Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?natural sciences." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
"Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the
Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes, major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?
"Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,
major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?natural sciences." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
"Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the
Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes, major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?natural sciences." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
"Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the
Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes, major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?natural sciences." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
"Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the
Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes, major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
On 12/8/2023 11:03 PM, MarkE wrote:
Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal
epistemology?
"Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,
major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
The ID scam was based on the notion that their designer could be
determined to be part of nature. Science is just the best means we
have developed for understanding nature. The ID perps claimed that
they could do the same science that everyone else was doing and
demonstrate that their designer existed. When the ID perps stupidly
put out the Top Six designer-did-it-gaps as a related group in their
logical order of occurrence in this universe (something that they
admitted at the time that they had avoided doing for decades) most of
the IDiots on TO realized that they had never wanted the ID perps to
succeed in doing any ID science, and they quit the ID creationist scam.
The designer that filled those gaps was not their Biblical designer.
Pagano claimed that the Top Six were bogus, and were not the best
evidence for IDiocy because they did not support his geocentric
creationist beliefs. Pagano had only been interested in the gap denial
that wasn't about the structure of the universe and our solar system.
Bill claimed that he had never supported the ID scam, but what he
likely meant was that he had never supported what it had always been. Kalkidas now claims that the Top Six are just not worth thinking about
any more, and he came out as just a plain Biblical creationist and
claimed that he had never claimed to be Hindu. They all realized that
they had never wanted the ID perps to succeed in filling those gaps
with a designer. It would not have been their Biblical designer.
MarkE understands that he never wanted the ID perps to succeed in accomplishing any IDiotic science, but MarkE wants to wallow in the gap denial as the only thing left for him to do.
It doesn't matter what philosophy you have, it turned out that nature
is not Biblical. IDiots have to either deny nature or accept it for
what it is. The IDiots at reason to believe have tried to mix denial
with acceptance, and they have pretty much failed to convince very many Biblical creationists that they are on the right track. MarkE is
currently failing to do the same thing. Tour is just into the denial.
You have the Biblical creationists at BioLogos that admit that nature
isn't Biblical, and they think that is the way it is supposed to be.
Some of them are evangelical Christians, but they claim nature doesn't
have to be Biblical, and that nature is just what it seems to be.
The sad thing about the current situation is that Christianity has
known that nature isn't Biblical from the beginning of the early
church. The authors of the Bible had adopted a flat earth geocentric cosmology that had a firmament above the earth that some god would open
up and let the rain fall. The Greeks were estimating the circumference
of the earth centuries before Christ was born. Kepler failed to
support the last vestiges of the firmament with his crystal spheres and instead came up with elliptical orbits. Newton was born the year
Galileo died under house arrest and would go on to demonstrate that geocentrism was a dead issue. The realization that the earth was much
older than described in the Bible predated Darwin. Saint Augustine was admonishing the faithful that they should not use the Bible to deny
what we could determine about nature for ourselves. They were already
having issues with Biblical literalists and nature denial at the
beginning of the Catholic church.
Nature had been established to not be Biblical long before we had the scientific creationist denial that the ID perps continued. It hasn't
been a philosophical argument for a very long time, except in the sense
of how much you are willing to deny.
On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
On 12/8/2023 11:03 PM, MarkE wrote:
Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal
epistemology?
"Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural
sciences." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,
major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
The ID scam was based on the notion that their designer could be
determined to be part of nature. Science is just the best means we
have developed for understanding nature. The ID perps claimed that
they could do the same science that everyone else was doing and
demonstrate that their designer existed. When the ID perps stupidly
put out the Top Six designer-did-it-gaps as a related group in their
logical order of occurrence in this universe (something that they
admitted at the time that they had avoided doing for decades) most of
the IDiots on TO realized that they had never wanted the ID perps to
succeed in doing any ID science, and they quit the ID creationist
scam. The designer that filled those gaps was not their Biblical
designer.
Pagano claimed that the Top Six were bogus, and were not the best
evidence for IDiocy because they did not support his geocentric
creationist beliefs. Pagano had only been interested in the gap
denial that wasn't about the structure of the universe and our solar
system. Bill claimed that he had never supported the ID scam, but what
he likely meant was that he had never supported what it had always
been. Kalkidas now claims that the Top Six are just not worth thinking
about any more, and he came out as just a plain Biblical creationist
and claimed that he had never claimed to be Hindu. They all realized
that they had never wanted the ID perps to succeed in filling those
gaps with a designer. It would not have been their Biblical designer.
MarkE understands that he never wanted the ID perps to succeed in
accomplishing any IDiotic science, but MarkE wants to wallow in the
gap denial as the only thing left for him to do.
It doesn't matter what philosophy you have, it turned out that nature
is not Biblical. IDiots have to either deny nature or accept it for
what it is. The IDiots at reason to believe have tried to mix denial
with acceptance, and they have pretty much failed to convince very
many Biblical creationists that they are on the right track. MarkE is
currently failing to do the same thing. Tour is just into the denial.
You have the Biblical creationists at BioLogos that admit that nature
isn't Biblical, and they think that is the way it is supposed to be.
Some of them are evangelical Christians, but they claim nature doesn't
have to be Biblical, and that nature is just what it seems to be.
