Posted on 10/15/2009 8:15:58 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Looking over some of the crevo threads, I can understand why they'd want to avoid it.
Similarly, the true object of architecture is not bricks, mortar, or timber, but the house; and so the principal object of natural philosophy is not the material elements, but their composition, and the totality of the form, independently of which they have no existence....still true, after 2,300+ years....
I'm glad Robert Rosen noticed. :^)
Thank you so much for your kind worlds of support, dearest sister in Christ!
For the newbie, "crevo" threads are where religious battles between theists and atheists are conducted. Science itself is rarely, if ever, discussed.
The funny thing is, both the "creationists" (theists) and the "Darwinists" (mainly atheists — though I certainly don't believe all are such, just the loud ones around here, and Richard Dawkins, of course) — are engaging in theological dispute: The 800-pound gorilla in the room is always God, not Darwin. And that on both sides.
Now the theists posit many attributes to God; such as, from my little list, Creator; Father, Son, Spirit; Logos, Alpha–Omega; Savior, Redeemer; Justice, Truth, Goodness, Beauty; among others.
The atheists also posit an attribute to God, but only one: Non-existence.
Of course, one cannot posit anything of a non-existent entity. At least, not logically. 'Nuff said.
Evidently, the atheists think Darwin helps make their case; which is why the theists mainly hate Darwin.
But it seems to me Darwin should not be held culpable for the usages to which his theory has been put by modern-day ideological entrepreneurs. I don't hold him responsible for, say, Richard Dawkins.
It would be really nice to have a bona fide discussion about a scientific topic around here. Some time.
JMHO, FWIW
I see very few people post to the crevo threads that are self-professed atheists. Most of the theological argument seems to be among the theists, with people of different beliefs and doctrines arguing their the "true" Christians and the others guilty of various forms and degrees of heresy and apostasy, in terms that imply every imaginable evil in the process.
I can understand the scientists not wanting to be conscripted into that war.
If that's so, then why do the "scientists" keep showing up to fan the flames?
Someone works very hard at baiting them into it.
tacticalogic: Someone works very hard at baiting them into it.
What happens if there's a whole horde of them, and you want no part of it but they insist it has to be done in your house?
Ok... Where did the third human on this planet come from?...
It concerns parental survival in what is called "the terrible twos" when children are fearlessly pushing the boundaries, i.e. just plain acting up.
Ignore them.
Reacting at all, whether positively or negatively, encourages a repeat performance. No reaction at all lets him know that he cannot manipulate you.
I understand. At the same time, I think you can understand why someone would rather not try to carry on an extended, serious conversation in a roomful of two year olds.
I remember all the scientists that posted here on FR and they were anythign BUT civil- then they left, or were banned- formed their own site, complaining that FR tried to stymie their views- but that was a crock of crap- You go back and look over their posts, and they are just as nasty as tyhe next person- Rarely do they engage in civil debate-
I’ve been to several sites run by scientists of all pursuasions post, and even htose sites are full of petty backbiting and accusations and insults- Civil debate is not goign to happen regardless of one’s degrees, contrary to the claims of some on htis thread that they ‘wish to post civil debates, but just can’t (presumably because creationsits ‘attack them’ [Yet they ignore the fact that it was the scientists that started the crap time and time again])-
Once in a blue moon, a civil debate comes up, and yep, they are pleasant, but they are far and few between-
I don't think that's a scientific question, dear brother in Christ. In what way can the scientific method — direct observation, replicable experiments, falsifiability — engage it, let alone answer it?
As the novelist Robert Musil observed, "the reason God is such an embarrassment to science is that he was seen only once, before there were any trained observers around." The same situation applies to the "third human."
In short, yours is a philosophical/theological question, not a scientific one. Or so it seems to me, FWIW.
But if you speak over their heads (language not volume) to the other adult letting him know that you are ignoring them so as not to reward the behavior and continue talking, the two year olds will realize acting up is not working and will return to playing with each other.
The closest we came to the issue was on your Plato thread where tortoise raised his new fallacy of quantizing the continuum. The issue there was similar, for a species to propagate there would need to be more than one member.
And, as I recall, tortoise (an excellent mathematician) was pointing out the weakness of abiogenesis theory in that it would require a much large phenomena than a single common ancestor (by the numbers) to survive a prebiotic environment. But he was also arguing against himself by saying via this new fallacy that any point (quantization) in the continuum of the tree of life would be material to identify as the moment species B is no longer a member of species A.
If you have that conversation at a table, and the two year olds insist that they all need a place at the table and need to be included in that conversation, do you let them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.