Saturday, June 1, 2013

... on "Science Works" quote (c/o Dawkins)

Dawkins made a challenge, on knowing the past.
On Reading The Greatest Show by Dawkins - Parts of it!
Overlooked in Previous, about Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth
Medieval Matters for Richard Dawkins
Do evolutionists ever make unfalsifiable claims?
Two bishop Richards in dialogue (tongue in cheek)
Dawkins said Edgar Andrews had his book "well written" and that is one true word from him
Assortedretorts : ... on "Science Works" quote c/o Dawkins
... on Side issue to "Science Works"

LeCaNANDian: Richard Dawkins - Science works [2013]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
[Ce commentaire a reçu trop de votes négatifs.]
Medicine cured people back when the four temperaments was a scientific model.

The wheel was invented possibly by "Babylonians" in Sumeria - whose model of reality was very far from that of modern science.

If I must believe evolution every time I use a computer, will you feel obliged to believe in demons everytime you use a wheel?
You don't 'believe' in evolution, you either understand it or you don't.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
That was not the argument that Dawkins made and that I answered, Sir.

Is it according to you evolution believers like Dawkins or evolution disbelievers like Hovind who do not understand it?
Retracted comments have been answered by me before they were retracted, up to you to guess how they looked like:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Computer and wheel I can see or touch.

Demons might be easier to prove than evolution.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
then prove me so: prove evolution occurred and demons are fictional (not meaning that they occur in fiction too, since that is obviously true of evolution as well)

as opposed to Dawkins right before, wheel and computer will not do as arguments for either of above positions
Hans-Georg Lundahl
that is an ad hominem and even a threat of argumentum baculinum

so, once more: if you use the wheel, does that mean you are a parasite on the honest and hard working demon believers in Sumeria who might have invented it?
i mean its sort of like cooking, yes it is called cooking but what you're really doing is using the chemical reaction that different kinds of ingredients have towards eachother to create a final product that otherwise wouldnt be there, wether or not youre a babelonian or the achamaids in ancient persia. the point is you use science, wether or not youre a scientist to bend the laws of physics towards your favor in creating things that make your life easier, wheels, fire, AC, etc....
Hans-Georg Lundahl
No shit, Sherlock!

But if a person who is a total ignorant about Mendeleyev's Table nevertheless succeeds in cooking, why should not a person who is succeeding in building computers be a total dimwit about recent creation?
Wolfgang Zerobliss
The current scientific explanation of how and why a wheel is useful has nothing to do with demons. And evolution has nothing to do with the workings of a computer (a separate point).
Hans-Georg Lundahl
And evolution has nothing to do with the workings of a computer.

Thank you.
Wolfgang Zerobliss
Evolution isn't true because we have technologies that are based on it; it is true because it's proven to be correct by evidence, and many technologies that we have today are based on that idea. If you don't believe in evolution (which is the same as saying you reject science, which is nothing except the rigorous use of logic) then you must have your own theory why these technologies work.

If you reject logic and science this conversation is over as no one will be able to make an argument.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I do neither reject logic nor science.

My theory of why wheels and computers work is logically connected to sciences like mechanics and electronics.

When I rigorously use my logic I do not conclude that either evolution or heliocentrism are true theories. They are like Sherlock's "enumerate all possibilities, eliminate all impossibilities, what is left is true however improbable" but with possibilities left out in first enumeration (a k a atheist methodology).
Martin Willett
Enumerating all possibilities is practically impossible. Eliminating impossibilities cannot be done reliably. This method only works for fictional characters in imaginary universes in the mind of the author who knows the solution.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
X seems to exist.

I enumerate as possible explanations:
  • it has always been there
  • it has emerged from something that was there before it
  • it has been consciously made or created
  • it is an illusion (dream, hallucination, untrue rumour, optic illusion, misunderstanding ...)

I think this is for instance one of the nodes were a complete enumeration of possibilities is quite possible. For any X it may further be possible to eliminate certain of these.
Martin Willett
How can you ever know that you have listed all possibilities rather than that you have merely exhausted the limits of your own limited imagination?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
There is such a thing as certain choices being binary, for instance.

There is also such a thing as certain combinations of binary choices being self contradicting.
Martin Willett
So in some circumstances that technique might work. But when choices and possibilities are not binary and when you cannot be certain about every deduction the possibilities proliferate and you cannot with any integrity say that you could have considered all possibilities.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
If in a certain case I do consider myself to have considered all the possibilities and ruled out what should be ruled out, it is up to the other guy to point out what I left out from my list of possibilities.