The sad thing about the current situation is that Christianity has
known that nature isn't Biblical from the beginning of the early
church. The authors of the Bible had adopted a flat earth geocentric
cosmology that had a firmament above the earth that some god would
open up and let the rain fall. The Greeks were estimating the
circumference of the earth centuries before Christ was born. Kepler
failed to support the last vestiges of the firmament with his crystal
spheres and instead came up with elliptical orbits. Newton was born
the year Galileo died under house arrest and would go on to
demonstrate that geocentrism was a dead issue. The realization that
the earth was much older than described in the Bible predated Darwin.
Saint Augustine was admonishing the faithful that they should not use
the Bible to deny what we could determine about nature for ourselves.
They were already having issues with Biblical literalists and nature
denial at the beginning of the Catholic church.
Nature had been established to not be Biblical long before we had the
scientific creationist denial that the ID perps continued. It hasn't
been a philosophical argument for a very long time, except in the
sense of how much you are willing to deny.
ID scam 1
ID perps 5
Top Six 1
IDiotic 1
IDiots 2
denial 2
If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
On 12/8/2023 11:03 PM, MarkE wrote:
Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?
"Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,
major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
The ID scam was based on the notion that their designer could be
determined to be part of nature. Science is just the best means we have developed for understanding nature. The ID perps claimed that they
could do the same science that everyone else was doing and demonstrate
that their designer existed. When the ID perps stupidly put out the Top
Six designer-did-it-gaps as a related group in their logical order of occurrence in this universe (something that they admitted at the time
that they had avoided doing for decades) most of the IDiots on TO
realized that they had never wanted the ID perps to succeed in doing any
ID science, and they quit the ID creationist scam. The designer that
filled those gaps was not their Biblical designer.
Pagano claimed that the Top Six were bogus, and were not the best
evidence for IDiocy because they did not support his geocentric
creationist beliefs.
Pagano had only been interested in the gap denial
that wasn't about the structure of the universe and our solar system.
Bill claimed that he had never supported the ID scam, but what he likely meant was that he had never supported what it had always been. Kalkidas
now claims that the Top Six are just not worth thinking about any more,
and he came out as just a plain Biblical creationist and claimed that he
had never claimed to be Hindu. They all realized that they had never
wanted the ID perps to succeed in filling those gaps with a designer.
It would not have been their Biblical designer.
MarkE understands that he never wanted the ID perps to succeed in accomplishing any IDiotic science, but MarkE wants to wallow in the gap denial as the only thing left for him to do.
It doesn't matter what philosophy you have, it turned out that nature is
not Biblical. IDiots have to either deny nature or accept it for what
it is. The IDiots at reason to believe have tried to mix denial with acceptance, and they have pretty much failed to convince very many
Biblical creationists that they are on the right track. MarkE is
currently failing to do the same thing. Tour is just into the denial.
You have the Biblical creationists at BioLogos that admit that nature
isn't Biblical, and they think that is the way it is supposed to be.
Some of them are evangelical Christians, but they claim nature doesn't
have to be Biblical, and that nature is just what it seems to be.
The sad thing about the current situation is that Christianity has known
that nature isn't Biblical from the beginning of the early church. The authors of the Bible had adopted a flat earth geocentric cosmology that
had a firmament above the earth that some god would open up and let the
rain fall. The Greeks were estimating the circumference of the earth centuries before Christ was born. Kepler failed to support the last
vestiges of the firmament with his crystal spheres and instead came up
with elliptical orbits. Newton was born the year Galileo died under
house arrest and would go on to demonstrate that geocentrism was a dead issue. The realization that the earth was much older than described in
the Bible predated Darwin. Saint Augustine was admonishing the faithful
that they should not use the Bible to deny what we could determine about nature for ourselves. They were already having issues with Biblical literalists and nature denial at the beginning of the Catholic church.
Nature had been established to not be Biblical long before we had the scientific creationist denial that the ID perps continued. It hasn't
been a philosophical argument for a very long time, except in the sense
of how much you are willing to deny.
On 12/9/23 8:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:This is exactly what happens when a chatbot is educated on its own output.
On 12/8/2023 11:03 PM, MarkE wrote:
Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal
epistemology?
"Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural
sciences." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,
major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
The ID scam was based on the notion that their designer could be
determined to be part of nature. Science is just the best means we
have developed for understanding nature. The ID perps claimed that
they could do the same science that everyone else was doing and
demonstrate that their designer existed. When the ID perps stupidly
put out the Top Six designer-did-it-gaps as a related group in their
logical order of occurrence in this universe (something that they
admitted at the time that they had avoided doing for decades) most of
the IDiots on TO realized that they had never wanted the ID perps to
succeed in doing any ID science, and they quit the ID creationist
scam. The designer that filled those gaps was not their Biblical
designer.
Pagano claimed that the Top Six were bogus, and were not the best
evidence for IDiocy because they did not support his geocentric
creationist beliefs. Pagano had only been interested in the gap
denial that wasn't about the structure of the universe and our solar
system. Bill claimed that he had never supported the ID scam, but what
he likely meant was that he had never supported what it had always
been. Kalkidas now claims that the Top Six are just not worth thinking
about any more, and he came out as just a plain Biblical creationist
and claimed that he had never claimed to be Hindu. They all realized
that they had never wanted the ID perps to succeed in filling those
gaps with a designer. It would not have been their Biblical designer.
MarkE understands that he never wanted the ID perps to succeed in
accomplishing any IDiotic science, but MarkE wants to wallow in the
gap denial as the only thing left for him to do.
