people every day who claim to have "studied" a particular person's work, and yet have almost zero understanding of what that person was actually trying to say. They can parrot one-liners but and excerpts but are lost whenever anything that contradicts their views are presented.

Lenin provides an excellent case study: there is a segment of the left which takes the concept of Leninism to dogmatic extremes. These individuals tend to come in two flavours 1) old school party hand-raisers who can't get past their chosen organization's particular reading of Lenin and 2) young people drawn to the left who view Lenin's body of work as a step-by-step instruction manual.

Both flavours are seemingly incapable of gaining a deeper understanding of what Lenin probably got right because they fail to look past his prescriptions for the RSDLP or his analysis of early 20th century politics and gain and understanding of why he thought the way he did. What's the reason for this? By and large it's because they haven't "studied" more than a few excerpts. Or if they have, anything that might contradict their view is ignored.

I'm not sure how to respond to all that, but when you brought up Lenin it reminded me of a picture I painted on request some time ago. Seems some people think Lenin's influence now reaches further than some might suspect. Perhaps the historian in you will get a kick out of it. Cover up the right and you'll see Barack Obama; cover the left and you'll see Alger Hiss.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi62.tinypic.com%2F2yoes0x.jpg&hash=ddb2f985f1484bda10b4d0c2de2a5a45becaeba7)

This is an aside, of course, and has nothing to do with intelligent design. Unless one thinks perhaps there's some unseen design behind current political machinations! :)
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: xSilverPhinx on December 28, 2014, 11:14:39 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 28, 2014, 10:33:41 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 28, 2014, 11:42:43 AM
Gerry I suggest you read
Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501), written by a Christian and a scientist, Kenneth Miller.  

Frankly, I'm not interested in finding "Common Ground Between God and Evolution" -- that's Bruce's bailiwick. I'm interested in investigating the common ground that has been common to all people throughout all of recorded history -- and that is still clearly evident today. And for which there are the two kinds of evidence I find compelling: (a) repeatable experiments, and (b) written historical records. Two examples:

1. People all throughout recorded history have recognized differences in kind (and not just degree) in living creatures. A writer 2000 years ago, for example, said, "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." And he wasn't trying to convince his audience of this; he was talking about something else and using this as an example that he knew would be immediately accepted by all. I submit that we feel the same way today: we recognize that fish, for example, don't have the same rights as humans and can be eaten for dinner if we please.

2. People all throughout recorded history have recognized the appearance of design in nature. Another author from 2000 years ago said it this way: "Every house is built by some man; but he that built all things is God." And again, he wasn't trying to convince his audience of this fact; he was talking about something else and using this as an example that he knew would be immediately accepted by all. I submit that even dyed-in-the-wool evolutionists can't help but see design in nature: which is why a guy like Francis Crick has to remind his disciples, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved" -- in other words, they must intentionally deny the obvious evidences provided by their senses and intuitions.

The thing that most strikes me is how the evolutionary paradigm attempts to turn these two historic and ubiquitous concepts on their heads; it's a 180-degree reversal. The evolutionary paradigm requires us to abandon any real distinctions in kind, and to write off the appearance of design in nature as an illusion. Personally, I don't think it's wise to glibly reverse that which has been so obvious, so practical, and so fruitful for people everywhere throughout all of recorded history. In my personal view, it smacks of diabolical thinking. And I haven't seen any good fruit grow from that questionable tree, either; just the opposite: society, all told, seems to me to be degraded in every area where the evolutionary paradigm has held sway.



Gerry I'm sitting here wondering just how much you know about evolution. You dismiss it so lightly when there are mountains of evidence to support it. What is doesn't care in the slightest about what you beliefs are, and quite frankly if I were a believer I would want to get it as close to the truth as possible.

Do you think that evolutionary theory states that mankind evolved from chimpanzees? Forget fossils for a bit, how much do you know about molecular biology? Do you think that evolutionary theory states that crocoducks could be the hybrid offspring of a duck and a crocodile? How about the second law of thermodynamics, do you think it disproves evolution? And what about the fused second chromosome in humans? Why would there be two telomeres in the middle?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 28, 2014, 11:16:56 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 28, 2014, 09:56:22 PMI see you haven't addressed the Wedge Strategy.

When someone mentioned the Wedge Strategy before I went looking for information on it. I found this interview with Phillip Johnson:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/defense-intelligent-design.html

Frankly, I thought he sounded quite reasonable and much of what he said I might have said myself. I disagree, however, that Christians should restrict themselves to the "experimentally verifiable" and refrain from giving the Designer the obvious name God. In fact, I got myself kicked off Dembski's Uncommon Descent site some years ago for pressing the issue. As I've said before, it can be lonely in the middle of the road. I have no idea how many of my posts are still there: this is the only thread I could find, but I didn't look very hard: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/leibniz-machines-of-nature-all-artificial-automata/ s

Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 28, 2014, 11:37:36 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 28, 2014, 11:14:39 PMForget fossils for a bit, how much do you know about molecular biology?

When my wife was 56 we mixed up a blastocyst in a dish and implanted it in her well-past-menopause garden. Then, for nine months, we fed her sandwiches from Subway, and, lo and behold, out came a fully formed human baby. Now based on my 60 year's experience with making things -- from books to paintings to songs to houses to computer programs to electronic circuits -- I find it utterly incredible (as in unbelievable) that such a system -- a machine that takes submarine sandwiches and converts them, silently, in just nine months, into a fully functional human baby -- could exist without Somebody designing and constructing it with that end in mind. It's as simple as that.

What's really cool is that the little guy's development didn't stop there. Here he is about six years later:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi58.tinypic.com%2F119w3nb.jpg&hash=8b2413395014c061d87f5a2c1351151349d7f72e)

That stuff on the wall didn't happen without design; nor did that picture on his shirt. I'm pretty sure that he didn't either -- especially since he's billions of times more complex and carefully tuned. It just seems obvious to me. Which is why I started this thread with stories about what's obvious to some and not others: Smullyan's laughter, Well's eyesight, Abbot's spacial dimensions. I don't need "fossil evidence" for laughter, or eyesight, or spacial dimensions; or babies. I have first-hand experience with such things. I simply know.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: xSilverPhinx on December 28, 2014, 11:46:56 PM
Once you actually learn about a topic, in this case evolutionary theory,  you'll see just how much sense it makes.   As I've said before, forget fossils, most of the evidence for evolutionary theory hinges on molecular biology and genetics, things Darwin didn't even know about. It's a topic well worth researching in depth, and once you do so much makes sense.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Asmodean on December 29, 2014, 01:36:12 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 28, 2014, 04:39:12 PM
Some homework for you: "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective" by Dr. Roger C. Wiens (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html)
I must admit, the title made me curious, so I went in. I must say, I was surprised, and in a very positive way, by how comprehensive that paper is, what with presenting the information in a bite-sized, for-the-uninitiated way.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 28, 2014, 10:50:55 PM
The whole matter is under dispute and mostly concerns pre-history (which, as I've said above, falls outside the range of my primary interests).

Different kinds of people find different kinds of things persuasive; I'm sure you know this. I am a polymath, not a specialist; a general practitioner, if you will. Or perhaps you'd prefer "Jack of all Trades, Master of None"! :) So be it. I'd consider that a compliment. But since I'm now 61 years old and have but nine years before my three-score-and-ten run out, I need to carefully allocate my remaining years; restrict my studies and activities to the areas I find most fruitful for me, my wife, my kids, my grandkids, and my students in various fields. Call me arbitrary, but I've decided to place all of pre-history out of bounds, and focus only on those obvious and fundamental things that can and have been helpful to people everywhere throughout all of recorded history.
What you specialize in is up to you, of course, but when it comes to radiometrics being disputed, they really are not. Not by any serious scientist. Oh, they may bicker over the finer points of the seventeenth-or-so decimal in the results measured, but that only translates to a minute margin of error when looking at the overall scope.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Recusant on December 29, 2014, 02:26:18 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 28, 2014, 10:50:55 PM
Quote from: Recusant on December 28, 2014, 04:39:12 PMSome homework for you: "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective" by Dr. Roger C. Wiens (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html)

Right back at you: http://creation.com/images/pdfs/other/5292wiens_dating.pdf

Thanks. I read through that. I doubt that you bothered to read the Wiens piece. But then, why would you? You don't actually care about this aspect of science, as you've said.

I found Walker's approach to the topic ludicrous. He isn't examining the science of radiometric dating from a scientific perspective, but from the perspective that anything which contradicts a literal reading of the Bible has to be incorrect.

QuoteAlthough the paper is published on the website of ASA, an association of Christian scientists, we should not accept claims that contradict the Bible.
As he states on his website (http://biblicalgeology.net/Model/Biblical-Chronology.html):

QuoteBecause we believe the Bible is true, we assume that its plain reading gives an accurate understanding of Earth history. Biblical chronology is used as the basis for geological investigation.

