Posted on 12/12/2005 8:01:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
I suppose you would defend the anthropic principle. You typed alot but basically your full of tautological non-speak. As you know, a tautology has the appearance of being explanatory, but is not. It is a statement which, due to its circular form, is true by definition. So your all about words, not about the empirical world. You have managed to explain nothing about our observations. You masquerade as though your conveying knowledge and information when in fact you convey nothing. It reminds me of the doctor saying "Your father's deafness is caused by hearing impairment."
What can one expect from a person of your perspective...How about this "The universe has survivable properties because we survive. Now, that would be profound compared to to the nothingness of your post.
"I was responding to your "The Bible is the only infallible..." comment in a previous post. Based on my studies, I do not think the global flood is an example of infallibility." ~ Coyoteman
You misunderstand what is meant by the term, "infallibility" as regards the Scriptures.
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
Inerrancy applies only to the original manuscripts, not to copies or translations:
Article X.
WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.
Further, inerrancy does not mean blind literalism, but allows for figurative, poetic and phenomenological language, as long as it is accurate:
Article XIII.
WE AFFIRM the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says that the autographs of the Bible, that is, the actual parchment or papyrus on which the Biblical authors wrote, accurately reflects the authors intent.
This allows the possibility of errors in the surviving manuscripts and translations. But even if the autographs are lost, surviving manuscripts are found in such large numbers that the autographs may be reconstructed with more than 99 percent accuracy.
*
When discussing Biblical inerrancy, it is important to remember that ONLY the original texts of the Bible are claimed to have been inerrant - not the copies or translations.
Inerrancy and Human Ignorance
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/inerrancy.html
[huge snip] Scroll down to:
Religious and Philosophical Reasons Why We Don’t Have Inerrant Copies
The Hippo on the right. Affinity to water and all ...
John: Pigs can't fly.
Fred: Oh, so you believe the "pigs-can't-fly" (PCF) theory, eh?
John: I suppose you could say that.
Fred: That's not even a theory. A theory must be falsifiable. Give me one prediction that your theory makes that, if found false, would discredit your theory.
John: Well, basically the theory predicts that a pig will never fly.
Fred: Ha! That's not a *positive* prediction. It's just a prediction that something will *not* happen!
John: Well, yes. But if the prediction were falsified because we observed a pig flying, then the PCF theory would be discredited. Of course, we certainly don't expect to see that happen, do we.
Fred: Ha! So you've admitted that your PCF theory cannot be disproven. We'll never see a pig fly, so your theory cannot be disproven! So it is not a valid scientific theory! Your silly trick won't work.
John: I give up. I don't have time for this nonsense. You "win."
Fred: Your weak arguments just can't stand up, so that's why you are quitting.
John: Whatever you say, Fred. Whatever you say.
So your saying Dr. Gene Ray is the love child of Gore3000 and effdot?
"Given sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead."
"Eichler and colleagues found over 100 copies of PTERV1 in each African ape (chimp and gorilla) and Old World monkey (baboon and macaque) species. The authors compared the sites of viral integration in each of these primates and found that few if any of these insertion sites were shared among the primates. It appears therefore that the sequences have not been conserved from a common ancestor, but are specific to each lineage."
Has it occurred to you that your screen name has an annoying grammitical error? Sorry, but it just bothers me. You don't say, "a NYC guy. You say, "an NYC guy." If you spell out New York City, then you precede it with "a," but for the acronym you use "an," because "N" is pronounced "en."
Do you know what 'arguing by analogy' is? Becasue, despite my cautions, that's all you seem to do.
"'Pigs can't fly' is falsifiable."
Oh, is it? Can you prove that no pig is able to fly? I don't think so. You'd need to thorougly test every pig in the world.
Is that an unreasonable standard of proof to ask for? Of course it is, just as it is unreasonable for evolutionists to implicitly require absolute proof of ID (.9999999999 probability isn't good enough).
The irony is that as an evolutionist, you must be willing to concede that pigs may someday develop wings and start flying!
When I read the "arguments" presented against ID here by evolutionists, I can't help but think that they are parrotting the party line just as Democrats parrot the party line on Iraq, taxes, etc. So many evolutionists hear something about the philosophy of science and parrot it without really understanding it, thinking they are experts, and not realizing that they lost something critical in the translation.
'Alter' is Latin for other, nothing more. My dictionary specifies a particular meaning in the field of behavior that means acting for the benefit of others, possibly but not necessarily at some disadvantage to the self. You're the one trying to eliminate a normal use of the word, and the one that is valid in the present context. But then redefining words to suit is a MO of yours. Funny you should mention Orwell.
The very word altruism denies any contract at all which is why the sociobiological term "reciprocal altruism" is so farcical. There is nor reciprocity in a selfless act. The act is born of a morality learned, not acquired else there would be no heroes.
This discussion is on hold while you reacquaint yourself with the English language.
Don't need to. All I have to show is that pigs don't have the means or physiology for it. If you had an organism with wings, hollow bones, etc., it wouldn't be a pig.
As for the rest of the rant, I think for myself. I don't have a party line. What you don't seem to appreciate is that the arguments you're presenting are transparently specious, and it's not in the least surprising that twenty people, all with a reasonable command of logic, will be able to drive a truck for them.
"'Pigs can't fly' is falsifiable."
"Oh, is it? Can you prove that no pig is able to fly? I don't think so. You'd need to thorougly test every pig in the world."
OK, let me correct myself here. I posted too hastily this time. Of course "pigs can't fly" is falsifiable in principle. All you need to do is show a pig flying. But someone took me to task earlier in this thread for giving an example of how ID is falsifiable -- because it couldn't actually be done (just as you can't actually make a pig fly).
A more interesting question is whether the theory that "pigs CAN fly" is falsifiable. How could it be falsified? As I suggested in my last post, you'd need to test every single pig in the world and prove that not one of them can fly. And how could you even prove that one particular pig can't fly? How would know that they are just refusing to cooperate with you? I'm talking about absolute, 100% proof here. You may be able to get to 99.9999999999% certainty, but I don't think you can get to exactly 100% certain proof. So then the theory that "pigs can fly" is unfalsifiable, so it is not a valid theory. Oh, but it *is* a valid theory -- just not a very useful one.
Alamo-Girl extrapolates from methodological to metaphysical naturalism by saying that people who adopt naturalism as a mere working hypothesis often note that they never encounter a case where it is invalid, and thence extrapolate to naturalism as a metaphysical principle. I find that concession revealing, to start with. But arguing, never in thousands of instances having encountered an exception, that no exceptions are likely to exist, is hardly 'philosophy'; it's a valid application of induction that in any other case would be regarded as unexceptionable.
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.