It doesn't matter what philosophy you have, it turned out that nature
is not Biblical. IDiots have to either deny nature or accept it for
what it is. The IDiots at reason to believe have tried to mix denial
with acceptance, and they have pretty much failed to convince very
many Biblical creationists that they are on the right track. MarkE is
currently failing to do the same thing. Tour is just into the denial.
You have the Biblical creationists at BioLogos that admit that nature
isn't Biblical, and they think that is the way it is supposed to be.
Some of them are evangelical Christians, but they claim nature doesn't
have to be Biblical, and that nature is just what it seems to be.
The sad thing about the current situation is that Christianity has
known that nature isn't Biblical from the beginning of the early
church. The authors of the Bible had adopted a flat earth geocentric
cosmology that had a firmament above the earth that some god would
open up and let the rain fall. The Greeks were estimating the
circumference of the earth centuries before Christ was born. Kepler
failed to support the last vestiges of the firmament with his crystal
spheres and instead came up with elliptical orbits. Newton was born
the year Galileo died under house arrest and would go on to
demonstrate that geocentrism was a dead issue. The realization that
the earth was much older than described in the Bible predated Darwin.
Saint Augustine was admonishing the faithful that they should not use
the Bible to deny what we could determine about nature for ourselves.
They were already having issues with Biblical literalists and nature
denial at the beginning of the Catholic church.
Nature had been established to not be Biblical long before we had the
scientific creationist denial that the ID perps continued. It hasn't
been a philosophical argument for a very long time, except in the
sense of how much you are willing to deny.
ID scam 1
ID perps 5
Top Six 1
IDiotic 1
IDiots 2
denial 2
If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
On 12/8/2023 11:03 PM, MarkE wrote:
Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal
epistemology?
"Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,
major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
The ID scam was based on the notion that their designer could be
determined to be part of nature. Science is just the best means we
have developed for understanding nature. The ID perps claimed that
they could do the same science that everyone else was doing and
demonstrate that their designer existed. When the ID perps stupidly
put out the Top Six designer-did-it-gaps as a related group in their
logical order of occurrence in this universe (something that they
admitted at the time that they had avoided doing for decades) most of
the IDiots on TO realized that they had never wanted the ID perps to
succeed in doing any ID science, and they quit the ID creationist scam.
The designer that filled those gaps was not their Biblical designer.
Pagano claimed that the Top Six were bogus, and were not the best
evidence for IDiocy because they did not support his geocentric
creationist beliefs. Pagano had only been interested in the gap denial
that wasn't about the structure of the universe and our solar system.
Bill claimed that he had never supported the ID scam, but what he
likely meant was that he had never supported what it had always been.
Kalkidas now claims that the Top Six are just not worth thinking about
any more, and he came out as just a plain Biblical creationist and
claimed that he had never claimed to be Hindu. They all realized that
they had never wanted the ID perps to succeed in filling those gaps
with a designer. It would not have been their Biblical designer.
MarkE understands that he never wanted the ID perps to succeed in
accomplishing any IDiotic science, but MarkE wants to wallow in the gap
denial as the only thing left for him to do.
It doesn't matter what philosophy you have, it turned out that nature
is not Biblical. IDiots have to either deny nature or accept it for
what it is. The IDiots at reason to believe have tried to mix denial
with acceptance, and they have pretty much failed to convince very many
Biblical creationists that they are on the right track. MarkE is
currently failing to do the same thing. Tour is just into the denial.
You have the Biblical creationists at BioLogos that admit that nature
isn't Biblical, and they think that is the way it is supposed to be.
Some of them are evangelical Christians, but they claim nature doesn't
have to be Biblical, and that nature is just what it seems to be.
The sad thing about the current situation is that Christianity has
known that nature isn't Biblical from the beginning of the early
church. The authors of the Bible had adopted a flat earth geocentric
cosmology that had a firmament above the earth that some god would open
up and let the rain fall. The Greeks were estimating the circumference
of the earth centuries before Christ was born. Kepler failed to
support the last vestiges of the firmament with his crystal spheres and
instead came up with elliptical orbits. Newton was born the year
Galileo died under house arrest and would go on to demonstrate that
geocentrism was a dead issue. The realization that the earth was much
older than described in the Bible predated Darwin. Saint Augustine was
admonishing the faithful that they should not use the Bible to deny
what we could determine about nature for ourselves. They were already
having issues with Biblical literalists and nature denial at the
beginning of the Catholic church.
Nature had been established to not be Biblical long before we had the
scientific creationist denial that the ID perps continued. It hasn't
been a philosophical argument for a very long time, except in the sense
of how much you are willing to deny.
ID scam 1
ID perps 5
Top Six 1
IDiotic 1
IDiots 2
denial 2
If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
On 12/9/23 8:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:This is exactly what happens when a chatbot is educated on its own output.
On 12/8/2023 11:03 PM, MarkE wrote:
Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal
epistemology?
"Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural
sciences." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,
major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
The ID scam was based on the notion that their designer could be
determined to be part of nature. Science is just the best means we
have developed for understanding nature. The ID perps claimed that
they could do the same science that everyone else was doing and
demonstrate that their designer existed. When the ID perps stupidly
put out the Top Six designer-did-it-gaps as a related group in their
logical order of occurrence in this universe (something that they
admitted at the time that they had avoided doing for decades) most of
the IDiots on TO realized that they had never wanted the ID perps to
succeed in doing any ID science, and they quit the ID creationist
scam. The designer that filled those gaps was not their Biblical
designer.
Pagano claimed that the Top Six were bogus, and were not the best
evidence for IDiocy because they did not support his geocentric
creationist beliefs. Pagano had only been interested in the gap
denial that wasn't about the structure of the universe and our solar
system. Bill claimed that he had never supported the ID scam, but
what he likely meant was that he had never supported what it had
always been. Kalkidas now claims that the Top Six are just not worth
thinking about any more, and he came out as just a plain Biblical
creationist and claimed that he had never claimed to be Hindu. They
all realized that they had never wanted the ID perps to succeed in
filling those gaps with a designer. It would not have been their
Biblical designer.
MarkE understands that he never wanted the ID perps to succeed in
accomplishing any IDiotic science, but MarkE wants to wallow in the
gap denial as the only thing left for him to do.
It doesn't matter what philosophy you have, it turned out that nature
is not Biblical. IDiots have to either deny nature or accept it for
what it is. The IDiots at reason to believe have tried to mix denial
with acceptance, and they have pretty much failed to convince very
many Biblical creationists that they are on the right track. MarkE
is currently failing to do the same thing. Tour is just into the
denial. You have the Biblical creationists at BioLogos that admit
that nature isn't Biblical, and they think that is the way it is
supposed to be. Some of them are evangelical Christians, but they
claim nature doesn't have to be Biblical, and that nature is just
what it seems to be.
The sad thing about the current situation is that Christianity has
known that nature isn't Biblical from the beginning of the early
church. The authors of the Bible had adopted a flat earth geocentric
cosmology that had a firmament above the earth that some god would
open up and let the rain fall. The Greeks were estimating the
circumference of the earth centuries before Christ was born. Kepler
failed to support the last vestiges of the firmament with his crystal
spheres and instead came up with elliptical orbits. Newton was born
the year Galileo died under house arrest and would go on to
demonstrate that geocentrism was a dead issue. The realization that
the earth was much older than described in the Bible predated Darwin.
Saint Augustine was admonishing the faithful that they should not use
the Bible to deny what we could determine about nature for ourselves.
They were already having issues with Biblical literalists and nature
denial at the beginning of the Catholic church.
Nature had been established to not be Biblical long before we had the
scientific creationist denial that the ID perps continued. It hasn't
been a philosophical argument for a very long time, except in the
sense of how much you are willing to deny.
ID scam 1
ID perps 5
Top Six 1
IDiotic 1
IDiots 2
denial 2
If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
On 12/9/2023 11:00 AM, John Harshman wrote:[Lots]
On 12/9/23 8:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
This is exactly what happens when a chatbot is educated on its own output.
ID scam 1
ID perps 5
Top Six 1
IDiotic 1
IDiots 2
denial 2
If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
No, probably monkey see monkey do.
Just 5 years to late to matter.
On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
ID scam 1
ID perps 5
Top Six 1
IDiotic 1
IDiots 2
denial 2
If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.
Thanks, I took one look and decided it was too much for me; perhaps I need to write a parsing tool - no, that way lies madness also.
On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 13:11:44 -0600
RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 12/9/2023 11:00 AM, John Harshman wrote:[Lots]
On 12/9/23 8:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
This is exactly what happens when a chatbot is educated on its own output. >>>
ID scam 1
ID perps 5
Top Six 1
IDiotic 1
IDiots 2
denial 2
If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
No, probably monkey see monkey do.
Just 5 years to late to matter.
You're trying to keep a 5 year old argument still going? With the same keywords? I suggest it's way too much like OCD.
On 12/9/2023 2:30 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 13:11:44 -0600
RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 12/9/2023 11:00 AM, John Harshman wrote:[Lots]
On 12/9/23 8:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
This is exactly what happens when a chatbot is educated on its own output. >>>>
ID scam 1
ID perps 5
Top Six 1
IDiotic 1
IDiots 2
denial 2
If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
No, probably monkey see monkey do.
Just 5 years to late to matter.
You're trying to keep a 5 year old argument still going? With the same
keywords? I suggest it's way too much like OCD.
You may not know what is going on. You should get someone to explain it
to you, since you don't seem to want to understand what I have put out.
ID died on TO 5 years ago when the ID perps put out their Top Six best evidences for IDiocy. It turned out that most of TO didn't understand
what had happened except for the IDiots that had quit.
What you are seeing is whining about reality 5 years too late to
accomplish anything.
RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 12/9/2023 2:30 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:If ID actually died here why are you still writing the obituary? All concerned parties have been amply informed by you already, no? Is ID in probate and you’re merely contacting named parties for reading of the will?
On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 13:11:44 -0600
RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 12/9/2023 11:00 AM, John Harshman wrote:[Lots]
On 12/9/23 8:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
This is exactly what happens when a chatbot is educated on its own output.
ID scam 1
ID perps 5
Top Six 1
IDiotic 1
IDiots 2
denial 2
If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
No, probably monkey see monkey do.
Just 5 years to late to matter.
You're trying to keep a 5 year old argument still going? With the same
keywords? I suggest it's way too much like OCD.
You may not know what is going on. You should get someone to explain it
to you, since you don't seem to want to understand what I have put out.
ID died on TO 5 years ago when the ID perps put out their Top Six best
evidences for IDiocy. It turned out that most of TO didn't understand
what had happened except for the IDiots that had quit.
What you are seeing is whining about reality 5 years too late to
accomplish anything.
