Consider the Probabilities (Creation vs Evolution)

I agree 100%.

OK...I have a copy of the book. I have begun perusing it, but was wondering if you have read the whole thing? Just curious.

Texas Songwriter: "My answer to your question is...yes."

First of all, none of the lines you quoted was a serious ad hominem attack.
All simply pointed out the fact that your arguments seem stilted and not so, ah, well-informed.

But second, and more important, please notice that your complaint against ad hominems came before any of the alleged ad hominems you quoted.

This is precisely what makes me think you are just cutting and pasting your words from somebody else's work, FRiend.

Texas Songwriter: "I might argue that it goes much farther back in history than Thomist writings.
Though I do not subscribe to Demicritus, Epucurus, and Lucretius some consider these atomists as some of the first to proscribe the rudiments of Darwins theory."

All of those are irrelevant to this discussion because they were not Christians.
The importance of Aquinas is that as a well-recognized "Doctor of the Church", he defines long-standing official Church doctrine regarding the relationship between theology and natural-philosophy (science).
And what Aquinas recognized were two separate realms, based on different lines of reasoning.

What Aquinas did not recognize (as least so far as I know) was the possibility that the two realms might conflict -- that scientific evidence from our senses might contradict theological words derived from the Bible.
I'm only saying: that is where you must begin to study, if you wish to understand today's definition of science.

Texas Songwriter: "Some experts even consider that alchemy was the foundation upon which modern chemistry was built, although we all would separate ourselves from alchemy in the modern age."

The point of my mentioning alchemy is to illustrate just what, exactly, the word "natural-philosophy" (aka science) amounted to in the age of St. Thomas Aquinas: it wasn't much to begin with, decidedly "low class" work, most of it was later proved wrong, and all was held as tightly guarded secrets.
By stark contrast, theology of that era was much written about and openly discussed in institutions of higher learning.
Today, the situations are almost reversed.

Texas Songwriter: "I do not know why you bring up Fred Hoyle.
He, himself, renounced the Steady State theory.
As for the multiverse, oscillation-contraction, the cosmic rebound theory, imaginary time theory, string theory.....or any other please give me one piece of hard evidence which supports or proves any one of them.
There is no evidence and you know it is true.
So why you bring this up is puzzling."

FRiend, the point is not whether "steady state" is considered true or false today, rather the point is that it was seriously proposed as a scientific hypothesis years ago, as have been other ideas.
As of today, only Big Bang has provided serious confirming evidence, and so is tentatively accepted as a valid theory.
And scientists will continue to accept it, because it "works", until some major new evidence is found to support some other hypothesis.
And, again, my point is: that's how science works, it's not about theology or whatever else you imagine "screams out" to be answered.

Texas Songwriter: "To say this is to say scientists do not interpret their findings.
It seems you are saying, though they have opinions, science says what it says, regardless of the opinion of the scientist."

I'm not sure why this concept seems to be so difficult for me to express, or for you to grasp, but our FRiend " St_Thomas_Aquinas" has come to our rescue by saying:

"...the point is that when scientists speak philosophically, they're speaking as philosophers, and not as scientists."

Texas Songwriter: "It seems you say the scientist is pure in his pronouncements, unmolested by his presuppositions, while the theist cannot be so."

You're still not "getting it".
When a scientist writes scientifically (natural explanations for natural causes) about science, then he/she is speaking for the scientific enterprise.
But if a scientist, however distinguished, speaks philosophically or theologically, then he/she is not speaking for science, but only expressing personal opinions.

How is that difficult to understand?

Texas Songwriter: "I see no gain from continuing our discussion I will, if you wish, but I am not going to convince you of anything, nor you, me."

If I have convinced you that your own state of understanding is less than you previously imagined, then I've done enough, FRiend. ;-)

Texas Songwriter: "The atheist/Darwinist/ materialist/metaphysical naturalist (use the term you wish) believe by faith that our minds arose from mindless matter without intelligence intervening."

I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't some deliberate misrepresentation on your part?
Any "Darwinist" is a scientist, and any scientist may or may not be a "metaphysical naturalist" = atheist.
Thus many scientists are not atheists.
Here, yet again, is my listing of famous Christian scientists, through the ages.

So "Darwinism" does not require atheism, only the acknowledgement that God does indeed work in mysterious ways (see Romans 11:33).
The confirmed scientific evolution hypothesis (descent with modifications, natural selection) seems to fit well the observed evidence.

Texas Songwriter: "So, if the Darwinist/materialist/naturalist/physicalist who declare everything in this universe is extended into space, then that personneeds to account for the immaterial and invarient abstract entities from a physical perspective or abandon their worldview."

If you are hoping to sell the case against atheism on Free Republic, there's no need.
Virtually everyone posting here already agrees with that, 100%.
But many (I think, really, most) do not agree that "Darwinism" necessarily equates to atheism.

That's a case you've never made, and I think, cannot make here.

DennisR: "I have a copy of the book.
I have begun perusing it, but was wondering if you have read the whole thing? Just curious."

Yes, I actually have both the old and newer versions of it, and yes, have read both, though it was some years ago.
If you wish to discuss it, I may even end up downloading the Kindle version, just to have readily available as needed.

Gee....I thought we had exhausted each other. But thank you for writing. I know you think I am 'out of sinc' with this subject, but I may seem even mores because I am watching the Broncos/Raiders game. But I will give it my best.

....none of the lines you quoted was a serious ad hominem attack. So, now I get evolution. We go from NO ad hominem to not-so-serious ad hominem. The term had evolved. Now, don't get tense,...I am just pulling your leg.

I misspelled Epicurus. Sorry about that.

You're still not "getting it".

I am getting it. You simply don't get that I am getting it. Now here is my position on methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. I will not address ontological naturalism, as it has not been brought up by you. Stephen Meyer says (and I agree with him), "Either brute matter has the capability to arrange itself into higher levels of complexity or it does not, and if it does not, then either some external agency has assisted the arrangement of matter or matter always possessed its present arrangements." I believe there must be an a priori to metaphysical naturalism to support Darwinism. Methodolgical naturalism - the principle that science can study only the things that are accessible to its instruments, techniques, and observations is not in question - science can study what science can study. Methodological naturalism becomes metaphysical naturalism when the limitations of science are taken to be limitation upon reality. As I believe I said in an earlier post, I believe there are other realities than time, space, energy, and matter. To quote Phillip Johnson, "The reason that evolution and theism are incompatible is NOT that God could not have used evolution by natural selection to create. Darwinian evolution MIGHT seem unbiblical or might seem a strange way ( as we see it) to do something which confounds our expectations. The contradiction between Darwinism and theism are at a deeper level. To know that Darwinism is true (as a general explanation for the history of life) one has to know there is no alternative to naturalistic evolution is possible. To know that is to know that God does not exist, or at least that God cannot create. To infer that Darwinism is true because there is no creator and then to interpret Darwinsim as God's method of creating is to engage in self-contradiction."

This is why I asked (either you or Ha-Ha) "Do you know that Darwinian evolution accounts for the variety of biological life on earth.?"

I do not wish to get deeply into cosmologies. I said what I needed to say, though it is superficial. That is another lengthy discussion.

You're still not "getting it". When a scientist writes scientifically (natural explanations for natural causes) about science, then he/she is speaking for the scientific interprise.

So, let's see......"When a scientist writes scientifically about science he speakes for the scientific enterprise". Philosophically, I do not know what to call this sentence. It is a circular, tautology, inside an enigma. I am going to take a stab at what you were saying. When a scientist speaks, that is it. That is science. I may be misinterpreting your statement but I think that is close. If you do not see your own presupposition you have made about science and its presuppositions I cannot convince you.

But, to be sure, I do get it.

If I have convinced you that your own state of understanding is less than you previously imagined, then I've done enough, FRiend. ;-)

You have not convinced me of anything, except you refuse to see the obvious. That is that all people with interpretations, opinions, agendas, preconceived notions, .....no matter how smart or how educated, all have presuppositions. I have them, you have them, Sephen Hawkin has them. And we do not come to conclusions inside a vacuum. Not even Sheldon Cooper studying quantum mechanics in a quantum vacuum.

Anyway. I hope we can converse in the future. Perhaps we will find agreement on other matters.

I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't some deliberate misrepresentation on your part?

Your wonderings are false.

