Forums

Reasons for Joy; In Gentleness, and Respect.

Profile of madmartigan83

Show Posts

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - madmartigan83

1
Apologetics and Theology / Re: Evolution waiting time question
« on: February 23, 2017, 08:57:15 am »
interesting conversation would love to see a sit down conversation between these two
myers/marshall

2
Apologetics and Theology / Re: Academic Jobs
« on: February 22, 2017, 05:06:08 pm »
My suggestion is to follow opportunity.  Mike Rowe from dirty jobs talks about this.  talk to people who know you see what they think you are suited for, and pray a lot

3
Apologetics and Theology / Re: What's Milo's Appeal?
« on: February 22, 2017, 04:53:20 pm »
My thoughts are that he defends free speech (though the manner he does so is a bit extreme) in places many wont and holds his own while in hostile territory.

That's why you find him appealing?
yep

Thanks, much appreciated.
welcome

4
Apologetics and Theology / Re: What's Milo's Appeal?
« on: February 22, 2017, 11:20:43 am »
My thoughts are that he defends free speech (though the manner he does so is a bit extreme) in places many wont and holds his own while in hostile territory.

That's why you find him appealing?
yep

5
Apologetics and Theology / Re: What's Milo's Appeal?
« on: February 22, 2017, 09:46:46 am »
My thoughts are that he defends free speech (though the manner he does so is a bit extreme) in places many wont and holds his own while in hostile territory.

6
Apologetics and Theology / Re: Evolution waiting time question
« on: February 21, 2017, 07:26:59 am »
Sorry, I don't quite follow you again. Are you saying he's excluding microevolution?

Yes, he is excluding the actual process that scientists do use to explain the macroevolution. For example here:

Quote
Any massive functional change of a body part would require multiple concerted lines of variations. Sure, one can suggest multiple small changes ad infinitum, but the concerted requirement of multiple changes all in the same place and at the same time, is impossible to chemically fathom.

Yes, it is impossible to fathom the "concerted requirement", but evolutionists specifically claim that "multiple small changes" are sufficient for changing of the body plans (and they provide specific evidence, as in the case of sea urchins in the article). Where is Tour's actual argument that small changes are insufficient for evolution of body plans? There is none, he just asserts it. The chemical process for "small changes" (i.e microevolution) is quite well known and Tour admits it.
there is a waiting time  issue that was raised to address this point .  whales have a cooling system for their internal testes.  If you have internal testes that arent cooled you cannot produce sperm. a cooling system and internal testes would need to be coordinated.   the argument is that having a coordinated mutations like this is improbable.   
here is the video whale evolution

7
Apologetics and Theology / Re: Parsimony
« on: February 17, 2017, 08:56:07 am »
I hope I didn't misrepresent your position, if you could clarify so I don't mess it up further it I'd appreciate it.  I'm sure that I do use it regularly but there are instances when it isn't used and I think creative activities is one of those categories where it isn't helpful

The number of theories with undetermined probabilities you can assign to most events is very large, especially if you allow for the supernatural causation. Even if we know that some previous lightnings have had natural causes, we cannot rule out that the one we are currently observing is not an effect of a miracle. As we have no way to assess probability of miracles, we would have to consider both theories to be equivalent. Yet we do not - we apply the principle of parsimony.

I am not sure what do you mean by „creative activities”. I do not think you mean science, as science uses the principle of parsimony all the time - otherwise it would make no progress.
so that is a good example to use and i agree with you that we dont think that lightning bolts are supernatural we allow natural processes to explain events.  I dont know that i would call lightning a creative venture whereas forming a new species I would.  I dont think the question im asking is really a science related one, so you are correct there as i have no idea how science could answer it, other than thru the absence of evidence.    The article i thought did a good job of explaining problems of using parsimony in science.  (any comment on the article would be nice)


I have no reason to prefer the simplicity of one theory (of creation) over another just for the sake of simplicity. (though the absence of good hard evidence gives me pause) My thoughts are really more artistic in nature than scientific.   if i was going to create something i dont think that the more parsimonious theory of how i did it would always be correct.

8
Apologetics and Theology / Re: Parsimony
« on: February 17, 2017, 07:02:42 am »
You might also be interesting looking into Solomonoff induction. I think it provides some quite powerful mathematical motivation for preferring the least complex model that fits the data:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff's_theory_of_inductive_inference
thanks for the link i will check it out and get back to you

9
Apologetics and Theology / Re: Parsimony
« on: February 16, 2017, 06:00:26 pm »
But I have never denied that parsimony is a perceptual, methodological principle and not an objective property of a theory. Of course, you may reject it - but I would like to point out that most likely you routinely apply the principle, both in everyday life and while assessing scientific theories. If you do, why not be consistent?
I hope I didn't misrepresent your position, if you could clarify so I don't mess it up further it I'd appreciate it.  I'm sure that I do use it regularly but there are instances when it isn't used and I think creative activities is one of those categories where it isn't helpful

10
Apologetics and Theology / Parsimony
« on: February 16, 2017, 02:03:20 pm »
In a recent thread Jabberwock and I got into a discussion about a theory being preferred because it is more parsimonious than another.  Here is an article that I think explained what was on my mind  in a way better than I ever could.  I thought the point about parsimony being a reflection of the individuals preference over the content of the theory was well stated and there was a  point that seemed rather similar to Plantingas EAAN which i found interesting as well.  If there are any arguments as to why one should accept a more parsimonious theory i would like to hear it
Simplicity as Theoretical Virtue

11
Apologetics and Theology / Re: Evolution waiting time question
« on: February 10, 2017, 01:41:06 pm »
you may not agree with it but Dr Craig answers that question when he talks about animal suffering and how it isn't the same sort of suffering that we experience.  Even if you don't agree with his answer it answers your defeater, as disagreement is not a defeater defeater ( lol that is just fun to say )

To my knowledge all he says is that animals don't have the higher order awareness that they are suffering, because that requires self awareness. But some animals, like the great apes and dolphins, do have self awareness. But even so, i don't see how this addresses the problem at all. Suffering itself is morally bad, and it doesn't make it any less bad that the sufferer is not self aware.
I've heard of pointless suffering being described as morally wrong but never simply as suffering itself being morally wrong, that may be a tangent for another topic though.  I won't be able to argue his point nearly as well as he does. A search with his name and animal suffering will provide you with the link you need(it is a pain to do on my tablet otherwise I would give you the link)

I said morally bad, not morally wrong. I'm sure everyone agrees that suffering itself is always morally bad.

The point is simply that God would not have animals suffer unnecessarily. And, evolution via natural selection (whether or not God is ultimately guiding it) involves a great deal of unnecessary suffering for animals. So God would not have created animals through evolution.

You can go skeptical theist and deny that the suffering involved with evolution is unnecessary. But then you also make the God hypothesis unfalsifiable, and thus one we should reject in of itself.
probably best article explaining
  animal suffering

12
Apologetics and Theology / Re: Evolution waiting time question
« on: February 09, 2017, 06:11:48 pm »
you may not agree with it but Dr Craig answers that question when he talks about animal suffering and how it isn't the same sort of suffering that we experience.  Even if you don't agree with his answer it answers your defeater, as disagreement is not a defeater defeater ( lol that is just fun to say )

To my knowledge all he says is that animals don't have the higher order awareness that they are suffering, because that requires self awareness. But some animals, like the great apes and dolphins, do have self awareness. But even so, i don't see how this addresses the problem at all. Suffering itself is morally bad, and it doesn't make it any less bad that the sufferer is not self aware.
I've heard of pointless suffering being described as morally wrong but never simply as suffering itself being morally wrong, that may be a tangent for another topic though.  I won't be able to argue his point nearly as well as he does. A search with his name and animal suffering will provide you with the link you need(it is a pain to do on my tablet otherwise I would give you the link)

I said morally bad, not morally wrong. I'm sure everyone agrees that suffering itself is always morally bad.

The point is simply that God would not have animals suffer unnecessarily. And, evolution via natural selection (whether or not God is ultimately guiding it) involves a great deal of unnecessary suffering for animals. So God would not have created animals through evolution.

You can go skeptical theist and deny that the suffering involved with evolution is unnecessary. But then you also make the God hypothesis unfalsifiable, and thus one we should reject in of itself.
was thinking more of pain always being bad than suffering being bad but you did say suffering so my bad. Again I'm not really able to  write more about Craig's argument as I am dealing with crying twins and I won't do it justice. I would like to hear your thoughts  on the issue once you've read what he wrote (assuming you haven't already)

13
Apologetics and Theology / Re: Evolution waiting time question
« on: February 09, 2017, 04:58:17 pm »
sure we do but I don't think it makes for an argument.  Between theistic evolution and progressive evolution I prefer progressive because of the potential creativity in the moment.  I do woodworking as a hobby and there are times when I could do something by machine but I choose to do it by hand because I enjoy the process. I view this similarly

If you do not believe that we should consider parsimony when looking for explanations, there is nothing else that can be said. Most people do.
that is the point I was making it isn't really an argument but more a preference even if mine is in the minority. I seem to find myself there a lot more the older i get :)

14
Apologetics and Theology / Re: Evolution waiting time question
« on: February 09, 2017, 04:38:34 pm »
you may not agree with it but Dr Craig answers that question when he talks about animal suffering and how it isn't the same sort of suffering that we experience.  Even if you don't agree with his answer it answers your defeater, as disagreement is not a defeater defeater ( lol that is just fun to say )

To my knowledge all he says is that animals don't have the higher order awareness that they are suffering, because that requires self awareness. But some animals, like the great apes and dolphins, do have self awareness. But even so, i don't see how this addresses the problem at all. Suffering itself is morally bad, and it doesn't make it any less bad that the sufferer is not self aware.
I've heard of pointless suffering being described as morally wrong but never simply as suffering itself being morally wrong, that may be a tangent for another topic though.  I won't be able to argue his point nearly as well as he does. A search with his name and animal suffering will provide you with the link you need(it is a pain to do on my tablet otherwise I would give you the link)

15
Apologetics and Theology / Re: Evolution waiting time question
« on: February 09, 2017, 04:33:33 pm »
when an agent is involved simple can go out the window on a whim so I don't think it is a an argument to prefer one over the other

If two explanations equally well fit the evidence, we should choose the simpler one, even if agents are involved. That is what we do anyway, both in science and in everyday life.
sure we do but I don't think it makes for an argument.  Between theistic evolution and progressive evolution I prefer progressive because of the potential creativity in the moment.  I do woodworking as a hobby and there are times when I could do something by machine but I choose to do it by hand because I enjoy the process. I view this similarly

Pages : [1] 2 3 ... 66