Wikiscanner's roster indicates a Vatican computer was used to remove references to evidence linking Ireland's Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams to a decades-old double murder.
And here I was expecting some Dan Brownesque intrigue of large-scale controversial religious/historical edits. Anyone consider these "manipulations" are just some random user who happens to be on the network owned by the "manipulating organization"?
Since the narrative explicitly says that I take that to mean that God made that statement to Adam and Eve.
Actually, it -explicitly- says it was said to "them" of the "male and female" just introduced. That it was said to Eve, whose creation is described later, during the "seventh day" narrative (or, at least, after text indicating a context-switch to the "seventh day" is presented), is your -implicit- inference.
I don't think that we can say that they would not have left the garden were it not for the fall of man.
Then, we can conjecture about how they would have ultimately populated enough to "subdue the Earth" without exiting the garden, without others existant.
I don't see any contradiction at all. Can you please clarify this statement?
Inclusive of the humor which set this thread off, you see no contradiction at all, on any level? If so, I call that a good outcome. If my purpose were primarily to assert my personal stance, I might argue it further. But, it's not.
Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter the kingdom."
Well, just read the narrative. To narrow it down, I'll answer your question with a question: Was "be fruitful and multiply and hold dominion over the Earth" ever "said" to Eve? Which "day"? How would that have been theoretically possible, since Adam and Eve wouldn't even have left the garden, except for their expulsion due to sin, per the narrative?
You can see contradiction, or you can see resolution, based upon your predisposition.
1. Science says that Adam and Eve would have to have been a subset of a larger pre-existing human population 2. Genesis says Adam and Eve were a subset of a larger pre-existing human population
Your oh-so-repetitive-on-Slashdot joke is based on a calculation of Adam's geneaology, with the necessary presumption that the "days" preceding that cannot be read allegorically.
Apparently, she deliberately violated the scope and definition of her job. How is this any different from the consequences in any other job?
I realize that it's tempting to try to make a buck off the "evolution vs. ID" false dichotomy, even when you know clearly beforehand it's a false dichotomy as you speak of it, but still. She violated the terms of her employment.
Firing seems relatively minor as life event, anyway--isn't she expecting to be inevitably and permanently "deselected", soon, anyway?
When you see your likeness, you are pleased. But when you see your images which came into existence before you, which neither die nor become manifest, how much you will have to bear!
Not sure who "we're" refers to there, but I did enough 6502 Assembly code in the 80's to have the first 16 powers-of-two burned into my brain to this day... and still I wouldn't try to claim my binary predilictions should hold sway over the international standard in court.;)
Giga-anything is one billion exactly of that thing.
Wikipedia notes its techie-colloquial usage, and states that it is incorrect according to the SI/metric standard.
"The prefixes k and greater are common in computing, where they are applied to information and storage units like the bit and the byte. Since 2^10 = 1024, and 10^3 = 1000, this led to the SI prefix letters being used to denote "binary" powers. Although these are incorrect usages according to the SI standards it seems common to apply base 10 prefixes, when relating to computers, as follows..."
I can validly assert that "Libertarianism is the best political system", as an assertion of how reality is, i.e., as fact, and provide evidence for that assertion, without being able to "prove" it.
I can validly assert that "Capitalist countries will outperform communist ones over the next ten years", as an assertion of how reality is, and I need not "prove" it if the domain is not amenable to proof, as economics among many others is.
And, I can come up with a thousand more examples like those...
While "fact" and "opinion" makes a neat little false dichotomy, there are things that are ultimately facts (one way or the other), which are of a presently-indeterminate nature in terms of proof--and making an assertion regarding them is not merely purely-subjective "opinion".
A problem with this approach is that its rather easy to structure the challenge such that "for the purposes of this contest, 'proof' will be defined as whatever criteria you don't meet".
It's rather similar to the common demand we hear from atheists in this forum, rather than seeking "evidence" (e.g., NDE studies, highly improbable medical "cures", willing martyrdom of contemporaries, probability of fulfillment of future-event predictions) what is sought is "proof", and in my experience, what the skeptic will consider "proof" shrinks in scope in direct proportion to the evidential support provided. Oddly (from the standpoint of intellectual honesty), there's no interest in "evidence", but specifically (their notion of) "proof"--which they don't actually want.
So, by extension--they apparently want "proof" so clear and compelling that they don't have a choice, in order to make a choice.
Somewhat tangential to your point--but I have, in a long history of forum debates, heard negative impressions given by people looking into the specifics of Randi's contest, who are of a variety of worldviews and stances regarding "the supernatural". For instance, I wonder how he would structure a test of the rather uncontroversially-accepted uncanny psychological synchronization of identical twins, under various circumstances.
Do all unprovable claims get equal value in your mind?
No, of course not. We have (or at least I have--I won't speak for you) the ability to evaluate -plausibility-.
Yes, you know yourself that whether capitalism or communism is a superior economic system can't be proven, but one is definitely more plausible. Yes, you know yourself that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is less plausible than Christianity. If you choose to lie, however, that's your temporary choice.
Let's hear this "it's own falsifiable test of itself".
Because if that's the case, I think you've thoroughly repudiated Godel, and that is likely to win you some intractable mathematics/science problem prize money.
By the way, there is absolutely no way you can determine whether I do, or do not, have proof of anything whatsoever.
There's a big problem with such negative assertions...
"Somebody has proof of who killed JFK."
