tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post7337860559560101604..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Brunch with Richard Dawkins and Lawrence KraussLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger120125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13531400993667346582013-05-09T08:13:56.172-04:002013-05-09T08:13:56.172-04:00Andy,
I just realized that my comment just above ...Andy,<br /><br />I just realized that my comment just above is in the wrong place. Still, it stands for what it stands, and I hope you realize that it belongs somewhere in the comments above this particular exchange about tautologies, which I have no idea how it started, nor do I want to butt in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55338724565395501252013-05-09T07:33:48.895-04:002013-05-09T07:33:48.895-04:00Dominic:
Do you know what the term "deistic&...Dominic:<br /><br />Do you know what the term "deistic" means?<br /><br />Does it represent the views of the "world's great religions"?<br /><br />Do you think Krauss believes the universe necessarily had a beginning? Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-192561119360278152013-05-09T07:16:37.234-04:002013-05-09T07:16:37.234-04:00Andy,
I think you really don't realize, but y...Andy,<br /><br />I think you really don't realize, but you are encouraging an imbecile (Dominic) to continue arguing from a position of ignorance and misinformation. I have tried to show Dominic how his comments betray his ignorance, and he pays no attention. The least we need is for this imbecile bigot to be encouraged in his ignorance and misinformation.<br /><br />I know this sounds harsh on Dominic, maybe you don't understand how ignorant and misinformed he is. But encouragement in error is not really making Dominic any good. No matter how deep you feel about coming to the defence of something you seem to have misunderstood yourself. Please read carefully what I told you (others told you too, but maybe different wording helps). You might notice that Dominic does not leave anybody in the dust. But do that. Most of your answers seem to ignore many things I have said (as if either you did not see my comments, or you did not read them all the way through).<br /><br />Have a great day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55796372849056457922013-05-09T05:35:12.555-04:002013-05-09T05:35:12.555-04:00@Andy
They have no real "ammunition", s...@Andy<br /><br />They have no real "ammunition", so they are shooting at you and I with "blanks". Anything will do, as long as it hurts a little. Look at the theme about Krauss' book. Nobody is touching it. Why? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48100275809035014912013-05-08T19:46:01.039-04:002013-05-08T19:46:01.039-04:00In this particular case (don't worry, I would ...<i>In this particular case (don't worry, I would never think to ask you to admit it) Dominic leaves Rumraket and Nullifidian in the dust.</i><br /><br />Well, then maybe I should start calling scientists "morons" if I hope to achieve the refined excellence of Dominic's form of 'argument'.Nullifidianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15207390447020990907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58400417824033932282013-05-08T17:52:02.139-04:002013-05-08T17:52:02.139-04:00How lutesuite would respond to this:
You said I h...How lutesuite would respond to this:<br /><br />You said I have a 'hard time'. No where did you write that I am unskilled or incapable of basic reading comprehension. You might even be suggesting that I find it 'hard' because basic reading is too basic for me. You might also be suggesting that to attempt to read something basically that ISN'T basic is difficult is simply stating a tautology. Next.<br /><br />You phrase it as a question, by finishing with 'don't you Andy'? In other words, the answer might be 'no'. You have not committed yourself in any way shape or form to the proposition that I have a hard time with basic reading comprehension.<br /><br />You begin your next sentence with "Maybe". Again, there is no certainty. There is still nothing but the merest suggestion that I might possibly have a hard time with basic reading comprehension, if that.<br /><br />You write 'you and Dominic'. In other words, you could be suggesting that I might want to take a remedial English class with Dominic so that I can help him with his homework.<br /><br />I see nothing in your comment to indicate that you think I really have a hard time with basic reading comprehension.<br /><br />How'd I do?andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20913449811419263962013-05-08T17:48:36.879-04:002013-05-08T17:48:36.879-04:00@lutesuite
You really think that this will make u...@lutesuite<br /><br />You really think that this will make up for your unfounded faith? Well, get a psychiatrist and a good one too. Maybe you should be observed in 24/7 detention center?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14357039879388213572013-05-08T17:33:00.295-04:002013-05-08T17:33:00.295-04:00You really have a hard time with basic reading com...You really have a hard time with basic reading comprehension, don't you Andy? Maybe you and Dominic can find a remedial English class you can both take.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6321011688335132782013-05-08T17:22:55.610-04:002013-05-08T17:22:55.610-04:00You are a good and sincere guy Andy! You have done...You are a good and sincere guy Andy! You have done a lot of hard work trying to pursued these morons to think. Unfortunately, it did not work. Wanna know why? There are few aspects to the issue and I can only see the one. So, as a "colleague", here it goes. The morons can't get past materialism, which means you can apply logic unless it is what "they like within their boundaries. Why? I don't know, but it has gotta be an disorder of somekind. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59912112873562143672013-05-07T08:48:02.373-04:002013-05-07T08:48:02.373-04:00So now I've got lutesuite arguing with me that...So now I've got lutesuite arguing with me that the 'tautology' that stable things tend to be more stable is all you need to account for the emergence of life. <br />Okay, guys, you can all go home now. Make sure you drop your lab coats in the laundry bin on your way out.<br />andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46128265286450339672013-05-07T07:53:33.670-04:002013-05-07T07:53:33.670-04:00Lutesuite, I officially give up on this. You are r...Lutesuite, I officially give up on this. You are right! My god, how could I have not seen before! <br />Wow, I'll never make the mistake of arguing with you again!<br /><br />by the way, I don't know where you get the idea that I and Dominic are in lockstep over this. Unlike members of an echo chamber, I tend to 'freelance', and if I see someone providing a better case than their opponents, I recognize it. In this particular case (don't worry, I would never think to ask you to admit it) Dominic leaves Rumraket and Nullifidian in the dust.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82871913945298600982013-05-07T07:45:05.719-04:002013-05-07T07:45:05.719-04:00"Darwin provides a solution, the only feasibl...<i>"Darwin provides a solution, the only feasible one so far suggested, to the deep problem of our existence"</i><br /><br />"A solution", not "THE solution".<br /><br /><i>"...the only feasible one SO FAR suggested..."</i><br /><br />Meaning there may well be others to come.<br /><br /><i>"Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' is really a special case of a more general law of survival of the stable."</i><br /><br />That's really just a tautology. By definition that which is more "stable" is going to survive longer. It hardly requires "faith" to accept a tautology as true.<br /><br /><i>"This is where Darwin's theory, in its most general form (do you understand what he is referring to here?), comes to the rescue.".</i><br /><br />Yes, I understand. He is referring to the same tautology I refer to above.<br /><br />So if by "faith" you and Dominic both mean acceptance of processes that have been empirically demonstrated to occur, and claims which are trivially and even tautologically true, then you both need to review what the word "faith" actually means. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67449961419022231242013-05-07T07:23:50.962-04:002013-05-07T07:23:50.962-04:00Lutesuite, do you understand what the following se...Lutesuite, do you understand what the following sentences mean/imply?<br /><br />"Darwin provides a solution, the only feasible one so far suggested, to the deep problem of our existence"<br /><br />"Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' is really a special case of a more general law of survival of the stable."<br /><br />"This is where Darwin's theory, in its most general form (do you understand what he is referring to here?), comes to the rescue."<br /><br />After that he goes on to say that he is going to give a 'necessarily speculative' (because no one was there) account of the origin of life. But he has already committed himself to a pre-life operation of 'natural selection', ultimately resulting IN life, without any caveats whatsoever.<br />This is what Dominic means by 'faith'. andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63456773297607019582013-05-07T06:42:08.386-04:002013-05-07T06:42:08.386-04:00Exactly. None of which even remotely ammounts to ...Exactly. None of which even remotely ammounts to Dawkins having "faith" in a <i>specific</i> hypothesis (Dominic prefers the term "mythology") about the of life. Which is the claim Dominic is making. I think you need to re-read the thread yourself and remind yourself of exactly what claim you are trying to defend. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72342996760798919312013-05-07T06:14:43.094-04:002013-05-07T06:14:43.094-04:00So... Krauss' and Dawkins' bullshit propag...So... Krauss' and Dawkins' bullshit propaganda boils down to this: "Imagine no religion that we don't accept. Our religion is better, because our religion bears neither accountability to a personal Superior Being, nor any possible hope beyond our miserable life. Yahoooo! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39166193678654672982013-05-07T05:39:28.777-04:002013-05-07T05:39:28.777-04:00Lutesuite, is that it? I think perhaps you haven&#...Lutesuite, is that it? I think perhaps you haven't been following this thread closely.<br /><br />I have already written that I think it was fine for NE to challenge Dominic's statement about Dawkins 'claiming".<br /><br />But look at the two statements later on, one by Rumraket and the other by Nullifidian, that are both refuted by the segment of TSG that I have summarized here.<br />Rumraket says that in another book, Dawkins engages in 'a bit of speculation' that involves another scientist's theory about crystal formation, and adds 'that's about it'.<br />So here we have Dawkins laying out a very neat scenario that goes so far as to suggest that natural selection was operative even before organisms evolved (and that statement was before he wrote the comment that you cite). <br />Rumraket makes it sound like Dawkins was just tossing out an idea that wasn't even his own, when in fact he does something much more impressive than that. <br /><br />Then we have Nullifidian trying to abort Dominic's argument at the stage of replicator emergence. But Dawkins DOESN'T stop there. He goes on to take us to the point where replicators evolve in the prebiotic soup in such ways that it becomes possible to accord them the very same traits that biologists accord living things - fecundity, longevity, and a high degree of reproductive fidelity. He doesn't even stop THERE, but goes on to name replicators the ancestors of living things.<br /><br />It's a long thread, and you don't have to read through it if you don't want to. But if you do, and follow it carefully, you'll see no 'demonstration' of me being wrong all along. andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14840420470403278822013-05-06T19:52:43.652-04:002013-05-06T19:52:43.652-04:00It's right here near the beginning of your sum...It's right here near the beginning of your summary (my bold):<br /><br />"The account of the origin of life that I shall give is <b>necessarily speculative</b>; by definition. Nobody was around to see what happened. <b>There are a number of rival theories</b>, but they all have certain features in common..." Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75368205776233445062013-05-06T18:38:46.927-04:002013-05-06T18:38:46.927-04:00you're funny, lutesuite, but in fact I have do...you're funny, lutesuite, but in fact I have done nothing of the kind. You are welcome, of course, to go beyond mere facile one liners and point out exactly how the above post demonstrates that I was 'wrong', so that I can do my usual thing of ripping your arguments to shreds. ;)andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41599624325994814342013-05-06T18:05:44.016-04:002013-05-06T18:05:44.016-04:00That's very gracious and principled of you, an...That's very gracious and principled of you, <b>andyboerger,</b> to provide such a detailed account of the evidence that demonstrates that you were wrong all along. It takes a big man to admit that. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14132627996662184602013-05-06T17:16:29.756-04:002013-05-06T17:16:29.756-04:00@Moron Krauss really an unbeliever? It is for the ...@Moron Krauss really an unbeliever? It is for the logic to decide...<br /><br />Apparently, in the late 80-ties and 90-ties Krauss published several papers on origins of universe etc. including the possibility of the existence of dark energy. He also calculated many fine tunings of the universe, including its total mass, which is so fine-tuned according to him, that if we were to remove a dime from the mass of the universe, according to him and many scientists now, the universe would collapse upon itself. He also suspected and now it is a fact that the expansion of the universe is accelerating and not decelerating, as it was previously thought. Krauss, and many others like him are trying to explain this phenomenon in materialistic terms; with the omission of an "external Agent"? Does he fail miserably? Here is the real kicker... <br /><br />In his book “A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing” he actually contradicts himself. I have read the book, so I was quite amazed that he actually wrote, “…that the universe is a product of physical laws, and these laws had to originate somehow…”-something to this nature.