Which is what I was doing about those who left out God from possible explanations, if you care to recall the comment of mine you took issue with in the first place.
it was the medical practices that cured people, not the incorrect parts of their knowledge. the part of their model that they used to invent the wheel was most likely correct.

you seem to be implying that the invention of the wheel was caused by a belief in demons.

you dont need to accept evolution in order to understand how computers work, however you do need to accept quantum theory. better examples would be modern medicine and modern agriculture.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
1) "the part of their model that they used to invent the wheel was most likely correct."

Exactly my point about evolution and:

2) "modern medicine and modern agriculture."

or 3) quantum physics (unless say Bolzmann managed a coherent and non-paradoxal version of it) and computers.

4) "you seem to be implying that the invention of the wheel was caused by a belief in demons."

Not by disbelief at any rate. Btw, I think there are angels and demons, so this is ad hominem (vs Dawkin's point).
1) glad we agree that it works.

2,3,) glad we agree on those too

"Not by disbelief at any rate" nope, by science.

his point was that science works.

there's a very simple test you can do. next time your children get a very fever you could try taking them to a hospital(or another medical facility) and not pray, or you can try praying and not going to any medical facilities.

my hypothesis is that medical science without prayer will work significantly better than prayer without medical science.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I agree wheel, medicine and agriculture do work.

I do not agree it is highly contested ideas in their inventors or more recent perfectors that make them work.

Whether demons or evolution/heliocentrism.

Not going to the doctor for sth sufficiently grave or untreatable at home would not be a plus while praying. Unless one were forced to do without the doctor.

As I have in recent years been as to dentists.
The four temperaments didn't work, hence why we don't apply leeches when we have a fever anymore; the wheel was "discovered" by Babylonians, but not through their faith, but through their design. You don't have to believe in evolution when you use a computer, but don't pretend that you can understand something as complicated as a computer if you can't understand something as simple evolution.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The four temperaments did work in many cases.

The theories replacing them do not work in all cases.

Medicine is also a kind of design, and errors in the background may not be affecting its efficiency in a given case. Truth in the background does not guarantee complete success either.

There are computer designers who do not believe in evolution.

And if evolution is simple, how do you explain growing chromosome numbers in mammals? Small changes added to one big cannot apply to whole numbers.
Hans-Georg Lundahl

If I must believe evolution every time I use a computer, will you feel obliged to believe in demons everytime you use a wheel? (etc before it)
what a ridiculously stupid statement.the science that explains the idea of why the wheel works doesn'thinge upon the idea of demons.that's what the scientificmethod is for - to destroy as manyassumptions and leaps of logic as possible.unless you think we've accidentally stumbled upon relativitywhich is the only reason our GPS works,or that quantumphysics is completelywrong,and we've just been accidentallypredicting measurements equivalent to measuring the width of the US to within a hair's width
Hans-Georg Lundahl
One theory may be correct in one dimension which is checkable and not in another which either is not so or not in the way the checkers will check it.

It is you who claim that demons are an assumption and a leap of logic, not I.

One real leap of logic you just destroyed for Dawkins when detecting same one in me: it is quite as ridiculous to assume computers and medicine work because modern scientists believe in long term and big change evolution (=macroevolution) and more un-christian stuff .

GPS could work because of relativity - or because Geocentrism is true.

Guess which one I take on that?

I am not sure US can be measured in its width to within a hair's width, and if it can, I do not think "quantum weirdness" is the correct explanation for it.

Some versions of QP might be doing without QW:ness.
that's because you're willfully ignorant of the facts. GPS would not work if we did not take into account the time differences due to relativity. so no, GPS working couldn't possibly be explained by geocentrism

and I didn't say the US could be measured to within a hair's width. I said quantum physics allows us to make predictions that are as accurate as measuring the US to within a hair's width. work on your reading comprehension.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Are the time differences really due to relativity now?

There is a difference about being "wilfully" ignorant, and ignorant because one has not studied a particular question. GPS falls, if anything, into the latter category for me.

Sorry for missing "equivalent to".

I am not at all sure the measurements you refer so indirectly to are really accurate. But if they are, there might be versions of Quantum Physics that conceptually are not suspect due to Quantum Weirdness.
bossmonkeykj [also added an answer to above "One theory may be correct in one dimension" etc.]
I don't think you understand what a dimension is.

yes, it IS a leap in logic to assume the existence of demons.

and what does evolution have to do with computers? and in what way are you saying that medicine is not related to evolution?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
[voted against]
You know that the Babylonians were very scientific , had a lot of knowledge about the stars , seasons and constructions.