And if it’s too late to accomplish anything why pile it on more? You can’t
make anything more dead unless we are fighting zombies. Did you suddenly
wake up in hospital in the middle of a desolate city?
On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 17:13:48 +0100
Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:[Same old]
ID scam 1
ID perps 5
Top Six 1
IDiotic 1
IDiots 2
denial 2
If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.
Thanks, I took one look and decided it was too much for me; perhaps I
need to write a parsing tool - no, that way lies madness also.
On 2023-12-09 20:32:12 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:[sorry, my NR didn't autosnip the sig]
On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 17:13:48 +0100
Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:[Same old]
ID scam 1
ID perps 5
Top Six 1
IDiotic 1
IDiots 2
denial 2
If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
Thanks, I took one look and decided it was too much for me; perhaps I
need to write a parsing tool - no, that way lies madness also.
Ayway, I was amused that RonO thinks I might be your sock-puppet --
despite my having posted under a siungle name for at least 20 years.
Have you ever thought I might be your sock-puppet?
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:22:03 PM UTC+11, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?A rolling stone of crushing doubt I push up hill every day in an exercise
of futility. I try not to “know” things based on blind faith.
Methodological naturalism works.
"Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
Atheism can be a form of metaphysical naturism if the presumption pushed is >> the Emperor idea has no clothes.
Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,What is macroevolution?
major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
This: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02116-7
It's far from a given that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution.
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 01:45:18 -0800 (PST), MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:22:03?PM UTC+11, *Hemidactylus* wrote: >>> MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?A rolling stone of crushing doubt I push up hill every day in an exercise >>> of futility. I try not to “know” things based on blind faith.
Methodological naturalism works.
"Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences." >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
Atheism can be a form of metaphysical naturism if the presumption pushed is >>> the Emperor idea has no clothes.
Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,What is macroevolution?
major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
This: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02116-7
It's far from a given that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution.
In any case, microevolution is a necessary condition for
macroevolution.
RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 12/9/2023 2:30 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:If ID actually died here why are you still writing the obituary? All concerned parties have been amply informed by you already, no? Is ID in probate and you’re merely contacting named parties for reading of the will?
On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 13:11:44 -0600
RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 12/9/2023 11:00 AM, John Harshman wrote:[Lots]
On 12/9/23 8:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
This is exactly what happens when a chatbot is educated on its own output.
ID scam 1
ID perps 5
Top Six 1
IDiotic 1
IDiots 2
denial 2
If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
No, probably monkey see monkey do.
Just 5 years to late to matter.
You're trying to keep a 5 year old argument still going? With the same
keywords? I suggest it's way too much like OCD.
You may not know what is going on. You should get someone to explain it
to you, since you don't seem to want to understand what I have put out.
ID died on TO 5 years ago when the ID perps put out their Top Six best
evidences for IDiocy. It turned out that most of TO didn't understand
what had happened except for the IDiots that had quit.
What you are seeing is whining about reality 5 years too late to
accomplish anything.
And if it’s too late to accomplish anything why pile it on more? You can’t
make anything more dead unless we are fighting zombies. Did you suddenly
wake up in hospital in the middle of a desolate city?
On 2023-12-10 04:23:48 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:
RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 12/9/2023 2:30 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:If ID actually died here why are you still writing the obituary? All
On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 13:11:44 -0600
RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 12/9/2023 11:00 AM, John Harshman wrote:[Lots]
On 12/9/23 8:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
This is exactly what happens when a chatbot is educated on its own >>>>>> output.
ID scam 1
ID perps 5
Top Six 1
IDiotic 1
IDiots 2
denial 2
If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
No, probably monkey see monkey do.
Just 5 years to late to matter.
You're trying to keep a 5 year old argument still going? With the same >>>> keywords? I suggest it's way too much like OCD.
You may not know what is going on. You should get someone to explain it >>> to you, since you don't seem to want to understand what I have put out.
ID died on TO 5 years ago when the ID perps put out their Top Six best
evidences for IDiocy. It turned out that most of TO didn't understand
what had happened except for the IDiots that had quit.
What you are seeing is whining about reality 5 years too late to
accomplish anything.
concerned parties have been amply informed by you already, no? Is ID in
probate and you’re merely contacting named parties for reading of the
will?
I think he explained that with his comment "monkey see monkey do".
Assuming that the monkey in question is himself, he notices that it's
been several hours since he last told us about IDperps and the Top Six
and thinks he needs to copy out the same old stuff yet again in case
we've forgotten.
And if it’s too late to accomplish anything why pile it on more? You
can’t
make anything more dead unless we are fighting zombies. Did you suddenly
wake up in hospital in the middle of a desolate city?
Never having used chatbot or seen it used I have no idea what John
Harshman's comment meant.
On 12/9/2023 10:23 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 12/9/2023 2:30 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:If ID actually died here why are you still writing the obituary? All
On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 13:11:44 -0600
RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 12/9/2023 11:00 AM, John Harshman wrote:[Lots]
On 12/9/23 8:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
This is exactly what happens when a chatbot is educated on its own output.
ID scam 1
ID perps 5
Top Six 1
IDiotic 1
IDiots 2
denial 2
If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
No, probably monkey see monkey do.
Just 5 years to late to matter.
You're trying to keep a 5 year old argument still going? With the same >>>> keywords? I suggest it's way too much like OCD.
You may not know what is going on. You should get someone to explain it >>> to you, since you don't seem to want to understand what I have put out.
