Newly found species fills evolutionary gap between fish and land animals

EurekAlert (AAAS) ^ | 05 April 2006 | Staff

[muawiyah]

Just for fun try reading through Penrose' two books wherein he deals with the question of creating a science of the mind.

I did ~ very illuminating.

[muawiyah]

You'll have to excuse Carolinaguitano today ~ he thinks he's the Pope.

He is also busy conflating the existence of a written/printed text with the Scriptures ~

[muawiyah]

We were discussing the Bible, not the meanings in the Scriptures.

Christians do not worship the Bible.

[King Prout]

your statement, dodger, was that NOT ONE SCIENTIST of his age EVER accepted his theory.

since then, you have backed off somewhat, saying "awww, shucks, he had his supporters and all, but..."

no "buts" about it, dodger.

Man up, admit your error, and promise to not do it again. You can cross your fingers behind your back, but I want your recantation on-record and absent of equivocation.

[jec41]

Scientific American recently ran an editorial on the matter ~ there are many sources for such claims. For some reason no one is suggesting that these guys are nutcases ~ which they are ~

The philosophy argument for proof of faith and belief in Solipsism has been debated by philosophy every since Descartes proposed method by doubt. I think therefore I exist. There have been no new revelations since long before Scientific America existed and none since the late 1600's that I am aware of. However it is always studied in advanced philosophy studies every since proposed.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You'll have to excuse Carolinaguitano today ~ he thinks he's the Pope.

He is also busy conflating the existence of a written/printed text with the Scriptures ~"

Muawiyah explicitly said there is no such thing as objective reality, and that Christians don't believe the Bible is objectively true. He also said that the people who believe in objective reality are the communists and fascists. He thinks he's in the Matrix, and his name is Neo. Ok, I made that last part up, but he DID say the universe could very well be a construct of his mind.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"We were discussing the Bible, not the meanings in the Scriptures.

Christians do not worship the Bible."

Correct, they believe it to be objectively true though.

[muawiyah]

"his age" ~ he was born in 1880. His book on Continental Drift was published (in Deutsche) in 1915. He would have been 35 at the time. By the time 1960 came around, he was 80. The normal lifespan for a man of his time was far less.

[muawiyah]

Sure the commies and the fascists believe in an objective reality which they intend to both create and impose on everybody else.

After all, one of the strong elements in their belief system is the idea that others can be forced to believe almost anything.

Once they have imposed their reality, it is objectively real ~ and, in fact, enforceably since any violation will be dealt with harshly.

Ever since the discovery of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and the development of quantum physics, this question of "objective reality" has grown.

And Christians still do not worship the Bible.

[King Prout]

dodging, dodging, dodging.

recant your false doubled-absolute assertion, or desist pestering me

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Sure the commies and the fascists believe in an objective reality which they intend to both create and impose on everybody else.

After all, one of the strong elements in their belief system is the idea that others can be forced to believe almost anything."

Yes, they are subjectivists.

"Once they have imposed their reality, it is objectively real ~ and, in fact, enforceably since any violation will be dealt with harshly."

Again, that is subjectivism, not belief in objective reality. You are disproving your own claim.

"Ever since the discovery of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and the development of quantum physics, this question of "objective reality" has grown."

The HUP doesn't say that there is no objective reality.

"And Christians still do not worship the Bible."

Correct, they believe it to be objectively true. The two are not the same.

[Fester Chugabrew]

It says *we don't know how this happened, so God did it, stop looking!!*.

You've got it bass ackwards. It begins with "God did it," and proceeds by asking "How does it work?"

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" It begins with "God did it," and proceeds by asking "How does it work?""

No, it stops after saying *God did it*. ID only deals with those things that seem to be unexplainable... so far. It comes to a problem and gives up. *God did it* is not an explanation. Real scientists are the ones who ask *How does it work?*.

[jec41]

Without an understanding of the concepts "dark matter" and "dark energy" you can't begin to get a grasp of the small fraction of the Universe that's measurable and observable.

So much for materialism ~ it's only a trivial part of knowledge.

Without understanding of methods little is possible and what is trivial remains opinion.

There are only 3 methods of acquiring knowledge known to man.

The method of Philosophy is the argument for proof of faith and belief in things unknown.

The method of science is observation of a material fact, evidence and empirical evidence of the fact and the explanation of the fact that constitutes theory.

The method of Mathematics is designation of symbols and numbers to prove absolutes or determine laws.

The methods are separate and distinct and are not interchangeable. Philosophy has provided little or no new knowledge in thousands of years. All or most new knowledge since the early middle ages has been by mathematics and science. It is essential that each be understood in any meaningful discussion of knowledge.