One of his main themes is all too familiar. It's the Ken Ham mantra: "You weren't there!" You've used that same line of argumentation, and it really isn't effective. The evidence doesn't depend on some person being alive millions or billions of years ago.

I will point out that Walker is not a reliable source of information. Before he obtained his BS in Earth Sciences, he had published Young Earth Creationist articles for Creation Ministries International, in which his YEC ideas were put forth unequivocally. Yet his bachelor's thesis (which acknowledges Jesus as an inspiration) is completely in line with main-stream geology, referencing processes that took millions of years and examining radiometric dating within the that framework. He wrote what was (as far as he was concerned) a piece of fiction in order to obtain his degree. He has thus shown that he's willing to play fast and loose with the truth in service of his agenda.

QuoteTasman Walker has availed himself of the opportunity to gain a scientific education.  By publishing a thesis that contradicts his true YEC beliefs, Walker is guilty of ethical misconduct. Instead of pretending to believe in an ancient Earth, Walker should have done a thesis on landslide erosion, coal ash disposal, groundwater pollution or another topic that would not involve compromising his religious beliefs on historical geology.  There's also no doubt that when he embraced a 6000 year old Earth, he only pretended to adopt the accumulated geological evidence supporting an old Earth to please the faculty at the University of Queensland and get his degree.  This is a prime example of an immoral "ends justifies the means." In reality, Walker held a religious dogma that is antithetical to science long before he completed his thesis. Tasman Walker has misrepresented science to the public and he deceptively did it in the name of the University of Queensland.  Can there be any mitigating circumstances for Walker to tell lies for Jesus?

[source (http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/CMI_walker_thesis2.htm)]

Walker refers repeatedly to the failed (http://www.oldearth.org/rate_index.htm) RATE project, as if it refutes the science that Wiens is presenting. It does not. In fact, among other things it's an example of the dishonest practices (http://www.oldearth.org/ratedeception.htm) of the proponents of Young Earth Creationism.

Dishonesty is a recurring theme in Young Earth Creationism. In fact, I would consider it endemic. You say you're not interested in examining the issue of the age of the Earth. That's probably a good thing, since it allows you to ignore the mendacity of those who agree with your position.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 28, 2014, 10:50:55 PMThe whole matter is under dispute and mostly concerns pre-history (which, as I've said above, falls outside the range of my primary interests).

It's under dispute by those who are ready and willing to lie for Jesus. But again, apparently that's no concern of yours.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 28, 2014, 10:50:55 PMDifferent kinds of people find different kinds of things persuasive; I'm sure you know this. I am a polymath, not a specialist; a general practitioner, if you will. Or perhaps you'd prefer "Jack of all Trades, Master of None"! :) So be it. I'd consider that a compliment. But since I'm now 61 years old and have but nine years before my three-score-and-ten run out, I need to carefully allocate my remaining years; restrict my studies and activities to the areas I find most fruitful for me, my wife, my kids, my grandkids, and my students in various fields. Call me arbitrary, but I've decided to place all of pre-history out of bounds, and focus only on those obvious and fundamental things that can and have been helpful to people everywhere throughout all of recorded history.

OK, have it your way. It's clear that your pronouncements on this topic aren't based on an informed position, and thus are not in themselves interesting.

If you change your mind and actually want to go through the science in the Wiens article and the counterclaims made by Walker, I am willing to do so.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Dobermonster on December 29, 2014, 03:43:24 AM
Gerry's anti-science stance is wonderfully illustrated in this post:
"
Again, I see your point. But in my personal case, I would be compromising my intuitions regarding the matter; intuitions that are based on 60-some years of first-hand experience. I'm not as willing as Dawkins and Crick to simply set aside the "illusion of design" that is so striking everywhere we look. And again, while it's true that "God's ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts higher than our thoughts," I don't think (on the grounds that we were created in His image) that His ways and thoughts are necessarily or utterly different in kind than ours; I believe it has to be more a matter of degree in any subject that is essential to us."

Science eschews intuition as a method for determining truth from non-truth. The scientific method is specifically organized and continually improved upon to compensate for the biases and flawed perspectives that "human intuition" may influence the data with. We are pattern-seeking, fearful creatures with limited cognition and senses that have evolved to operate within an extremely narrow scope. Our "intuition" is reasonably good at keeping us from being lion-fodder, but it's shit at intuiting that stars are massive spheres of dense gases or that time and space are inseparable concepts. You have to do better than "what my gut tells me" if you want to go beyond living in caves and build skyscrapers instead.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Recusant on December 29, 2014, 04:35:56 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on December 29, 2014, 01:36:12 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 28, 2014, 04:39:12 PM
Some homework for you: "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective" by Dr. Roger C. Wiens (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html)
I must admit, the title made me curious, so I went in. I must say, I was surprised, and in a very positive way, by how comprehensive that paper is, what with presenting the information in a bite-sized, for-the-uninitiated way.

It's a good primer on the strengths and shortcomings of radiometric dating methods. Some advances have been made since it was written, but in my opinion that doesn't detract very much from its usefulness. Young Earth Creationists tend to dismiss it, though. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi48.tinypic.com%2F9h80g1.gif&hash=d603a0d9b9652cb40b31a42a4f77a9ec46233008)
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Niya on December 29, 2014, 04:45:12 AM
Gerry, I think you should not rely on creation websites for articles on evolution they simply are wrong on many instances, as I also showed you in the last article you cited regarding bottlenecks. Much of what you answer to questions related to evolution is based in misinformation. If you look at the DNA alone, the evidence is undeniable. I don't want you to take my word for it but I would recommend spending a year studying evolution, in detail.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Recusant on December 29, 2014, 07:12:55 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 28, 2014, 11:16:56 PM. . . In fact, I got myself kicked off Dembski's Uncommon Descent site some years ago for pressing the issue.

They say that they've un-banned all previously banned accounts. "UD Announces General Amnesty" (http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ud-announces-general-amnesty/)
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Icarus on December 29, 2014, 07:32:33 AM
Gerry: Perhaps you do not know much about Niya. Here's the short description. She is biblical scholar, a Christian, a doctor of theology. She is quietly brilliant, one of our most respected and appreciated participants. Right, we are a bunch of atheists who care very much about a Christian lady who happens to be exceptionally well educated and superbly pleasant to deal with. Her advice is golden. Do what she says if you really want to learn about how we got here.

Niya, if you happen to be reading this, I will not put up with fits of modesty from you.

 
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 29, 2014, 09:54:34 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 28, 2014, 11:46:56 PM
Once you actually learn about a topic, in this case evolutionary theory,  you'll see just how much sense it makes.   As I've said before, forget fossils, most of the evidence for evolutionary theory hinges on molecular biology and genetics, things Darwin didn't even know about. It's a topic well worth researching in depth, and once you do so much makes sense.

When I look at things at the molecular level I see design, design, design, just like I see at ordinary everyday levels. This, for example: http://www.iubmb-nicholson.org/swf/ATPSynthase.swf

Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: xSilverPhinx on December 29, 2014, 09:58:52 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 29, 2014, 09:54:34 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 28, 2014, 11:46:56 PM
Once you actually learn about a topic, in this case evolutionary theory,  you'll see just how much sense it makes.   As I've said before, forget fossils, most of the evidence for evolutionary theory hinges on molecular biology and genetics, things Darwin didn't even know about. It's a topic well worth researching in depth, and once you do so much makes sense.

When I look at things at the molecular level I see design, design, design, just like I see at ordinary everyday levels. This, for example: http://www.iubmb-nicholson.org/swf/ATPSynthase.swf

Why do you see design in ATP synthase? You think it's like a perfect motor or couldn't have evolved?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 29, 2014, 10:15:55 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 29, 2014, 02:26:18 AMIf you change your mind and actually want to go through the science in the Wiens article and the counterclaims made by Walker, I am willing to do so.

Now and then I find myself roped into shopping for clothes with my wife. And the difference in our approaches is striking. She will enter a store, immediately go to the closest rack, and start looking for her size. I, on the other hand, will stand by the door and survey the entire store, get a general "feel" for the place, and make an "executive decision" about whether I even want to go further in at all. Sure, I may miss a few "extraordinary bargains" doing things my way; but on the whole my way has proven more effective in getting the job done.

It's the same thing here: I have no interest in details until I'm convinced regarding the overall plausibility of a theory; whether that theory is consistent with what I already know about myself, other people, the world, and the universe at large; whether the theory appears to be philosophically and artistically and emotionally and aesthetically and morally appealing (as well as scientifically accurate, a determination that is typically made at a later stage). What does it matter if a theory has all its detailed ducks in a row if there's a fatal flaw in the overall idea? Like this:

"The Principia Mathematica (by Russell and Whitehead) was an attempt to describe a set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic from which all mathematical truths could in principle be proven. As such, this ambitious project is of great importance in the history of mathematics and philosophy, being one of the foremost products of the belief that such an undertaking may be achievable. However, in 1931, G?del's incompleteness theorem proved definitively that PM, and in fact any other attempt, could never achieve this lofty goal; that is, for any set of axioms and inference rules proposed to encapsulate mathematics, either the system must be inconsistent, or there must in fact be some truths of mathematics which could not be deduced from them."