<br /><br />Does he even dare to suggest that those laws are products of an external and intelligent “Agent”, and he calls it “a law of physics generator” or something to this or nature? Well, the unbelievers would probably say: “no” What a surprise it is to learn, that the moron Krauss contradicts himself again and I quote: page 173 of the moron’s bible: <br />“The apparent logical necessity of First Cause is a real issue for any universe that has a beginning. Therefore, on the basis of logic alone one cannot rule out such a DEISTIC view on nature. “ Anybody knows how to use wiki? <br /><br />So, what is the problem then? It seems that Krauss has no problem admitting that a deity could have been the First Cause. He has a problem with the deity of the predominant religions in the world. <br /><br />So moron Krauss goes on: <br /><br />“But even in this case it is vital to realize that this deity bears no logical connection to the personal deities of the world’s great religions…” <br /><br />So according to moron Krauss, logic cannot allow one to deny the existence of the First Cause (because the universe had a beginning), but he is sure that First Cause has nothing to do with the deities of world’s great religions? What about small religions? Could their deity be the First Cause? Anybody here is trained in bias detection? <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90456048464120419712013-05-03T23:14:39.986-04:002013-05-03T23:14:39.986-04:00NE, of course I know the difference. And it doesn&...NE, of course I know the difference. And it doesn't mean a thing to me if you waltz Dominic across a floor on his behind a few times for saying that abiogenesis theories are no different from creation myths. Which you have just now, finally, done.<br /><br />I defended him because a. I have a knee jerk reaction to piling on; b. Nullifidian used one sentence of Dominic's (the Dawkins line about a replicator) to trivialize his argument, when he himself specifically wrote underneath that sentence that he was couching it in context, provided the link, etc.; c. because although you may be entirely correct in that he relies on creationist sites and arguments for his material, he, in this particular case, refuted your charge by presenting you with a whole sample of Dawkins' thoughts directly from the source, etc. Etc. And rather than having that acknowledged, everyone decided to quibble about 'claim/know'.<br /><br />My defense of him has nothing to do with what I feel about his argument, his personality, etc. But even a broken clock is right twice a day, as the saying goes, and providing the Dawkins citation, I maintain, was a fair course for Dominic to follow. It's the best thing he could have done. Would you have expected him to have just conceded without putting up a fight? Does ANYBODY do that here? ;)andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5999075068705287322013-05-03T22:45:05.469-04:002013-05-03T22:45:05.469-04:00Andy,
I do not understand why you try so hard to ...Andy,<br /><br />I do not understand why you try so hard to excuse Dominic's problems. He was criticizing Dawkins for changing his mind. He was. Otherwise, he could have told us that we were missing the point, yet he insisted that Dawkins claimed to know. Look at the exchange.<br /><br />As per the entirety of Dominic's bullshit, I said it before, it betrays his reliance in ignorance and creationist misinformation:<br /><br /><i>He used to claim, that life originated spontaneously few billion years ago in a warm pond. Now it seems, he says that he doesn't know how life originated</i><br /><br />1. Criticizing Dawkins for changing his mind (wrongly, because Dawkins did not move from I know, now I don't know). Classic creationist M.O.<br /><br /><i>but he knows it was with the first self-replicating molecule.</i><br /><br />2. Dawkins did not claim to know, but he holds strongly to a first replicator. There's scientific reasons to do so. That Dominic would make fun of this shows his ignorance of the most basic science around origin of life, and that his only source is creationist propaganda..<br /><br /><i>He could neither prove it nor repeat it.</i><br /><br />3. Even more display of ignorance. Dawkins does not work on origin of life. Expecting that Dawkins would solve every problem in biology is beyond stupid. More reliance on creationist propaganda, and ignorance of the way science operates, and of the most basic logic.<br /><br /><i>So, his saying that life originated by chance</i><br /><br />4. Dawkins did not say that life originated by chance. The "by chance" cartoon is one more of those classic creationist rhetorical straw-man bullshit. So what sources does Dominic rely on? How much does he know and/or understand about science? Not one bit.<br /><br /><i>is in what category? Can anybody guess?</i><br /><br />5. None, because Dawkins did not say that.<br /><br /><i>It's nothing else than myth.</i><br /><br />Well, you can conclude anything if you rely on ignorance and creationist propaganda. This is why I called Dominic on his bullshit. He responded by trying to demonstrate that Dawkins held one thing then the other. First by using what? A creationist video, the words of Lennox, and an interview where Dawkins could not elaborate into what he thinks. Then he insisted on trying to show that Dawkins claimed to know in the selfish gene.