ID died on TO 5 years ago when the ID perps put out their Top Six best
evidences for IDiocy. It turned out that most of TO didn't understand
what had happened except for the IDiots that had quit.
What you are seeing is whining about reality 5 years too late to
accomplish anything.
concerned parties have been amply informed by you already, no? Is ID in
probate and you’re merely contacting named parties for reading of the will?
Just ask Mark Isaac when ID died on TO.
The current whining about
reality is due to the inability to accept responsibility for their own incompetence. The whiners at first claimed that I had harassed the
IDiots into quiting, but they soon realized that, that was not true, and
this is the result. Why support such an effort if you do not understand
why it is going on?
The ID scam continues to be a topic of discussion on TO, and until that
ends there will be no reason to quit doing what I have always done.
On 12/10/2023 2:19 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-12-10 04:23:48 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:
RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 12/9/2023 2:30 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:If ID actually died here why are you still writing the obituary? All
On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 13:11:44 -0600
RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 12/9/2023 11:00 AM, John Harshman wrote:[Lots]
On 12/9/23 8:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
This is exactly what happens when a chatbot is educated on its own >>>>>>> output.
ID scam 1
ID perps 5
Top Six 1
IDiotic 1
IDiots 2
denial 2
If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
No, probably monkey see monkey do.
Just 5 years to late to matter.
You're trying to keep a 5 year old argument still going? With the same >>>>> keywords? I suggest it's way too much like OCD.
You may not know what is going on. You should get someone to explain it >>>> to you, since you don't seem to want to understand what I have put out. >>>>
ID died on TO 5 years ago when the ID perps put out their Top Six best >>>> evidences for IDiocy. It turned out that most of TO didn't understand >>>> what had happened except for the IDiots that had quit.
What you are seeing is whining about reality 5 years too late to
accomplish anything.
concerned parties have been amply informed by you already, no? Is ID in
probate and you’re merely contacting named parties for reading of the
will?
I think he explained that with his comment "monkey see monkey do".
Assuming that the monkey in question is himself, he notices that it's
been several hours since he last told us about IDperps and the Top Six
and thinks he needs to copy out the same old stuff yet again in case
we've forgotten.
And if it’s too late to accomplish anything why pile it on more? You
can’t
make anything more dead unless we are fighting zombies. Did you suddenly >>> wake up in hospital in the middle of a desolate city?
Never having used chatbot or seen it used I have no idea what John
Harshman's comment meant.
My guess is that you don't even know what is going on. You should get
Mark Isaac to fess up about why this became an issue. It is sad and
stupid, but why support something sad and stupid? This is the worst of
TO, if you think otherwise you may want to try to figure out what is
going on. Get Mark to tell you why he started this. It should be embarrassing, but the longer you go on in ignorance the more
embarrassing it will be.
On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 8:52:04 AM UTC-8, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Depends on what is meant by "macroevolution". Some seem to treat macroevolution
On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 01:45:18 -0800 (PST), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com>But is it sufficient?
wrote:
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:22:03?PM UTC+11, *Hemidactylus* wrote: >>>>> MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?A rolling stone of crushing doubt I push up hill every day in an exercise >>>>> of futility. I try not to “know” things based on blind faith.
Methodological naturalism works.
"Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical >>>>>> worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences." >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
Atheism can be a form of metaphysical naturism if the presumption pushed is
Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
the Emperor idea has no clothes.
My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes, >>>>>> major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.What is macroevolution?
This: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02116-7
It's far from a given that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution. >>>
In any case, microevolution is a necessary condition for
macroevolution.
as something that requires additional powers from somewhere.
RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 12/10/2023 2:19 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Did Mark Isaak start the repetitive nature of the posts people are
On 2023-12-10 04:23:48 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:
RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 12/9/2023 2:30 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:If ID actually died here why are you still writing the obituary? All
On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 13:11:44 -0600
RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 12/9/2023 11:00 AM, John Harshman wrote:[Lots]
On 12/9/23 8:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
This is exactly what happens when a chatbot is educated on its own >>>>>>>> output.
ID scam 1
ID perps 5
Top Six 1
IDiotic 1
IDiots 2
denial 2
If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
No, probably monkey see monkey do.
Just 5 years to late to matter.
You're trying to keep a 5 year old argument still going? With the same >>>>>> keywords? I suggest it's way too much like OCD.
You may not know what is going on. You should get someone to explain it >>>>> to you, since you don't seem to want to understand what I have put out. >>>>>
ID died on TO 5 years ago when the ID perps put out their Top Six best >>>>> evidences for IDiocy. It turned out that most of TO didn't understand >>>>> what had happened except for the IDiots that had quit.
What you are seeing is whining about reality 5 years too late to
accomplish anything.
concerned parties have been amply informed by you already, no? Is ID in >>>> probate and you’re merely contacting named parties for reading of the >>>> will?
I think he explained that with his comment "monkey see monkey do".
Assuming that the monkey in question is himself, he notices that it's
been several hours since he last told us about IDperps and the Top Six
and thinks he needs to copy out the same old stuff yet again in case
we've forgotten.
And if it’s too late to accomplish anything why pile it on more? You >>>> can’t
make anything more dead unless we are fighting zombies. Did you suddenly >>>> wake up in hospital in the middle of a desolate city?
Never having used chatbot or seen it used I have no idea what John
Harshman's comment meant.