My previous post will suffice to address your last post.

Somehow I feel you will visit cyberspace and direct your thoughts to me. But, at some point both you and I will have to agree to disagree. Good luck to you and yours.

Texas Songwriter: "We go from NO ad hominem to not-so-serious ad hominem."

In fact, first you complained (post #116) about ad hominem attacks, to which I responded (post #117): "Can you quote even one ad hominem posted here?"
Your answer was to quote alleged "ad hominems" posted after your original complaint.

And none of your quotes met criteria for serious "ad hominem".
In that regard, I'll also post here a chart on the subject:

Texas Songwriter: "Stephen Meyer says (and I agree with him), "Either brute matter has the capability to arrange itself into higher levels of complexity or it does not, and if it does not, then either some external agency has assisted the arrangement of matter or matter always possessed its present arrangements."

It is manifestly true that organic chemistry under certain conditions can become more complex.
This is demonstrated every day in human manufacturing operations.
It also happens in nature, but (so far as I know) no natural process has yet been found, or demonstrated, to turn complex chemistry into something we might call "lifelike".
Until that happens, there is no "theory of life's origins", only a growing set of unconfirmed hypotheses.

Texas Songwriter: "I believe there must be an a priori to metaphysical naturalism to support Darwinism."

No.
First of all, what you call "Darwinism" is simply basic evolution theory: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
Both are confirmed facts and their operations over time are revealed in both fossil records and DNA analyses.
So, understanding what the facts show us requires no metaphysical commitments whatever.
Indeed, it requires some strange metaphysical commitment in order to deny what facts clearly show.

Texas Songwriter quoting unnamed source: "To know that Darwinism is true (as a general explanation for the history of life) one has to know there is no alternative to naturalistic evolution is possible.
To know that is to know that God does not exist, or at least that God cannot create.
To infer that Darwinism is true because there is no creator and then to interpret Darwinsim as God's method of creating is to engage in self-contradiction."

Rubbish from beginning to end.
And its obvious purpose is to conflate and confuse "methodological naturalism" (aka: science) with "metaphysical naturalism" (aka: atheism).
They are not the same thing, and the former should not be accused of the sins of the latter.

Texas Songwriter: "Do you know that Darwinian evolution accounts for the variety of biological life on earth.?"

Both fossil records and DNA analyses suggest it does.

Texas Songwriter: "So, let's see......"When a scientist writes scientifically about science he speakes for the scientific enterprise".
Philosophically, I do not know what to call this sentence.
It is a circular, tautology, inside an enigma."

So call it just what it is: true.
The scientific enterprise (natural-science) is: natural explanations for natural processes.
It's just not that complicated.

Texas Songwriter: "When a scientist speaks, that is it. That is science.
I may be misinterpreting your statement but I think that is close.
If you do not see your own presupposition you have made about science and its presuppositions I cannot convince you."

Do you think?
Come on, by now even you should realize that's just nonsense.
The whole point of this discussion is to distinguish between what legitimately is "science-talk" and what is not.
A scientist expressing his religious opinions is not speaking scientifically.
Likewise, a theologian providing natural explanations for natural processes is speaking scientifically.

Why is that concept so hard for you to grasp?

Texas Songwriter: "But, to be sure, I do get it."

Obviously you have not, yet.
But I never give up hope. ;-)

I will not respond to most of your declarations in your diatribe. What you referenced as not ascribing a source.....I thought I said it was Phillip Johnson. The quote was taken from the book, Darwinism, Science or Philosophy. I asked you one question..."Do you know that Darwinian evolution accounts for the variety of biological life on earth.?"

Your answer, is very telling.

Both fossil records and DNA analyses suggest it does.Your answer makes my case. Your are not sure or you would simply say. YES. But you know you do not KNOW it is TRUE that Darwinian evolution accounts for diversity of life on earth. It may. It may not. But when you deny certitude you open the door to other possibilities. Either diversity of came from undirected chaos or it came from intelligence. Even your referential expert Fred Hoyle thought it might come from intelligence via panspermia. (He later recanted of course). So, if you do not know it is true you must at least admit to the possibility of metaphysical naturalism.

You and I seem to have nothing else to say to each other. Thank you for your correspondence.