Godel was also not a fan of evolutionary theory: "The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components."

Here's an interesting page on the mathematics of evolution: http://www.darwinsmaths.com/

Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 29, 2014, 10:20:30 AM
Quote from: Dobermonster on December 29, 2014, 03:43:24 AMYou have to do better than "what my gut tells me" if you want to go beyond living in caves and build skyscrapers instead.

Of course you do. But you don't want to ignore your gut either. After all, it's intuitions and inspirations and hunches and curiosities that drive the entire scientific enterprise. And in any case, you don't need (or want) the evolutionary paradigm when you're actually building skyscrapers. That kind of thing -- like everything else we make -- is a thoroughly top-down creationist endeavor.

Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Niya on December 29, 2014, 10:24:04 AM
 ???
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Niya on December 29, 2014, 10:28:28 AM
Quote
Now and then I find myself roped into shopping for clothes with my wife. And the difference in our approaches is striking. She will enter a store, immediately go to the closest rack, and start looking for her size. I, on the other hand, will stand by the door and survey the entire store, get a general "feel" for the place, and make an "executive decision" about whether I even want to go further in at all. Sure, I may miss a few "extraordinary bargains" doing things my way; but on the whole my way has proven more effective in getting the job done.

It's the same thing here: I have no interest in details until I'm convinced regarding the overall plausibility of a theory; whether that theory is consistent with what I already know about myself, other people, the world, and the universe at large; whether the theory appears to be philosophically and artistically and emotionally and aesthetically and morally appealing (as well as scientifically accurate, a determination that is typically made at a later stage). What does it matter if a theory has all its detailed ducks in a row if there's a fatal flaw in the overall idea? Like this:

"The Principia Mathematica (by Russell and Whitehead) was an attempt to describe a set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic from which all mathematical truths could in principle be proven. As such, this ambitious project is of great importance in the history of mathematics and philosophy, being one of the foremost products of the belief that such an undertaking may be achievable. However, in 1931, G?del's incompleteness theorem proved definitively that PM, and in fact any other attempt, could never achieve this lofty goal; that is, for any set of axioms and inference rules proposed to encapsulate mathematics, either the system must be inconsistent, or there must in fact be some truths of mathematics which could not be deduced from them."

Godel was also not a fan of evolutionary theory: "The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components."

Here's an interesting page on the mathematics of evolution: http://www.darwinsmaths.com/

As Pauli said it "It is not even wrong."
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 29, 2014, 10:33:11 AM
Quote from: Niya on December 29, 2014, 04:45:12 AMIf you look at the DNA alone, the evidence is undeniable.

When I look at DNA I see something that looks a lot like a program. And I know a lot about programs, having spent the better part of the last three decades creating them. And I know something about probabilities since I have a degree (with honors) in mathematics. Things like DNA are obviously designed. And randomly messing with the bits can only, in the end, degrade the system.

Quote from: Niya on December 29, 2014, 04:45:12 AMI don't want you to take my word for it but I would recommend spending a year studying evolution, in detail.

Here's a link to a page about the mathematics of evolution: http://www.darwinsmaths.com/ .  Perhaps you should spend just twenty minutes looking at that: it doesn't matter how enticing a story is if it's a mathematical impossibility.

I also highly recommend C. S. Lewis' The Funeral of a Great Myth (http://fpb.livejournal.com/297710.html) which clearly separates the mythical elements of the evolutionary paradigm from the actual scientific facts.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Dobermonster on December 29, 2014, 10:35:22 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 29, 2014, 10:20:30 AM
Quote from: Dobermonster on December 29, 2014, 03:43:24 AMYou have to do better than "what my gut tells me" if you want to go beyond living in caves and build skyscrapers instead.

Of course you do. But you don't want to ignore your gut either. After all, it's intuitions and inspirations and hunches and curiosities that drive the entire scientific enterprise. And in any case, you don't need (or want) the evolutionary paradigm when you're actually building skyscrapers. That kind of thing -- like everything else we make -- is a thoroughly top-down creationist endeavor.



It drives the curiosity, but it's a very poor tool for determining the answers. And you are taking literally - on purpose?- the skyscraper analogy. It's a remark on intuition. You can't intuit your way into making an earthquake-resistant building, you have to operate on scientific principles, and scientific principles were made to compensate *for* the ineffectiveness of 'gut feelings'.
Example - which is the more aerodynamic craft?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FoikCkGFK1bk%2F0.jpg&hash=4f365d3454cba9fdbcdda6f5e981c70d1bf03d17)

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.graphicsfuel.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F10%2Fpaper-airplane-icon.jpg&hash=e366b916e76e41a7a92f4bab3611932a027f16b9)


Intuition would lead you to choose the second one. It looks like an airplane, it has wings. Its like what every kid makes to chuck across the classroom. But when you test the two designs, and study the physics, you find out that the cylinder will fly farther and straighter than the airplane-shaped one every time.

I'll step off here now...I think Niya might have a better insight into your way of thinking.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 29, 2014, 10:40:13 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 29, 2014, 09:58:52 AMWhy do you see design in ATP synthase?

As I said in another thread where we were discussing our ability to detect design: "We are alerted to the presence of design when we see several interacting parts working together to perform some kind of function." I see that in the ATP "motor".

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 29, 2014, 09:58:52 AMYou think it's like a perfect motor or couldn't have evolved?

I think such things are clearly designed and could not have evolved via the mechanisms currently proposed by materialists.

Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: xSilverPhinx on December 29, 2014, 11:03:56 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 29, 2014, 10:40:13 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 29, 2014, 09:58:52 AMWhy do you see design in ATP synthase?

As I said in another thread where we were discussing our ability to detect design: "We are alerted to the presence of design when we see several interacting parts working together to perform some kind of function." I see that in the ATP "motor".

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 29, 2014, 09:58:52 AMYou think it's like a perfect motor or couldn't have evolved?

Yes, I think such things are designed and could not have evolved via the mechanisms currently proposed by materialists.

Actually here's (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049208/) one study that proposes that ATP synthase came about by modular evolution. That is, non related proteins evolved and combined to form the enzyme, it wasn't "designed" in one go. 

Quoteunit of the ATP synthase.

The F1 and F0 sectors of the ATP synthase have been proposed to have evolved from functionally unrelated ancestral proteins (Walker, 1998;Mulkidjanian et al, 2007). This is supported by earlier studies, indicating that F1 assembles independent of F0 (Schatz, 1968; Tzagoloff, 1969). Whether F0 can also assemble as an independent unit has been more difficult to unravel because of the high turnover rate of Atp6p and peripheral stalk subunits in mutants arrested in assembly of the F1?F0complex (Paul et al, 1989; Helfenbein et al, 2003). To circumvent this problem, we have taken advantage of the relative stability of the core subunits of F0 when they are synthesized in isolated mitochondria and of their ability to assemble into larger complexes (Herrmann et al, 1994b; Tzagoloff et al, 2004; Jia et al, 2007).

Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Niya on December 29, 2014, 11:09:32 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 29, 2014, 10:33:11 AM
Quote from: Niya on December 29, 2014, 04:45:12 AMIf you look at the DNA alone, the evidence is undeniable.

When I look at DNA I see something that looks a lot like a program. And I know a lot about programs, having spent the better part of the last three decades creating them. And I know something about probabilities since I have a degree (with honors) in mathematics. Things like DNA are obviously designed. And randomly messing with the bits can only, in the end, degrade the system.

Quote from: Niya on December 29, 2014, 04:45:12 AMI don't want you to take my word for it but I would recommend spending a year studying evolution, in detail.

Here's a link to a page about the mathematics of evolution: http://www.darwinsmaths.com/ .  Perhaps you should spend just twenty minutes looking at that: it doesn't matter how enticing a story is if it's a mathematical impossibility.


It is not a question of being designed Gerry.

Consider a lion, do you think it's jaws are designed to eat grass? There is enough space between those teeth to break an animal's spine. But unless the lion eats tree bark, I don't see how that's "designed".

And please tell me why the dental structure of a Goat and a shark and a lion are not alike? Why do predators and prey show opposites similarities, like hoofs and claws?, sharp teeth, flat teeth?

As far as DNA is concerned, you are talking about abiogenesis and evolution. I am talking about evolution. DNA show common ancestry beyond doubts. I gave you scientific papers on it, did you not read it? Do you understand the term genetic marker and mitochondrial DNA?

If you going to stand at the gate and have a look at the store and then based on your experience decid which truth matters to you then by all means be happy with it, but is this any different than many folks you see reading bibles anyway they like and then decide what it should mean?