<br /><br />Therefore, Dominic was indeed criticizing Dawkins for changing his mind, et cetera.<br /><br />Now, even if we left all of Dominic's bullshit aside and were kind enough to suppose that Dominic meant to say that Dawkins does not know how life originated, yet holds that it must have been natural. Well, that Dominic does not understand the clear indicators that life originated naturally, even if we don't know the exact process or history, and thus thinks that Dawkins just "believes in a myth", comes only to show, yet again, Dominic's profound ignorance of science and reliance on creationist propaganda. Worse yet, equating a creation myth such as Genesis (a fantasy with nothing to work as evidence for it, let alone any evidence of the character(s) doing the creation), with an argument built on some basic understanding about how nature works, plus experimental results that become more promising with time, is beyond ignorance. It's plainly stupid.<br /><br />Therefore your defence of Dominic's bullshit relies on you being too kind to a guy who criticizes scientists from as foundation of deep ignorance and proudly displayed creationist misinformation. He did not even have the honesty to admit that his basis is creationist propaganda. He denied it only to contradict himself with the "evidence" he was providing.<br /><br />I'm done with this now Andy. It's been too much for something too obvious. I'm pretty sure that even if you don't know the evidence, you understand the huge difference between believing a myth and trusting something out of the evidence available (which continues to accumulate) and some understanding about how nature works.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24628784791198925272013-05-03T20:59:36.757-04:002013-05-03T20:59:36.757-04:00NE, when I say it isn't about you, what I mean...NE, when I say it isn't about you, what I mean is, it was entirely appropriate that you challenged him about his statement, which prompted him to provide the link. But after he did so, the argument over 'claim' should have been over and done with. It should not have become a crucial sticking point. Because, as I wrote earlier, Dominic is NOT criticizing Dawkins for changing his story. Why wouldn't he (RD)? Scientists are not expected to cling to earlier views, hypotheses, etc. as data changes.<br />Read Dominic's criticism again:<br />"He used to claim, that life originated spontaneously few billion years ago in a warm pond. Now it seems, he says that he doesn't know how life originated but he knows it was with the first self-replicating molecule. He could neither prove it nor repeat it. So, his saying that life originated by chance is in what category? Can anybody guess? It's nothing else than MYTH. "<br />He is saying that because Dawkins doesn't know (and thinks that we possibly can't know) how life originated exactly, that is an 'article of faith' similar to what he criticizes believers for. As I said, 'know/claim' is just a distraction. To make a big deal about it is quibbling, since it is not an important part of Dominic's criticism. He could just as well have used 'speculated', 'believed'. Indeed, he SHOULD have used those words, but that would NOT have changed his argument.<br />Once Dominic reproduced the passage from TSG, the most practical thing to have done would have been, say, "okay- got it. We could quibble over the word 'claim', but I get what you are saying. Now let's move on to this point about 'faith'....."andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14754887869364470972013-05-03T16:54:08.570-04:002013-05-03T16:54:08.570-04:00@andyboerger
You don't have to be sorry. You ...@andyboerger<br /><br />You don't have to be sorry. You have fallen victim of your own shortcomings... That is why your are not getting much support on this query from "the unbelievers" because they probably already know exactly that you have not done your homework as a alleged believer. <br /><br />I can help you but I don't think I should. I think you are smart enough to find your own answers to the uncertainties or doubtful thoughts you have encountered. However, you are in good space and your thinking faculties are on the right track. Here is s tip: What would you do if you encountered the same questions you have yourselves from the unbelievers? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78977563877667643572013-05-03T14:57:46.024-04:002013-05-03T14:57:46.024-04:00Andy,
This is about me. Look at the comment where...Andy,<br /><br />This is about me. Look at the comment where Dominic linked to the book at google books:<br />"Dominic Nikel Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:58:00 PM"<br /><br />Who is Dominic addressing there? What did the addressed person say that Dominic is answering?<br /><br />Please check it out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com