[jec41]

I will be impressed when he provides a new fact by science or determines a absolute or law with mathematics. At the moment he is still arguing philosophy or hypothesis. It is thought that only two tenth of one percent of the total population ever have a new thought.

[betty boop]

The fulcrum of the argument is to consider the universe primarily as an artistic or creative feat, rather than as a work of engineering.

Hi grey_whiskers! I happened upon this fascinating conversation you're having with KP and A-G. Hope you don't mind if I put my two-cents-worth in here.

What is this "primarily" thing in the above italics? It seems pretty obvious to me that the Universe is an unimaginably, astronomically spectacular instance of superb engineering, AND is also a sublimely beautiful creation, as in a work of art. Why do we have to accept an "either-or proposition" here, when the Universe is (apparently) both?

You wrote: "If God did make the universe, why did he lie?" I'm not sure I'm following this. Where did God ever lie to us? Because He didn't tell us absolutely everything about the manner and details of His creation in the Holy Scriptures? Well, AFAIC, that's for Him to know and us to find out. There's nothing in the Bible that says we shouldn't try. And increasingly I find modern, state-of-the-art science is perfectly consonant with the Holy Scriptures. In other words, science does not contradict the Holy Scriptures.

As for God "lying," Francis Schaeffer put it this way: in the Holy Scriptures, "God has told us truly, but not exhaustively." That rings true in my spirit. It is also an invitation to see God in His creation. For He reveals Himself there, too, as well in the Holy Scriptures.

Thank you so much for this thought-provoking sidebar, grey_whiskers, King Prout, and A-G!

[Fester Chugabrew]

ID only deals with those things that seem to be unexplainable... so far.

Where did you get that idea? Intelligent design assumes God intelligently created an intelligible universe, and created intelligent beings to observe it. So, as intelligent beings do science, they find evidence of intelligent design everywhere.

Some (namely those whose voices and words you would have outlawed in public schools) happen to take it as a given, and use the disciplines of science to ascertain in more detail how God did what He did and does what He does. The fact that certain creatures have the capacity to adapt to their environment (evolution) points to intelligent design. Every instance of organized matter performing specific functions points to intelligent design.

A fundamental difference between evolutionists and creationists is the ultimate cause of this organization of matter and the overall presence of an objective reality available to science on an intelligible basis. Some prefer to call it "nature." Others prefer to call it "God." To say the presence of organized matter that performs specific functions MIGHT be best explained by intelligent design is merely an overall, tentative summary based upon deduction.

Your protestations to the contrary evidence that your concern is not science, but theology and pholosophy. Otherwise you'd keep your nose to the science grindstone and keep your mouth shut.

[LibertarianSchmoe]

If you ever record this version, can I play the cowbell? I got a fevah...

[betty boop]

I am similarly offended by "scientific observers" who ignore the truth of Scripture, ("God created the heavens and the earth".) and who insist that their speculations (theories) as to how the Universe developed alone constitute "truth".

Well and truly said, TXnMA! A theory is always second-hand, at a second remove from the "real thing." It may or may not be fully consonant with reality. It makes for a useful tool, but Reality never reduces to the tool. For one thing, reality is not "static"; it is dynamic, constantly changing its current configuration, while remaining faithful to God's laws for it. We forget this at our own peril.

Or so it seems to me, FWIW.

Thanks so much for the ping, TXnMA!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Where did you get that idea?"

From ID proponents.

"Intelligent design assumes God intelligently created an intelligible universe, and created intelligent beings to observe it. So, as intelligent beings do science, they find evidence of intelligent design everywhere."

Your premises do not demand your conclusion.

"Some (namely those whose voices and words you would have outlawed in public schools) happen to take it as a given, and use the disciplines of science to ascertain in more detail how God did what He did and does what He does."

That's the problem ; they take it as a given without providing any supporting data. That isn't science, that's theology.

"The fact that certain creatures have the capacity to adapt to their environment (evolution) points to intelligent design."

No, it doesn't.

"Every instance of organized matter performing specific functions points to intelligent design."

No, it doesn't.

"A fundamental difference between evolutionists and creationists is the ultimate cause of this organization of matter and the overall presence of an objective reality available to science on an intelligible basis."

This is a grammatically obtuse sentence.

"To say the presence of organized matter that performs specific functions MIGHT be best explained by intelligent design is merely an overall, tentative summary based upon deduction."

Base it on induction and we'll talk.

"Your protestations to the contrary evidence that your concern is not science, but theology and pholosophy. "

Again, grammatically obtuse.

" Otherwise you'd keep your nose to the science grindstone and keep your mouth shut."

ID isn't science, so it has nothing to do with the science grindstone.