I fail to see a difference in your approach here and that is disappointing, the idea that you are not even open to research but a handful of creationist sources.

A theory doesn't have to be aesthetically or morally good to be true. What it should be is that a theory should always be opened to the possibility of correction and improvement and second that it should always make predictions.

You want to prove evolution is wrong, then address the scientific propositions in this regard, citing math papers and irrelevant and wrong analogies will not help anyone here.

Here are ten predictions of evolution and if any is wrong, then it will throw a wrench in the evolutionary theory.


1. We should not find any early hominid fossils (such as Australopithicus, Ardipithecus, or Kenyanthropus) in Australia, North America, South America, Antarctica, Siberia, or on any oceanic islands removed from Africa.

2. No birds will have mammary glands or hair.

3. No mammals will have feathers (even though feathers are an excellent means of insulation).

4. No fish or amphibians will have differentiated or cusped teeth, since these are only characteristics of mammals.

5. We should never find mammalian or bird fossils in or before Devonian deposits, before reptiles had diverged from the amphibian tetrapod line. This excludes Precambrian, Cambrian, Ordovician, and
Silurian deposits, encompassing 92% of the earth's geological history.

6. We will never find a living or fossilized true chimera such as Pegasus, Mermaid or Griffin.

7. We will never find birds with both wings and arms, since the evolution of wings necessarily means the loss of arms.

8. No marine mammal (such as dolphins, porpoises and whales) will have gills despite the fact that gills would be very beneficial.

9. No reptile or mammal will have eyes without retinal blind spots. This is because poor design cannot be "fixed" by evolutionary processes, even if correcting the problem would be beneficial for the organism. The only "fixing" that is allowed evolutionarily is relatively minor modification of what already exists.

10. All living things on Earth will share the same nucleic acid genetic material.

And all of this is supported by what has been found.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Siz on December 29, 2014, 11:13:57 AM
So how come some animals and plants are made of food if they weren't designed?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: xSilverPhinx on December 29, 2014, 11:21:35 AM
If I might add, Niya,

11. Humans, being apes, will have fused chromosomes. Our closest relatives the chimpanzee (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project) (we did not evolve from them) have chromosome 2A and 2B. They have an extra pair compared to us. If fused chromosomes had not been relatively recently found, evolutionary theory would have been in some serious trouble. How is that not aesthetically pleasing, Gerry? All these predictions and confirmations.

* Edited to  correct auto correct .
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Niya on December 29, 2014, 11:23:07 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 29, 2014, 11:21:35 AM
If I might add, Niya,

11. Humans, being apes, will have fused chromosomes. Our closest relatives the chimpanzee (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project) (we did not evolve from them) have chromosome 2A and 2B. They have an extra pair compared to us. If fused chromosomes had not been relate lively recently been found, evolutionary theory would have been in some serious trouble. How is that not aesthetically pleasing, Gerry? All these predictions and confirmations.

Correct indeed!

And if I may say Intelligent design theory makes no predictions and it can't be falsified...both traits are non-scientific and the latter is fully based in God of the gaps. its not even a theory or a model to begin with. Do you agree?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Asmodean on December 29, 2014, 12:59:47 PM
Quote from: Recusant on December 29, 2014, 04:35:56 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on December 29, 2014, 01:36:12 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 28, 2014, 04:39:12 PM
Some homework for you: "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective" by Dr. Roger C. Wiens (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html)
I must admit, the title made me curious, so I went in. I must say, I was surprised, and in a very positive way, by how comprehensive that paper is, what with presenting the information in a bite-sized, for-the-uninitiated way.

It's a good primer on the strengths and shortcomings of radiometric dating methods. Some advances have been made since it was written, but in my opinion that doesn't detract very much from its usefulness. Young Earth Creationists tend to dismiss it, though. (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi48.tinypic.com%2F9h80g1.gif&hash=d603a0d9b9652cb40b31a42a4f77a9ec46233008)

Of course, they do! Do you think if they were the kind of people to be persuaded by reason that we would even have Young Earth Creationists?

...And me, I'll never learn not to engage. *sigh*  :(
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Recusant on December 29, 2014, 05:53:06 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 29, 2014, 10:15:55 AMI have no interest in details until I'm convinced regarding the overall plausibility of a theory; whether that theory is consistent with what I already know about myself, other people, the world, and the universe at large; whether the theory appears to be philosophically and artistically and emotionally and aesthetically and morally appealing (as well as scientifically accurate, a determination that is typically made at a later stage). What does it matter if a theory has all its detailed ducks in a row if there's a fatal flaw in the overall idea?

What is the "fatal flaw in the overall idea" of a planet that is billions of years old?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 30, 2014, 01:40:54 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 29, 2014, 11:03:56 AMActually here's (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049208/) one study that proposes that ATP synthase came about by modular evolution. That is, non related proteins evolved and combined to form the enzyme, it wasn't "designed" in one go. 

The thing that's always missing in such imaginative narratives is the probability of such a sequence of events actually happening. Show me the math. What are the chances of all that stuff happening at just the right times in just the right ways?

And again, this kind of "evidence" is utterly inaccessible to the average man and is thus suspicious when offered as proof for a theory that is to be accepted by the average man. From the article: "The Atp10p and Atp23p chaperones have previously been reported to interact with Atp6p and to be required for assembly of F0." That kind of stuff is meaningless to the vast majority of people on the planet. On the other hand, show them an ATP simulation like the one I posted earlier (http://www.iubmb-nicholson.org/swf/ATPSynthase.swf) and the whole will easily be seen by any unbiased observer to be the result of design.

I recommend William Steig's Yellow and Pink (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0374386714) as a good summary of the whole affair at a level that is accessible (and convincing) to "the rest of us".
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Bluenose on December 30, 2014, 03:26:34 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 30, 2014, 01:40:54 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 29, 2014, 11:03:56 AMActually here's (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049208/) one study that proposes that ATP synthase came about by modular evolution. That is, non related proteins evolved and combined to form the enzyme, it wasn't "designed" in one go. 

The thing that's always missing in such imaginative narratives is the probability of such a sequence of events actually happening. Show me the math. What are the chances of all that stuff happening at just the right times in just the right ways?

And again, this kind of "evidence" is utterly inaccessible to the average man and is thus suspicious when offered as proof for a theory that is to be accepted by the average man. From the article: "The Atp10p and Atp23p chaperones have previously been reported to interact with Atp6p and to be required for assembly of F0." That kind of stuff is meaningless to the vast majority of people on the planet. On the other hand, show them an ATP simulation like the one I posted earlier (http://www.iubmb-nicholson.org/swf/ATPSynthase.swf) and the whole will easily be seen by any unbiased observer to be the result of design.

I recommend William Steig's Yellow and Pink (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0374386714) as a good summary of the whole affair at a level that is accessible (and convincing) to "the rest of us".


Firstly, science doesn't deal with "proof" and even if it did, what might be considered convincing by the average man is entirely beside the point. Frankly, I see no point in trying to convince someone such as yourself who is not open to objective evidence. That you are not convinced speaks only about you, not about the abundant evidence for evolution. I don't care of you don't understand the science, but please lay off arguing about it with those that do.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Ecurb Noselrub on December 30, 2014, 03:30:12 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 30, 2014, 01:40:54 AM
Show me the math. 

The math comes from the size and age of the universe.  Do you realize how big it is, how vast, how many stars and planets there are?  Add that to 13.5 billion years and just about anything is possible.  It was going to happen somewhere, and it happened here, and we are the beneficiaries because we are here. 
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Niya on December 30, 2014, 03:44:17 AM
The only thing imaginary here is math, we are showing you direct evidence, Gerry.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 30, 2014, 05:53:04 AM
Quote from: Niya on December 29, 2014, 11:09:32 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 29, 2014, 10:33:11 AM
It doesn't matter how enticing a story is if it's a mathematical impossibility.
Consider a lion... a Goat... a shark...  hoofs... claws... teeth... fossils... birds... mammals... fish... amphibians... wings... arms... gills... eyes...

I don't see anything in there about math.



Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 30, 2014, 06:02:13 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 29, 2014, 11:21:35 AMHow is that not aesthetically pleasing, Gerry? All these predictions and confirmations.

Mathematically impossible trumps aesthetically pleasing.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 30, 2014, 06:36:20 AM
Quote from: Niya on December 29, 2014, 11:23:07 AMAnd if I may say Intelligent design theory makes no predictions and it can't be falsified...both traits are non-scientific... Do you agree?

No, I don't agree. See http://www.ideacenter.org/content1156.html for the kind of responses I might formulate if I cared. But I don't care if Intelligent Design is classified as a "science" or not because I know that much of the knowledge I have -- and certainly most of what I live by, every day, all day -- is not scientific in the sense you are suggesting. Let me illustrate with some pertinent but very "unscientific" questions for you:

1. Do you think posting on this forum is a meaningful activity? Why or why not?

2. The signature in your posts reads, in part, "The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations." Is that a scientific fact? If so, please show your research. If not, why post it?

3. Your signature also says, "When I stand before God at the end of my life, I would hope that I would not have a single bit of talent left and could say, I used everything you gave me." On what (predictive and falsifiable) grounds do you think God exists? On what grounds do you base your belief that you will "stand before God" at the end of your life? Aren't you standing before God now, since He is omnipresent and omniscient? On what grounds do you believe that your talents were given to you by God (as opposed to being developed by chance mutation and a non-intelligent selection process)? What makes you think that using up every bit of talent you have would be pleasing to God?

Get the point? Most of what really matters to us doesn't fall within the purview of the "scientific method". Most of what really matters to us is perceived through senses far above the famous five. Senses that, if stories like Smullyan's, and Wells', and Abbott's are any indication, can easily be mistaken for lunacy (or worse) by those who choose to ignore them.



Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 30, 2014, 07:10:29 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 29, 2014, 05:53:06 PMWhat is the "fatal flaw in the overall idea" of a planet that is billions of years old?

The fatal flaw isn't in the idea that a planet might be billions of years old. The fatal flaw I had in mind is thinking that billions of years is enough time for random mutation and natural selection to do what it is claimed they have done.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: xSilverPhinx on December 30, 2014, 07:11:34 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 30, 2014, 01:40:54 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 29, 2014, 11:03:56 AMActually here's (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049208/) one study that proposes that ATP synthase came about by modular evolution. That is, non related proteins evolved and combined to form the enzyme, it wasn't "designed" in one go.

The thing that's always missing in such imaginative narratives is the probability of such a sequence of events actually happening. Show me the math. What are the chances of all that stuff happening at just the right times in just the right ways?

And again, this kind of "evidence" is utterly inaccessible to the average man and is thus suspicious when offered as proof for a theory that is to be accepted by the average man. From the article: "The Atp10p and Atp23p chaperones have previously been reported to interact with Atp6p and to be required for assembly of F0." That kind of stuff is meaningless to the vast majority of people on the planet. On the other hand, show them an ATP simulation like the one I posted earlier (http://www.iubmb-nicholson.org/swf/ATPSynthase.swf) and the whole will easily be seen by any unbiased observer to be the result of design.

I recommend William Steig's Yellow and Pink (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0374386714) as a good summary of the whole affair at a level that is accessible (and convincing) to "the rest of us".


I agree that that's the main problem with more advanced science these days is that it alienates the vast majority of people, but if you really wanted to understand an article from a real scientific  journal,  which is peer reviewed by other people who deeply understand the science, you could, Gerry. Chaperones, as the name suggests, are proteins that aid other proteins in their proper folding. F0 is one of the enzyme's (ATP synthase) subunits. The DNA used to assemble this enzyme is located in two different parts, one in nuclear DNA and the other in mitochondrial DNA.  

Read this at least:

QuoteThe modules and the proposed pathway for ATP synthase assembly may recapitulate some of the evolutionary events that gave rise to this enzyme. There is compelling evidence that F1 evolved from an ATP-dependent helicase (Gomis-R?th et al, 2001) while the Atp9p ring has been proposed to have been derived from an ion channel (Walker and Cozens, 1986; Mulkidjanian et al, 2007). The F1/Atp9p ring intermediate could be the product of an evolutionary event, which enabled a passive channel to be converted to an active ion transporter. The function of the ancestral protein from which the Atp6p/Atp8p/stator complex evolved is more difficult to envision. Its function may have been adapted to further modify the ATP-dependent ion pump into the present day energy transforming mechanochemical machine.

ATP is the energy "currency" of a cell.

Helicase is another family of enzymes, important in DNA replication.

F1 is another subunit of the ATP synthase complex.

Ion channels are proteic structures found in membranes which allow charged atoms (ions) to pass to the other side.

Passive channels do not require ATP to work.

Active ion transporters require ATP to work.

It's also important to mention that ATP synthase makes ATP (which has three phosphate groups) from ADP (which has two) and a phosphate.  

The fact that you don't understand the science does not mean that it isn't valid. You seem like an intelligent person, Gerry. You have to at least understand that.

On the other hand, creationist propaganda is specifically tailored for the scientifically illiterate. I don't mean to be harsh but that's simply the truth. What they spew is wrong, and if you don't even know the basics you don't have the knowledge or critical thinking skills necessary to know it. It's a bit like the Dunning Kruger Effect.  

As for the math, Bruce already answered that one. People's intuition are limited but you have to understand on some abstract level just how large the universe is at minimum, and how long it's been around.

If you want to learn more about how proteins fold (not all the details are known) and self assemble into complexes then I suggest you study molecular biophysics as well, though  not from creationist sources, pick up a good textbook or Google the latest peer reviewed articles instead.    
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Niya on December 30, 2014, 07:22:30 AM
I don't see how this is moving us forward Gerry, so I will just say if you want to understand and learn about evolution, you need to look at it from a fresh perspective. What you are rounding up as objections are irrelevant at best. What does it matter if if evolution is aesthetically balanced or not or mathematically possible or not? what matters is if its true or not, if it is (for which there is hard evidence you don't want to look at), its objective truth. And it would be unwise to reject truth on personal preferences.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 30, 2014, 08:21:04 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 30, 2014, 03:30:12 AMIt was going to happen somewhere, and it happened here, and we are the beneficiaries because we are here. 

What makes you think "it was going to happen somewhere"? Your argument reminds me of this one:

"...if we shuffle a deck of cards and then examine the particular ordering of the cards that happens to result, we would be justified in concluding that the probability of this particular ordering of the cards having occurred is approximately 1 chance in 10 to the 68th power. This certainly qualifies as minuscule. Still, we would not be justified in concluding that the shuffles could not have possibly resulted in this particular ordering because its a priori probability is so very tiny. Some ordering had to result from the shuffling, and this one did." (What?s wrong with Creationist Probability ? Mathematics Professor John Allen Paulos of Temple University)

Sounds reasonable, on the surface, but it's misleading. Paulos is confounding the probability that an arbitrary sequence will result after shuffling (which is a certainty) with the probability that a particular sequence will result (which has 1 chance in 10^68 of occurring). It's surprising that a professor of mathematics would make such a misleading statement. I wonder if he had a hidden agenda.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 30, 2014, 08:47:31 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 30, 2014, 07:11:34 AMAs for the math, Bruce already answered that one. People's intuition are limited but you have to understand on some abstract level just how large the universe is at minimum, and how long it's been around.

Here's the thing I find suspicious. I look on the web and I find thousands of pages that calculate the probability of evolution based on certain clearly stated assumptions; all of them conclude it is virtually zero. I also find thousands of pages that claim those former pages are wrong. The curious thing is that I've never seen these latter pages answer in kind -- I've never seen them state their assumptions, show their calculations, and exhibit their concluding figure.

In short, these latter pages are big on telling us where the other guy went wrong, but not so big on telling us what's right. Surely, with all the resources that have been poured into evolutionary studies since Darwin, some non-creationist must have calculated a general probability for the thing. So what is it? What is the probability that human life evolved on this planet, and how do you arrive at that figure?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 30, 2014, 08:55:01 AM
Quote from: Niya on December 30, 2014, 07:22:30 AMWhat does it matter if evolution is... mathematically possible or not? what matters is if its true or not... it would be unwise to reject truth on personal preferences.

Can something be both a true account and a mathematically impossible account at the same time? I don't think so, and I don't think that's a mere personal preference.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Dobermonster on December 30, 2014, 09:27:58 AM
How the fuck does somebody think it's possible to definitively calculate the probability of abiogenesis when we know so little about abiogenesis? At some point you'd have to just start guessing at figures.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: xSilverPhinx on December 30, 2014, 10:41:28 AM
Evolution doesn't cover abiogenesis, Gerry. Niya already told you that.

Anyways I have a plane to catch. Intuition says that something that heavy shouldn't fly but science says it can. And it does.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 30, 2014, 10:59:56 AM
Quote from: Dobermonster on December 30, 2014, 09:27:58 AM
How the fuck does somebody think it's possible to definitively calculate the probability of abiogenesis when we know so little about abiogenesis? At some point you'd have to just start guessing at figures.

Perhaps. But the exercise may still be enlightening. For example, in 1961 Frank Drake proposed a formula for estimating the number of active, communicative extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy:

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation).

More recently, Sara Seger proposed an equation to estimate the probability of identifying an inhabited world within the next decade:

(http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/events/2013/postkepler/Exoplanets_in_the_Post_Kepler_Era/Program_files/Seager.pdf)

Now of course both of these scientists are involved with the search for extraterrestrial intelligence and thus believe, however they may carefully phrase it, that intelligent design can be detected from afar. But that's not the point. The point is that they are willing (and even anxious) to consider how mathematically probable their theories are. Where is the evolutionary equivalent of the Drake and Seager equations?

Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Dobermonster on December 30, 2014, 11:12:18 AM
We would be the point? We know it happened. If you want to play around with numbers, go ahead.

And don't put your own words into the mouths of scientists. That's deceptive and intellectually dishonest to assert that scientists looking for other life are in search of "intelligent design" as *you* mean it.

ETA: And also dishonest to try to press an intellectual exercise into service as "proof" that something is impossible when you know very well that that is beyond ridiculous. Just how far are you willing to go to preserve your beliefs?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Crow on December 30, 2014, 11:34:05 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 30, 2014, 06:02:13 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 29, 2014, 11:21:35 AMHow is that not aesthetically pleasing, Gerry? All these predictions and confirmations.

Mathematically impossible trumps aesthetically pleasing.

That old bit of nonsense. You get that from the website that contains no math? Which has logical falicies and uses systems that are unique to maths to disregard whole areas of science that have nothing to do with it. I'm not going to waste my time arguing against it as there are many who have ripped it a new asshole over and over again and if you are looking for a proper retort to it there are many out there. But then again one fits into your narrow world view and the others don't so I wouldn't be surprised if you had no idea that it is considered to be trash not just by the scientific community but mathematicians as well.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 30, 2014, 11:39:19 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 30, 2014, 10:41:28 AMAnyways I have a plane to catch. Intuition says that something that heavy shouldn't fly but science says it can. And it does.

You imply that I've argued that intuition is the only or best way to gather information. I've said no such thing. Intuition is one of the faculties that we have for discovering things. It is best used in conjunction with all of our other faculties. In fact, we are usually closest to the truth when all our faculties agree.

It should also be noted intuition is based on both inherited and environmental factors and, like mathematical ability and linguistic skill, varies greatly from person to person. A child who has never held a helium-filled balloon in his hand might be surprised when the Good Year blimp takes off; an experienced hot-air balloon enthusiast will not be. If you evolutionists had more evolutionary balloons for the rest of us to play with, our intuitions might prove to be less of a stumbling block. Since none was offered, I made up my own little balloon earlier in this thread (my "Random Mutation and Natural Selection Simulation" program). But it didn't help because it was obviously (a) designed by an intelligent being, (b) coded by an intelligent being, (c) tuned by an intelligent being, and (d) didn't appear to be the kind of solution that any competent engineer (like God) would ever implement -- too inefficient, too fragile, too sensitive, etc.

What I've objected to in this tread is the reversal of ubiquitous and time-tested mature human intuitions without sufficient explanation to "develop" those intuitions to the point where they would cease to be a stumbling block. Why, for example, should Mother Nature's way of creating things (including we ourselves) be the exact opposite of the way we create things? And how could creatures such as we, who consistently create with the concept-design-construction paradigm, ever emerge from a Mother whose nearly irresistible ways are so directly contrary?


Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Dobermonster on December 30, 2014, 11:48:43 AM
The evidence for evolution is vast, vast, vast. *Nothing* in biology makes sense without it. If you haven't found enough to satisfy you then you haven't looked. If you haven't looked, you're not actually interested in learning, and if you're not interested in learning then what is point of having the discussion?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 30, 2014, 12:23:12 PM
Quote from: Dobermonster on December 30, 2014, 11:48:43 AM*Nothing* in biology makes sense without [evolution].

Nonsense. See http://www.trueorigin.org/biologymyth.asp

Quote from: Dobermonster on December 30, 2014, 11:48:43 AMThe evidence for evolution is vast, vast, vast... If you haven't found enough to satisfy you then you haven't looked. If you haven't looked, you're not actually interested in learning, and if you're not interested in learning then what is point of having the discussion?

I'm interested in learning about the mathematical probability of the evolution of human life on this planet. Creationist mathematicians tell me it's essentially nil; they state their assumptions, show their calculations, and present their conclusions. I'm looking for the same kind of thing by an evolutionist so I can compare the assumptions, calculations, and conclusions. Got a link?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Dobermonster on December 30, 2014, 12:42:55 PM
Nonsense.
Yes, you can function in many specific scientific careers without directly using the theory of evolution in the same way you can build a bridge without giving a thought to the theory of relativity. That doesn't mean that either theory isn't essential in biology and physics, respectively. Evolutionary theory unifies every field in biology, but there are many opportunities to work in each field or understand the specifics of biological concepts without understanding the bigger picture.

We know humans evolved on the planet. Speculating on the probability of it occurring is at best intellectual masturbation. Which, no offense, you are on your own with. It's not evidence for or against evolution. There is no evidence against evolution. If the people who wrote those websites had genuine evidence that overthrew the theory of evolution, they wouldn't be on the internet, they would be in the newspaper as the next recipients of the Nobel Prize for Biology.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Asmodean on December 30, 2014, 12:48:39 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 30, 2014, 12:23:12 PM
I'm interested in learning about the mathematical probability of the evolution of human life on this planet. Creationist mathematicians tell me it's essentially nil; they state their assumptions, show their calculations, and present their conclusions. I'm looking for the same kind of thing by an evolutionist so I can compare the assumptions, calculations, and conclusions. Got a link?
The mathematical probability for evolution taking place is completely irrelevant because evolution is ongoing.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Niya on December 30, 2014, 12:50:51 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 30, 2014, 12:23:12 PM
Quote from: Dobermonster on December 30, 2014, 11:48:43 AM*Nothing* in biology makes sense without [evolution].

Nonsense. See http://www.trueorigin.org/biologymyth.asp

Quote from: Dobermonster on December 30, 2014, 11:48:43 AMThe evidence for evolution is vast, vast, vast... If you haven't found enough to satisfy you then you haven't looked. If you haven't looked, you're not actually interested in learning, and if you're not interested in learning then what is point of having the discussion?

I'm interested in learning about the mathematical probability of the evolution of human life on this planet. Creationist mathematicians tell me it's essentially nil; they state their assumptions, show their calculations, and present their conclusions. I'm looking for the same kind of thing by an evolutionist so I can compare the assumptions, calculations, and conclusions. Got a link?


What? Gerry, the article at trueorgin doesn't even attempt to discredit the paper by Dobzhansky. Are you really going to throw this on the table?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Dobermonster on December 30, 2014, 12:51:47 PM
I thought you were already pointed towards Talkorigins...they have quite a database of rebuttals and references. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you did look and just missed this particular page:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 30, 2014, 02:10:50 PM
Quote from: Niya on December 30, 2014, 12:50:51 PMWhat? Gerry, the article at trueorgin doesn't even attempt to discredit the paper by Dobzhansky. Are you really going to throw this on the table?

Yes. I was replying to the ridiculous claim that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." I think the article (http://www.trueorigin.org/biologymyth.asp) answers that particular claim nicely. Personally, I think O'Leary is much closer to the truth when he says, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of biochemistry, which is what gives biology its place in the linked chain of sciences. Evolution is a form of history, a history that may or may not have happened as described in any current work on the subject."
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 30, 2014, 02:24:23 PM
Quote from: Dobermonster on December 30, 2014, 12:51:47 PM
I thought you were already pointed towards Talkorigins...they have quite a database of rebuttals and references. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you did look and just missed this particular page:  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

That's exactly the kind of thing I specifically said I'm not looking for: it tells me what some evolutionist thinks is wrong with some creationist's figure, but doesn't tell me what the evolutionist thinks the figure should be (and how he arrives at that conclusion). Typically, when correcting a somebody's work, you (a) point out where they went wrong, and then (b) rework the problem so they can see how it should have been done. Part (b) is conspicuously (and suspiciously) absent in evolutionary writings. The page you cite leaves me hanging: if the odds of even one simple protein molecule forming by chance are not 1 in 10^113, then what are the odds?

Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Dobermonster on December 30, 2014, 02:49:48 PM
Again - the answer to "What is the probability of life forming?" is most honestly answered with "Nobody knows", and anyone who says they know is a liar or does not understand what it would take to calculate an accurate probability. The link I gave you contains a hyperlink to a more indepth discussion on the same website of the creationist claims of probabilities.

I think if you just spent an afternoon reading the material that has been collected and organized on that site, it would save everyone a lot of time going over persistently debunked concepts and questions.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Niya on December 30, 2014, 03:50:04 PM
QuoteI think the article (http://www.trueorigin.org/biologymyth.asp) answers that particular claim nicely.
How so? Please elaborate.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: xSilverPhinx on December 30, 2014, 04:22:50 PM
You're not actually looking for evidence, are you Gerry?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Dobermonster on December 30, 2014, 04:30:56 PM
It's like talking to a flat-earther and trying to show them the curvature of the Earth and data on the movement of planets and stars and all they want to know is what the probability of the Earth being round is. ><
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: OldGit on December 30, 2014, 04:31:31 PM
He's desperately looking for little odd scraps of doubtful pseudo-evidence with which to prop up the shaky barrier between him and reality.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Recusant on December 30, 2014, 04:32:49 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 30, 2014, 07:10:29 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 29, 2014, 05:53:06 PMWhat is the "fatal flaw in the overall idea" of a planet that is billions of years old?