Stars and Seasons = Astronomy

Construction = Mathematics

(And im just pointing out those 2 because im gonna lack space to write this)

They werent very far from modern science you fool, they are some of the first to use science back then.

You barely know anything about history and science , go educate yourself before making a fool of yourself in public.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The Hebrews who accepted Genesis had most or all of the science that the ancient Babylonians had.

This was a new turn, but again one which favours my argument.

And yes, if you believe Mathematics, Astronomy OR use the wheel, do you feel obliged to believe the earth is flat (as Babylonians pretty explicitly stated) or that there are demons (which I agree with them on)?
Did people use gene therapy back when the four temperaments was a scientific model? Did people build integrated circuits predicated on semiconductor physics and the quantum theory back when the four temperaments was a scientific model? Did people eradicate entire diseases using vaccination back when the four temperaments was a scientific model. Could people *fly* back when the four temperaments was a scientific model model?

Can you pony up a demon such that I will believe in your delusion?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
OK, that means we might get even more technological advance the day we abandon delusions like Darwinism, right?

As for demons, I guard myself very well from ponying them up, but there is a real background to certain films about exorcism.

Check up exorcist Gabriele Amorth, will you. [continued below answer to phorse]
Salafrance (1/3 to above)
What, no demon, just a reference to some other obscure,delusional theist?

Would you care to comment on the probabilistic advantage of the operation of a genetic algorithm as compared with, oh, say, random chance? Note that links to Conservapedia will be laughed at.

You can actually do you own research in this domain, just as you can perform simple astronomical observations to establish a minimum, *personally established* age for the universe.

Or you can just parrot other deluded souls.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Gabriele Amorth delusional?

What about checking yourself what his evidence is?

Minimum personally established age of universe: older (at least some) than first men.

Minimum personally established age of first men: older than or coeval with recorded history.

According to Genesis it is the latter.
Salafrance (2/3 to above)
Did people solve engineering problems predicated on the use of genetic algorithms back when the four temperaments was a scientific theory?

Did people *really* conjure demons back when the four temperaments was a scientific theory, or were they just a bunch of schizophrenics with interesting dreams and their associated clutches of the just plain gullible and stupid?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Engineering problems solved on basis of GENETIC algorithm?

Are you serious? Are you talking about some weird Genetic Manipulation stuff? Or is "genetic algorithm" unconnected to genetics?

Check out the fact that demons speaking through the mouth of the possessed at Gadara asked Jesus not to order them into the abyss.

He ordered them into a herd of swine, which then threw itself into lake Gadara.

Had the man had a purely natural schizophrenia, there would have been nothing to force the swine to do that.
Salafrance (3/3 to above)
Can you describe your personal experience with demons?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Salafrance (to earlier as cited)
The Hebrews who accepted Genesis had most or all of the science that the ancient Babylonians had.

Did they have most, or all, of the science that *we* have?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Now you are repeating the argument of Dawkins.

No, they did not have computers (though binary number multiplication was one technique of their which has been used in them).

Nor did the Babylonians.

The point is: our paleontology is as little testable in our daily use of tecdhnology as the Genesis was in daily use of Ancient Hebrew technology.

We use wheels invented by Sumerians or residents among them (Abraham was such in youth), does that oblige YOU to believe in Flood (Ziasudra or Noah)?
from above
Demons? On no planet in the universe do demons wander. Evolution is a fact, Brah. Sorry to disappoint. The irony of it is that you would believe it if it were in the bible. I just think it's funny how theists claim evolution is unbelievable nonsense, and the only cause for this is that it's not in the bible.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Well, how do you explain a madman going sane after babbling he "is" many, after someone orders the many to get out of him ALONG WITH the fact that a herd of swine went suicidal? Saint Matthew witnessed the scene, he was among the original twelve. Chapter 8 of his Gospel. I was six years old and an evolution believer when I wondered how on earth a fish could by however so many degrees and generations in between develop into some kind of non-frog amphibian. And then there is the question of Mammalian Chromosome numbers. ppt d o t li/7m is a short link to a post collecting three other ones.

For her challenge (that of Salafrance) about astronomic observations at home for determining age of earth, check out my responses to:

... on Young Earth Creationism Denying Gravity (with a certain levity towards the matter, thank God!)

No comments: