 |
|
02-12-2019, 11:58 PM
|
#9616
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 10,999
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
I am actually well-read...in spite of the impression that I make on most of my off-topic brethren here.  |
Know that. Sorry if it came out that way. It’s just that Frankl and other Shoah authors aren’t on just anyone’s reading list. My Rabbi insisted we read it before confirmation.
__________________
All I needed in life I learned from Gary Larson.
|
|
|
|
02-13-2019, 12:07 AM
|
#9617
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,555
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TJDave
Know that. Sorry if it came out that way. It’s just that Frankl and other Shoah authors aren’t on just anyone’s reading list. My Rabbi insisted we read it before confirmation.
|
I knew what you meant all along...and was referring to some of my OTHER brethren.
__________________
"Theory is knowledge that doesn't work. Practice is when everything works and you don't know why."
-- Hermann Hesse
|
|
|
|
02-13-2019, 05:24 AM
|
#9618
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnlgfnk
|
Shapiro, although apperring to accept intelligent design, does not.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_A._Shapiro
" Natural genetic engineering (NGE) is a process described by Shapiro to account for novelty created in the process of biological evolution, there has been a large controversy over this process as intelligent design advocates have misunderstood the process and spammed the idea onto hundreds of websites and forums claiming it has refuted evolution. Despite the quote mining and misrepresentation of the ID advocates Shapiro does not reject evolution, is not an intelligent design advocate and has openly criticised and rejected intelligent design. "
__________________
The inmates have taken over the asylum. 
|
|
|
|
|
02-13-2019, 06:01 AM
|
#9619
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
|
So both you and boxcar should stay 1 million milers away from bogus attempts to discard Darwin.
Did you ever consider that in a sense a "deity" or cosmic principle may act over billions of years directing inanimate matter to organize through randomness within limits, or that random variables can appear random , but the random process do not appear to follow a deterministic pattern, WHICH only appears random to us, but follow an evolution described by probability distributions. That the universe is intrinsically arranged so probability itself can spontaneously organize life. Randomness can not do anything. The laws of nature limit available directions.
Maybe "God" set up those laws or directions?
Maybe spontaneous over billions of year time spans take on "directed evolution"
or.
"We are a way for the universe to know itself".--Carl Sagan.
__________________
The inmates have taken over the asylum.
Last edited by hcap; 02-13-2019 at 06:03 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
02-13-2019, 01:11 PM
|
#9620
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
|
The difficulty of describing the cosmos precisely, once again divides us. When I mention pantheism or Buddhism or the Hindu extremity vast time cycles, it seems at least two of you will duck into your Abrahamic surety safety blanket. Centuries of older western popular religious culture and thought, other than the mystical tradition, I think does not easily fit into modern scientific thought or connect with esoteric eastern traditions
"Ineffable" is used in language when words don't work that well.
The Buddhist Tathata, which means "suchness" or "thusness," is a word uesd to mean "reality," or the way things really are. It's understood that the true nature of reality is ineffable, beyond description and conceptualization.
.
Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza. He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve.
Einstein stated, "My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly."
Maybe his mathematical formulations were closer to describing things more precisely. Maybe the many mystical writers throughout the Judaeo-Christian and Islamic belief systems also came closer?
__________________
The inmates have taken over the asylum.
|
|
|
|
|
02-13-2019, 04:53 PM
|
#9621
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
Why not?
|
The read the pertinent passages in their context.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
|
|
02-13-2019, 04:55 PM
|
#9622
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
Read Darwin with an honest intent to understand.
|
I don't have to. Evolution (part and parcel of atheistic materialism) is a logically incoherent worldview.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
|
|
02-13-2019, 05:00 PM
|
#9623
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnlgfnk
|
Methinks the Shapiros of the world should spend more time with their noses in the bible. They might actually learn what biblical faith is. 
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
|
|
02-13-2019, 05:06 PM
|
#9624
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcap
Shapiro, although apperring to accept intelligent design, does not.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_A._Shapiro
" Natural genetic engineering (NGE) is a process described by Shapiro to account for novelty created in the process of biological evolution, there has been a large controversy over this process as intelligent design advocates have misunderstood the process and spammed the idea onto hundreds of websites and forums claiming it has refuted evolution. Despite the quote mining and misrepresentation of the ID advocates Shapiro does not reject evolution, is not an intelligent design advocate and has openly criticised and rejected intelligent design. " |
Well, well, well...whaddya know. A "true blue" Christian "believer" who believes in atheistic materialism? Why am I not surprised? Oh yeah...now I remember: The biblical principle that one cannot love God and mammon all at once and simultaneously is at work in this guy's life.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
|
|
02-13-2019, 05:09 PM
|
#9625
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TJDave
Know that. Sorry if it came out that way. It’s just that Frankl and other Shoah authors aren’t on just anyone’s reading list. My Rabbi insisted we read it before confirmation.
|
"Insisted", you say? Is he a "cult leader"?
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
|
|
02-13-2019, 10:21 PM
|
#9626
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: St. Louis suburb
Posts: 1,761
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcap
Shapiro, although apperring to accept intelligent design, does not.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_A._Shapiro
" Natural genetic engineering (NGE) is a process described by Shapiro to account for novelty created in the process of biological evolution, there has been a large controversy over this process as intelligent design advocates have misunderstood the process and spammed the idea onto hundreds of websites and forums claiming it has refuted evolution. Despite the quote mining and misrepresentation of the ID advocates Shapiro does not reject evolution, is not an intelligent design advocate and has openly criticised and rejected intelligent design. " |
I'm totally aware of that, which is why I stated that the interesting aspect of Shapiro's research vis-a-vis Darwin lies in the possibility of intentionality in nature, based upon a cell's inherent power to read/write it's own cell repair (active vs. passive random mutation).
Also, the classical theists I read look upon intelligent design negatively.
|
|
|
|
|
02-13-2019, 10:37 PM
|
#9627
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: St. Louis suburb
Posts: 1,761
|
"So both you and boxcar should stay 1 million milers away from bogus attempts to discard Darwin."
Why do you insist on identifying me with Boxcar? Are you subconsciously directing at him? Should Shapiro stay 1 million miles away? All I did was cite his challenge to Darwin.
Of course I consider orthodox Darwinism up until, for my own belief derived through experiencing the world, the infusion of the soul.
I hold Sagan in a little less esteem than others...
https://kiwihellenist.blogspot.com/2...tosthenes.html
|
|
|
|
|
02-13-2019, 10:43 PM
|
#9628
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: St. Louis suburb
Posts: 1,761
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Methinks the Shapiros of the world should spend more time with their noses in the bible. They might actually learn what biblical faith is. |
We already hashed this out. To briefly recap from my perspective;
Shaping already created matter, be it clay or hominid, is not creation. Creation is causing existence from nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
02-13-2019, 11:55 PM
|
#9629
|
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
I don't have to.
|
Special Pleading! Double Standard!
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Evolution (part and parcel of atheistic materialism) is a logically incoherent worldview.
|
Prove it.
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
|
|
02-14-2019, 01:01 AM
|
#9630
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnlgfnk
I'm totally aware of that, which is why I stated that the interesting aspect of Shapiro's research vis-a-vis Darwin lies in the possibility of intentionality in nature, based upon a cell's inherent power to read/write it's own cell repair (active vs. passive random mutation).
Also, the classical theists I read look upon intelligent design negatively.
|
Ok, please explain "intentionality in nature". Then, "a cell's inherent power to read/write it's own cell repair"
Who is active and who or what is passive?
In your own words please.
__________________
The inmates have taken over the asylum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