The fatal flaw isn't in the idea that a planet might be billions of years old. The fatal flaw I had in mind is thinking that billions of years is enough time for random mutation and natural selection to do what it is claimed they have done.

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that there is no fatal flaw in the overall idea that the Earth is billions of year old?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 31, 2014, 12:32:06 AM
Quote from: Niya on December 30, 2014, 03:50:04 PM
QuoteI think the article (http://www.trueorigin.org/biologymyth.asp) answers that particular claim nicely.
How so? Please elaborate.

It's right there in the abstract:

"It is commonly claimed that Darwinism is the cornerstone of the life sciences and that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.' To evaluate this claim I reviewed both textbooks used to teach life science class at the college where I teach and those I used in my university course work. I concluded from my survey that Darwinism was rarely mentioned. I also reviewed my course work and that of another researcher and came to the same conclusion. From this survey I concluded that the claim 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution' is not true."

See the appendices at the end of the article for the details.

If evolution is so essential to biology, why is it so infrequently mentioned in textbooks and classes?
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: xSilverPhinx on December 31, 2014, 12:56:05 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 31, 2014, 12:32:06 AM
If evolution is so essential to biology, why is it so infrequently mentioned in textbooks and classes?

Unless you're taking college level courses in biology or are an autodidact, you'll only get superficial information from high school classes. I went to a Catholic high school and it was mentioned plenty, and there was an entire chapter out of thirteen devoted to evolutionary theory in my textbook. It was taught last because students would have to have acquired some knowledge in order to fully appreciate it.    

ETA: my teachers then weren't afraid of teaching evolutionary theory, and the school didn't avoid buying certain textbooks because they mentioned evolution and neodarwinism. That could also be a factor.

Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Crow on December 31, 2014, 01:29:17 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 31, 2014, 12:32:06 AM
If evolution is so essential to biology, why is it so infrequently mentioned in textbooks and classes?

Maybe you went to a shit school? It was talked about in every single one of my biology lessons for 5 years which we had three times a week. Just because you had a bad education doesn't mean everyone did.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 31, 2014, 02:10:24 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 30, 2014, 04:32:49 PMLet me get this straight. Are you saying that there is no fatal flaw in the overall idea that the Earth is billions of year old?

I don't know of any single fact that can a priori eliminate the possibility of the earth being billions of years old. I do know of at least 101 facts that make me wonder about it (http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth). And as I've said in other places, I personally prefer the "artistic" view of the universe which makes the kind of chronological ordering done by both old-earthers and young-earthers somewhat moot: a painter may, for example, paint a flower before he paints the sun that sustains it; an author may create a child before he creates the parents; a composer may write the middle of a piece of music before the end and the beginning; I know these things first-hand.

And then there's relativity to be considered, which makes time itself flexible. From Wikipedia's article on physicist Gerald Schroeder: "...from the perspective of the point of origin of the Big Bang, according to Einstein's equations of the 'stretching factor', time dilates by a factor of roughly 1,000,000,000,000, meaning one trillion days on earth would appear to pass as one day from that point, due to the stretching of space. When applied to the estimated age of the universe at 13.8 billion years, from the perspective of the point of origin, the universe today would appear to have just begun its sixth day of existence, or if the universe is 15 billion years old from the perspective of earth, it would appear to have just completed its sixth day. Antony Flew, an academic philosopher who promoted atheism for most of his adult life indicated that the arguments of Gerald Schroeder had influenced his decision to become a deist."

Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Recusant on December 31, 2014, 04:21:56 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 31, 2014, 02:10:24 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 30, 2014, 04:32:49 PMLet me get this straight. Are you saying that there is no fatal flaw in the overall idea that the Earth is billions of year old?

I don't know of any single fact that can a priori eliminate the possibility of the earth being billions of years old. I do know of at least 101 facts that make me wonder about it (http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth). And as I've said in other places, I personally prefer the "artistic" view of the universe which makes the kind of chronological ordering done by both old-earthers and young-earthers somewhat moot: a painter may, for example, paint a flower before he paints the sun that sustains it; an author may create a child before he creates the parents; a composer may write the middle of a piece of music before the end and the beginning; I know these things first-hand.

And then there's relativity to be considered, which makes time itself flexible. From Wikipedia's article on physicist Gerald Schroeder: "...from the perspective of the point of origin of the Big Bang, according to Einstein's equations of the 'stretching factor', time dilates by a factor of roughly 1,000,000,000,000, meaning one trillion days on earth would appear to pass as one day from that point, due to the stretching of space. When applied to the estimated age of the universe at 13.8 billion years, from the perspective of the point of origin, the universe today would appear to have just begun its sixth day of existence, or if the universe is 15 billion years old from the perspective of earth, it would appear to have just completed its sixth day. Antony Flew, an academic philosopher who promoted atheism for most of his adult life indicated that the arguments of Gerald Schroeder had influenced his decision to become a deist."

You've tried before to use Schroeder's ideas to support your position. Apparently, you don't care that they're useless in that regard, as the piece (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/schroeder.cfm) about them I linked (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=13673.msg296780#msg296780) at the time shows. No doubt you didn't bother to read it, just as you appear to have failed to read pretty much anything I've pointed out to you since you joined this site. Rather a shoddy approach, Gerry Rzeppa. I've patiently waded through pretty much every crock of crap link (including the dreary piffle that served as the basis for this thread) you've used in your attempts to form coherent arguments on this site, but it seems you just don't have time to return that courtesy. These threads have been an intrepid search for the truth. Or something.

As for the reference to Anthony Flew (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?ref=magazine), it surprises me a little that you'd include it. Flew's conversion to deism, and the exploitation of his deteriorating condition (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2007/11/the-exploitation-of-antony-flew/) by an unscrupulous creep is far from a triumph of Christianity. I suppose this shouldn't surprise me, though. Your arguments have been a display of an apparently incorrigible contempt for facts since you've joined this site. Your willingness to use notoriously duplicitous sources as support for your position is also a consistent theme here.

If you took the time to investigate the claims made by Don Batten in that article from Creation Ministries International, you'd find that they are pretty much all presented dishonestly. The first example is of "DNA in ?ancient? fossils." Almost immediately after that paper was published, there were serious questions raised (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2317-row-unravels-over-claim-of-oldest-dna.html#.VKNxJNKsWSp) regarding its contents.
 
Then we have Batten saying that the the so-called "Lazarus bacteria" found in Permian salt deposits were revived. Again, this result was called into question shortly after it was published (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6834/full/411155a0.html).

The third example is the painfully dishonest book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of The Genome, by John Sanford. There is an effective dissection of how Sanford uses distortions of science at the "Letters to Creationists" (http://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-4/) blog. As a bonus, the first section of that page shreds Behe's The Edge of Evolution.

The fourth is mitochondrial Eve. Batten says that this discovery is "consistent with a common origin of all humans several thousand years ago." The problem with this is that Batten is simply lying. According to a recent article in Nature (http://www.nature.com/news/genetic-adam-and-eve-did-not-live-too-far-apart-in-time-1.13478), the estimate is "between 99,000 and 148,000 years ago." That's somewhat different than "several thousand," I think you'll agree. Even worse, at the time the linked (http://creation.com/mitochondrial-eve-and-biblical-eve-are-looking-good-criticism-of-young-age-is-premature) Creation Ministries International article was published (2006), the estimate was that mitochondrial Eve lived as long ago as approximately 200,000 years. Now, Creationists might jump up and down in glee as they point out that the estimate has changed in seven years. Yes, strangely enough, science does get revised as time goes by. But only a Creationist would have us believe that 99,000 (not to mention 200,000) is the same as "several thousand."

I could go on down that sad list of misrepresentations and outright lies, but I don't see any point. Going by your past behavior here, you're not going to pay the slightest attention to the research I've done on just these first four on the list.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Gerry Rzeppa on December 31, 2014, 07:31:10 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 31, 2014, 04:21:56 AMYou've tried before to use Schroeder's ideas to support your position. Apparently, you don't care that they're useless in that regard, as the piece (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/schroeder.cfm) about them I linked (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=13673.msg296780#msg296780) at the time shows. No doubt you didn't bother to read it, just as you appear to have failed to read pretty much anything I've pointed out to you since you joined this site. Rather a shoddy approach, Gerry Rzeppa. I've patiently waded through pretty much every crock of crap link (including the dreary piffle that served as the basis for this thread) you've used in your attempts to form coherent arguments on this site, but it seems you just don't have time to return that courtesy. These threads have been an intrepid search for the truth. Or something.

As for the reference to Anthony Flew (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?ref=magazine), it surprises me a little that you'd include it. Flew's conversion to deism, and the exploitation of his deteriorating condition (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2007/11/the-exploitation-of-antony-flew/) by an unscrupulous creep is far from a triumph of Christianity. I suppose this shouldn't surprise me, though. Your arguments have been a display of an apparently incorrigible contempt for facts since you've joined this site. Your willingness to use notoriously duplicitous sources as support for your position is also a consistent theme here.