My guess is that you don't even know what is going on. You should get
Mark Isaac to fess up about why this became an issue. It is sad and
stupid, but why support something sad and stupid? This is the worst of
TO, if you think otherwise you may want to try to figure out what is
going on. Get Mark to tell you why he started this. It should be
embarrassing, but the longer you go on in ignorance the more
embarrassing it will be.
commenting about? That seems to be the issue. Maybe there’s more going on between you and Mark, but is that relevant to multiple people focussing on your preferred terminology? You could talk about ID and its adherents in
more productive ways.
On 2023-12-09 20:32:12 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:
On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 17:13:48 +0100
Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:[Same old]
ID scam 1
ID perps 5
Top Six 1
IDiotic 1
IDiots 2
denial 2
If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.
Thanks, I took one look and decided it was too much for me; perhaps I
need to write a parsing tool - no, that way lies madness also.
Ayway, I was amused that RonO thinks I might be your sock-puppet --
despite my having posted under a siungle name for at least 20 years.
Have you ever thought I might be your sock-puppet?
RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 12/9/2023 10:23 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 12/9/2023 2:30 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:If ID actually died here why are you still writing the obituary? All
On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 13:11:44 -0600
RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 12/9/2023 11:00 AM, John Harshman wrote:[Lots]
On 12/9/23 8:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
This is exactly what happens when a chatbot is educated on its own output.
ID scam 1
ID perps 5
Top Six 1
IDiotic 1
IDiots 2
denial 2
If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
No, probably monkey see monkey do.
Just 5 years to late to matter.
You're trying to keep a 5 year old argument still going? With the same >>>>> keywords? I suggest it's way too much like OCD.
You may not know what is going on. You should get someone to explain it >>>> to you, since you don't seem to want to understand what I have put out. >>>>
ID died on TO 5 years ago when the ID perps put out their Top Six best >>>> evidences for IDiocy. It turned out that most of TO didn't understand >>>> what had happened except for the IDiots that had quit.
What you are seeing is whining about reality 5 years too late to
accomplish anything.
concerned parties have been amply informed by you already, no? Is ID in
probate and you’re merely contacting named parties for reading of the will?
Just ask Mark Isaac when ID died on TO.
Did ID just die here locally and remain alive outside TO or did events on
TO cause ID to die globally? I’m confused, perhaps because I am incompetent.
The current whining aboutIs calling people incompetent and whiners because they have differing perceptions than you going to result in a beneficial outcome?
reality is due to the inability to accept responsibility for their own
incompetence. The whiners at first claimed that I had harassed the
IDiots into quiting, but they soon realized that, that was not true, and
this is the result. Why support such an effort if you do not understand
why it is going on?
ID is definitely still a relevant topic here, but rumors of its demise may
The ID scam continues to be a topic of discussion on TO, and until that
ends there will be no reason to quit doing what I have always done.
be exaggerated. And whether the idea of ID has died, is the way you are talking about it a successful approach? Who are you convincing? Regulars? Lurkers? You?
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 8:52:04 AM UTC-8, *Hemidactylus* wrote: >>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Maybe it’s influenced by my long ago readings of evodevo propaganda and a smidgen of Gould, but I had suspicions extrapolationism falls short. There are larger magnitude events in development such as pocket gopher cheek pouches that made me go hmmmm… Not a god-gapping.
Depends on what is meant by "macroevolution". Some seem to treat macroevolutionOn Sun, 10 Dec 2023 01:45:18 -0800 (PST), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com>But is it sufficient?
wrote:
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:22:03?PM UTC+11, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?A rolling stone of crushing doubt I push up hill every day in an exercise
of futility. I try not to “know” things based on blind faith. >>>>>>>
"Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,Methodological naturalism works.
philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical >>>>>>> worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, >>>>>>> principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences." >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
Atheism can be a form of metaphysical naturism if the presumption pushed is
Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
the Emperor idea has no clothes.
My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes, >>>>>>> major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.What is macroevolution?
This: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02116-7
It's far from a given that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution.
In any case, microevolution is a necessary condition for
macroevolution.
as something that requires additional powers from somewhere.
Gould had made a splash about rate genes and a less objectionable version
of Goldschmidt before hoxology took off as a discipline. He was NOT
promoting hopeful monsters though. Wallace Arthur made a splash about high magnitude early acting genes but I think he later walked that back a bit.
On 2023-12-12 4:08 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:I may be misremembering but I was under the impression that
On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 8:52:04 AM UTC-8, *Hemidactylus* wrote: >>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Maybe it’s influenced by my long ago readings of evodevo propaganda and a >> smidgen of Gould, but I had suspicions extrapolationism falls short. There >> are larger magnitude events in development such as pocket gopher cheek
Depends on what is meant by "macroevolution". Some seem to treat macroevolutionOn Sun, 10 Dec 2023 01:45:18 -0800 (PST), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com>But is it sufficient?
wrote:
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:22:03?PM UTC+11, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?A rolling stone of crushing doubt I push up hill every day in an exercise
of futility. I try not to “know” things based on blind faith. >>>>>>>>
"Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,Methodological naturalism works.
philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical >>>>>>>> worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, >>>>>>>> principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
Atheism can be a form of metaphysical naturism if the presumption pushed is
Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
the Emperor idea has no clothes.
My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes, >>>>>>>> major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.What is macroevolution?
This: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02116-7
It's far from a given that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution.