Since your claim of “diatribe” is yet another false accusation, it says nothing about me, but reflects poorly on you.

And I think I’ve explained already that “certitude” is not what science is all about.
In science, no theory outside mathematics is ever “proved”, but only “confirmed”, and that only by passing tests intended to DISprove it.
And once confirmed, a hypothesis is only tentatively accepted as “theory” until some new test falsifies it.

Point is: there’s no ontological or metaphysical certitude in science.
Those ideas are left for other branches of philosophy.

It is time for you to return to wikipedia and copy some more colored triangles...just, please, don't ping them to me. You might want to try reading the experts in the field.

You say certitude is not what science is about. Yet you invoke numbers...NUMBERS....what are they....an abstract, invariant entity which is not provable in as scientific world. Yet science uses numbers. They use rational thought and logic, yet they cannot prove by scientific method that these abstract entitiies exist? Science uses mind, but minds is not extended into space...it is immaterial. There are many, many abstract invarient entities that science cannot prove, yet acknowledge exist.

Now, I have tried to gently nudge you to realizing I don't consider your statements of any value. I have hinted that we do not have anything more to say to each other. Anyone who reads our conversation understands that you keep saying the same thing and I repeat myself. We are not going to convince each other of anything. Your position is intransigent and my understandings are firm.

So give it a rest. So don't write to me on this thread unless there are matters on other subjects you wish to discuss. Perhaps we will speak on another thread. I will welcome another conversation with you, but this conversation is over. I won't respond to you on the subject which we have been speaking.

I don't mean to be rude but we both have to realize we have reached an impass and we are both repeating ourselves. There is no point in you repeating yourself nor myself repeating my position.

Hope you have a nice day.

Texas Songwriter: "It is time for you to return to wikipedia and copy some more colored triangles..."

From the beginning your responses have been somewhat inappropriate to my postings -- i.e., complaining about imaginary ad hominems -- and have grown more disconnected with each new posting.

Texas Songwriter: "You say certitude is not what science is about.
Yet you invoke numbers...NUMBERS....what are they....an abstract, invariant entity which is not provable in as scientific world.
Yet science uses numbers."

So you condemn science because it uses numbers??
FRiend, what planet do you live on?

Texas Songwriter: "They use rational thought and logic, yet they cannot prove by scientific method that these abstract entitiies exist?
Science uses mind, but minds is not extended into space...it is immaterial.
There are many, many abstract invarient entities that science cannot prove, yet acknowledge exist."

Now you condemn science because, why? -- it uses logic?
What's up with that, FRiend?

How many times do I have to explain that the scientific enterprise is based on a philosophical assumption called "methodological materialism", meaning: natural explanations for natural processes.

Science itself is limited and restricted to questions which can be answered with that assumption.
And, it turns out that a lot of questions can be answered by science -- i.e., how to build rockets to the moon, or explain the evolution of life on earth.
And many others cannot and should not be addressed by science -- i.e., does G*d exist, or what is our larger Purpose here?

Texas Songwriter: "Now, I have tried to gently nudge you to realizing I don't consider your statements of any value.
I have hinted that we do not have anything more to say to each other."

And yet you keep posting, as always oblivious to what is actually being discussed.

Texas Songwriter: "We are not going to convince each other of anything.
Your position is intransigent and my understandings are firm."

You have posted a lot of irrelevant nonsense, which I patiently correct.

Texas Songwriter: "I don't mean to be rude but..."

Of course you do, since you have a program to present, an agenda to sell, and no interest in, or ability to, entertain corrections to it.

>>>That’s not evolution, it’s abiogenesis. Conflating the two is a common ploy in the debate, effectively making biblical literalism and philosophical naturalism the only arguments allowed. They call that a fallacy of false dichotomy.<<<

It has been at least 5 years since I’ve been here, maybe more.

To see my style of argumentation still reflected.

Bravo!

>>> Yockey concluded, “The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability.”<<<

Yet the Universe exists. The ‘impossible in probability’ exists.

Or is the Universe NOT a perpetual motion machine?

Then what is it?

And asserting it:

“is impossible in probability”

Is attempting to Prove a Negative.

You cannot ‘Prove what is Impossible’, by definition.

You can only what is possible.

Fallacy as given.