If you took the time to investigate the claims made by Don Batten in that article from Creation Ministries International, you'd find that they are pretty much all presented dishonestly. The first example is of "DNA in ?ancient? fossils." Almost immediately after that paper was published, there were serious questions raised (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2317-row-unravels-over-claim-of-oldest-dna.html#.VKNxJNKsWSp) regarding its contents.
 
Then we have Batten saying that the the so-called "Lazarus bacteria" found in Permian salt deposits were revived. Again, this result was called into question shortly after it was published (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6834/full/411155a0.html).

The third example is the painfully dishonest book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of The Genome, by John Sanford. There is an effective dissection of how Sanford uses distortions of science at the "Letters to Creationists" (http://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/stan-4/) blog. As a bonus, the first section of that page shreds Behe's The Edge of Evolution.

The fourth is mitochondrial Eve. Batten says that this discovery is "consistent with a common origin of all humans several thousand years ago." The problem with this is that Batten is simply lying. According to a recent article in Nature (http://www.nature.com/news/genetic-adam-and-eve-did-not-live-too-far-apart-in-time-1.13478), the estimate is "between 99,000 and 148,000 years ago." That's somewhat different than "several thousand," I think you'll agree. Even worse, at the time the linked (http://creation.com/mitochondrial-eve-and-biblical-eve-are-looking-good-criticism-of-young-age-is-premature) Creation Ministries International article was published (2006), the estimate was that mitochondrial Eve lived as long ago as approximately 200,000 years. Now, Creationists might jump up and down in glee as they point out that the estimate has changed in seven years. Yes, strangely enough, science does get revised as time goes by. But only a Creationist would have us believe that 99,000 (not to mention 200,000) is the same as "several thousand."

I could go on down that sad list of misrepresentations and outright lies, but I don't see any point. Going by your past behavior here, you're not going to pay the slightest attention to the research I've done on just these first four on the list.

I really think you're missing the point here. I've said that none of these subjects really interest me because they're all disputed. And they mostly concern things that I consider far out of the realm of the provable: pre-history. So when I post a link to an article on creation.com, or to a Wikipedia article on Schroeder, or to a page on some other site you don't like, I'm not saying they're necessarily right and you're wrong, or even that I'm in full agreement with everything the referenced piece; I'm simply demonstrating that the subject is disputed, most likely impossible to resolve, and thus not of immediate interest to me.

It seems to me the important things in life ought to be more obvious to an experienced and mature human than that. Which is why I try to focus on things we have all experienced first-hand. Things like:

(a) our own individual creative endeavors (like writing posts on this forum);

(b) the ubiquitous appearance of design in things natural and artificial (like guitar amps and human bodies);

(c) clear distinctions in kind (like fish and people);

(d) belief as the prime motivator behind all enduring pursuits (including all of the very non-scientific "Aha!"s and hunches and insights and inspirations that drive the entire scientific enterprise);

(e) practical and scalable simulations (balloons and blimps come to mind);

(f) simple probability calculations (as in, "What's the chance of that ever happening?"); and

(g) the aesthetic, moral, and emotional corollaries of different doctrines (Could an unbeliever, for example, ever convincingly write a story like "Les Miserables"?).

Now it appears to me that the atheistic evolutionary perspective on things requires me to reject, in one sense or another, all of the above. In effect, if I have understood everyone's replies to my posts here correctly, the "Happy Atheist" community view is that:

(a) the concept-design-construction paradigm that all people in all times and all places have found so effective bears no relation to how the universe (or we ourselves!) have come to be;

(b) our experienced intuitions regarding the appearance of design in human artifacts can usually be trusted, but the same intuitions regarding natural things must be considered completely and utterly illusory;

(c) clear distinctions in kind are really mere differences in degree;

(d) reason must be exalted to a position far beyond its capacity to replace belief as our prime motivator;

(e) practical and scalable simulations aren't important;

(f) simple probability calculations aren't important; and

(g) that we must abandon all hope when we enter here, since our certain and not-too-distant end -- whatever we think, say, or do -- is non-existence.

And that's all I have to say about that.
Title: Re: "A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan
Post by: Recusant on December 31, 2014, 11:11:49 AM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 31, 2014, 07:31:10 AMI really think you're missing the point here. I've said that none of these subjects really interest me because they're all disputed. And they mostly concern things that I consider far out of the realm of the provable: pre-history. So when I post a link to an article on creation.com, or to a Wikipedia article on Schroeder, or to a page on some other site you don't like, I'm not saying they're necessarily right and you're wrong, or even that I'm in full agreement with everything the referenced piece; I'm simply demonstrating that the subject is disputed, most likely impossible to resolve, and thus not of immediate interest to me.

I don't think I'm missing your point at all, and I like your links. They highlight the universally wretched quality of support for the Creationist position. Example after example of woefully inaccurate and/or misrepresented science, coupled with laughably transparent dishonesty. When you use such sources, it only serves to emphasize the flimsiness of your claim that the topic is "disputed."

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 31, 2014, 07:31:10 AMIt seems to me the important things in life ought to be more obvious to an experienced and mature human than that. Which is why I try to focus on things we have all experienced first-hand.

The evidence is conclusive to experienced and mature people who've bothered to examine it without ideological blinkers. Those who're ridden by Morton's demon (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Morton%27s_demon), on the other hand, will always prefer to focus on something else.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 31, 2014, 07:31:10 AMThings like:

(a) our own individual creative endeavors (like writing posts on this forum);

(b) the ubiquitous appearance of design in things natural and artificial (like guitar amps and human bodies);

(c) clear distinctions in kind (like fish and people);

(d) belief as the prime motivator behind all enduring pursuits (including all of the very non-scientific "Aha!"s and hunches and insights and inspirations that drive the entire scientific enterprise);

(e) practical and scalable simulations (balloons and blimps come to mind);

(f) simple probability calculations (as in, "What's the chance of that ever happening?"); and

(g) the aesthetic, moral, and emotional corollaries of different doctrines (Could an unbeliever, for example, ever convincingly write a story like "Les Miserables"?).

People have repeatedly pointed out to you the inescapable reality that conclusions derived from intuition are very often incorrect. If our species had relied on intuition, we'd still believe that the Earth was the immovable center of the universe, that thunder and lightning were supernatural phenomena, that heavier objects fall faster then lighter ones, and so on. Yes, intuition serves a useful purpose, but to get a grip on reality we need to question it, and investigate to discover whether what it leads us to believe is correct or not. When the results of investigation contradict intuition, experienced and mature people will accept those results. They don't ignore the contradictions and lie about the results of the investigations.

Regarding the biblically derived concept of "kinds," baraminology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology) has repeatedly failed to produce anything of scientific value, and continues to do so.

Aesthetic, emotional and moral corollaries do not affect the accuracy of scientific investigations. In addition, you've received responses to that particular canard in previous threads. It's my recollection that you didn't even acknowledge most of them, as is your wont.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 31, 2014, 07:31:10 AMNow it appears to me that the atheistic evolutionary perspective on things requires me to reject, in one sense or another, all of the above. In effect, if I have understood everyone's replies to my posts here correctly, the "Happy Atheist" community view is that:

(a) the concept-design-construction paradigm that all people in all times and all places have found so effective bears no relation to how the universe (or we ourselves!) have come to be;

(b) our experienced intuitions regarding the appearance of design in human artifacts can usually be trusted, but the same intuitions regarding natural things must be considered completely and utterly illusory;

(c) clear distinctions in kind are really mere differences in degree;

(d) reason must be exalted to a position far beyond its capacity to replace belief as our prime motivator;

(e) practical and scalable simulations aren't important;

(f) simple probability calculations aren't important; and

(g) that we must abandon all hope when we enter here, since our certain and not-too-distant end -- whatever we think, say, or do -- is non-existence.

Your (a) through (d) are answered above. Regarding (e); when I showed you a practical and scalable simulation, you went into full denial mode, replete with shifting goalposts and circular reasoning. You may have convinced yourself that example wasn't relevant, but your reasons for rejecting it were spurious.

As to (f); the probability calculation you put so much store in is faulty and dishonest, as is shown by the response linked for you by Dobermonster. Included on that page is a link to a comprehensive examination (http://url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html) of the reasons why that calculation has no bearing on reality. I imagine it will give you great pleasure to ignore that link as you have so many others.

I don't know why you think that (g) has any relevance to the issue of evolution, since there are many experienced and mature Christian people who accept it and still maintain their belief in their god and an afterlife. Atheism is not dependent on the theory of evolution, and the theory of evolution is not dependent on atheism.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 31, 2014, 07:31:10 AMAnd that's all I have to say about that.

Now you're just pulling my leg.