In any case, microevolution is a necessary condition for
macroevolution.
as something that requires additional powers from somewhere.
pouches that made me go hmmmm… Not a god-gapping.
Gould had made a splash about rate genes and a less objectionable version
of Goldschmidt before hoxology took off as a discipline. He was NOT
promoting hopeful monsters though. Wallace Arthur made a splash about high >> magnitude early acting genes but I think he later walked that back a bit.
macroevolution was evolution above the species level. So events that
separate a freely interbreeding population into two independently
evolving populations would be macroevoluionary. Some would be
accumulated microevolution but some would not be.
I may be misremembering but I was under the impression that
macroevolution was evolution above the species level. So events that
separate a freely interbreeding population into two independently
evolving populations would be macroevoluionary. Some would be
accumulated microevolution but some would not be.
-
DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-12-12 4:08 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:I may be misremembering but I was under the impression that
On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 8:52:04 AM UTC-8, *Hemidactylus* wrote: >>>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:Maybe it’s influenced by my long ago readings of evodevo propaganda and a >>> smidgen of Gould, but I had suspicions extrapolationism falls short. There >>> are larger magnitude events in development such as pocket gopher cheek
Depends on what is meant by "macroevolution". Some seem to treat macroevolutionOn Sun, 10 Dec 2023 01:45:18 -0800 (PST), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:But is it sufficient?
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:22:03?PM UTC+11, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?A rolling stone of crushing doubt I push up hill every day in an exercise
of futility. I try not to “know” things based on blind faith. >>>>>>>>>
"Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism, >>>>>>>>> philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical >>>>>>>>> worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, >>>>>>>>> principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences."Methodological naturalism works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
Atheism can be a form of metaphysical naturism if the presumption pushed is
Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
the Emperor idea has no clothes.
My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes, >>>>>>>>> major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.What is macroevolution?
This: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02116-7
It's far from a given that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution.
In any case, microevolution is a necessary condition for
macroevolution.
as something that requires additional powers from somewhere.
pouches that made me go hmmmm… Not a god-gapping.
Gould had made a splash about rate genes and a less objectionable version >>> of Goldschmidt before hoxology took off as a discipline. He was NOT
promoting hopeful monsters though. Wallace Arthur made a splash about high >>> magnitude early acting genes but I think he later walked that back a bit. >>>
macroevolution was evolution above the species level. So events that
separate a freely interbreeding population into two independently
evolving populations would be macroevoluionary. Some would be
accumulated microevolution but some would not be.
Nyikos has used the notion of megaevolution here before. Maybe a goal-post shift for me now but also arguably distinct from micro- or macro-. Wallace Arthur attributed it to GG Simpson and defines megaevolution: “The biggest type of evolutionary change, such as that which produces a novelty or new body plan. Examples include the evolutionary origin of the turtle shell and of the vertebrate skeleton. There is still much debate as to whether mega-evolution is explicable in terms of many micro-/macro-evolutionary changes compounded over long periods of time; or whether it also includes evolutionary processes that are rare or non-existent in the micro-evolutionary realm.” from his _Evolution: a Developmental Approach_.
Arthur also said: “Evolutionary processes that generate new species, and in the longer-term novelties and body plans, have been lumped together by many authors as ‘macro-evolution’. However, it is better to split them into two
groups, as suggested by G.G. Simpson in the mid-20th century.”
So it may be a matter of conceptual lumping and splitting what
macroevolution pertains to. Phylum level disparity is well above the level
of mere species diversity. And I am just having some fun with ideas here, which breaks apart from the current interpersonal strife.
On 12/10/2023 2:21 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-12-09 20:32:12 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:
On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 17:13:48 +0100
Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:[Same old]
ID scam 1
ID perps 5
Top Six 1
IDiotic 1
IDiots 2
denial 2
If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly >>> in England until 1987.
Thanks, I took one look and decided it was too much for me; perhaps I
need to write a parsing tool - no, that way lies madness also.
Ayway, I was amused that RonO thinks I might be your sock-puppet --
despite my having posted under a siungle name for at least 20 years.
Have you ever thought I might be your sock-puppet?
I had to ask because two twerps doing the same thing seemed to be
ridiculous. You both are in good company. That is how Kalkidas used to
deal with reality.
On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 17:52:17 -0600
RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
On 12/10/2023 2:21 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-12-09 20:32:12 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:
On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 17:13:48 +0100
Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:[Same old]
ID scam 1
ID perps 5
Top Six 1
IDiotic 1
IDiots 2
denial 2
If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly >>>>> in England until 1987.
Thanks, I took one look and decided it was too much for me; perhaps I >>>>> need to write a parsing tool - no, that way lies madness also.
Ayway, I was amused that RonO thinks I might be your sock-puppet --
despite my having posted under a siungle name for at least 20 years.
Have you ever thought I might be your sock-puppet?
I had to ask because two twerps doing the same thing seemed to be
ridiculous. You both are in good company. That is how Kalkidas used to
deal with reality.
Ah. Well sometimes there really is a conspiracy. Other times it's just 2
or more people who share the same view.
JFTR I don't care a hoot about who said what 5 or 6 years ago, especially
if they're not here any more. Try not to bear grudges, it'll only wear you down.
PS calling people names is also not going to convince them of your
viewpoint.
You may now have the last word.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 09:57:21 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,060 |
| Messages: | 6,416,681 |