This assertion requires that you know one point of fact--that is, you know a person who has the proof. This is possible to you.
"Nobody has proof of who killed JFK."
This claim is tantamount to a claim of personal omniscience. I requires that you have personal access to the knowledge of every human being on Earth, and can make this assertion on the basis of reviewing and finding the -absence- of proof in the mind and experience of every other human. This, you can never validly assert.
The burden of proof lies on the side of people asserting...
Heard this many times recently, but sorry, metaphysics, and philosophy in general, isn't Judge Judy.
At minimum, philosophy in general is at least 50% unprovable, but plausible, assertions.
Try, for instance, providing general proof of anything in the domain of aesthetics. Then, failing that, be consistent and personally avoid ever claiming something is "beautiful", "good", or "bad", or acting upon such an impression.
"The enemy was swarming, blotting out the sun with their wings... until they scrambled The Exterminator, the best F17 pilot around..."
"Wait a minute... how could he be so great if all he fought was bugs, with a fighter jet?"
The distinction being, my B-Movie trailer is fiction; his inability to recognize that a text containing allegory is not by definition exclusively allegory and lacking real-world referents, is not.;)
Don't take it personally. From my viewpoint, I'm addressing an argument, which, I'm pretty-much obliged to do. And some arguments really can't be validly addressed in any kind of compromising or finessed way--they have to be refuted outright or let stand.
If you want, blame my previous years as an Objectivist--or if you really want to consider it on a personal level, you should probably forward it to Dawkins.;)
"6000 years" is an interpretation of the years of Adam's descendants. The bible says people pre-existed Adam.
The only way to make your statement "work" is to stubbornly fail to acknowledge any other possible meaning of "day" (of the "seven") in a highly-allegorical book.
I held my comment the last 20 times this exact same lame joke was modded +5 Funny, but this time I'll comment.
Is his paper right, or wrong? If he's claiming the first and retracting it, science is harmed, not furthered. If it's wrong, retraction should happen anyway.
This is really irrational. I understand the motivation to find any position of anyone on the planet that decries "creationism" and post it, but do you really want to overtly demonstrate your complete dependence on it in that way, while committing some really obvious non-sequiturs along the way?
Slashdot Mirror
Wikiscanner's roster indicates a Vatican computer was used to remove references to evidence linking Ireland's Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams to a decades-old double murder.
And here I was expecting some Dan Brownesque intrigue of large-scale controversial religious/historical edits. Anyone consider these "manipulations" are just some random user who happens to be on the network owned by the "manipulating organization"?
Since the narrative explicitly says that I take that to mean that God made that statement to Adam and Eve.
Actually, it -explicitly- says it was said to "them" of the "male and female" just introduced. That it was said to Eve, whose creation is described later, during the "seventh day" narrative (or, at least, after text indicating a context-switch to the "seventh day" is presented), is your -implicit- inference.
I don't think that we can say that they would not have left the garden were it not for the fall of man.
Then, we can conjecture about how they would have ultimately populated enough to "subdue the Earth" without exiting the garden, without others existant.
I don't see any contradiction at all. Can you please clarify this statement?
Inclusive of the humor which set this thread off, you see no contradiction at all, on any level? If so, I call that a good outcome. If my purpose were primarily to assert my personal stance, I might argue it further. But, it's not.
Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter the kingdom."
Well, just read the narrative. To narrow it down, I'll answer your question with a question: Was "be fruitful and multiply and hold dominion over the Earth" ever "said" to Eve? Which "day"? How would that have been theoretically possible, since Adam and Eve wouldn't even have left the garden, except for their expulsion due to sin, per the narrative?
You can see contradiction, or you can see resolution, based upon your predisposition.
In Genesis, question asks you!
Well, no, given two things:
1. Science says that Adam and Eve would have to have been a subset of a larger pre-existing human population
2. Genesis says Adam and Eve were a subset of a larger pre-existing human population
Your oh-so-repetitive-on-Slashdot joke is based on a calculation of Adam's geneaology, with the necessary presumption that the "days" preceding that cannot be read allegorically.
You're assuming that only negative things are the outcome of apparently-negative events.
Oh, wait, from the viewpoint of evolution you -cannot- assume that, as its directly refuted by your existence.
Oops.
Apparently, she deliberately violated the scope and definition of her job. How is this any different from the consequences in any other job?
I realize that it's tempting to try to make a buck off the "evolution vs. ID" false dichotomy, even when you know clearly beforehand it's a false dichotomy as you speak of it, but still. She violated the terms of her employment.
Firing seems relatively minor as life event, anyway--isn't she expecting to be inevitably and permanently "deselected", soon, anyway?
As a sideways followup expansion that just came to mind reading this...
If someone clones a human, and that clone reproduces, will common ancestry no longer be considered the position of "orthodox Darwinism"?
Common ancestry thus demonstrated false, by direct exposition!
My head is spinning slightly, but this time it might just be the coffee.
You'd think two-thousand-year-old questions would generally be easy, but I'm still working on this one...
On the day you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will will you do?
--Gospel of Thomas
Well... not according to Jesus.
When you see your likeness, you are pleased. But when you see your images which came into existence before you, which neither die nor become manifest, how much you will have to bear!
--Gospel of Thomas
Not sure who "we're" refers to there, but I did enough 6502 Assembly code in the 80's to have the first 16 powers-of-two burned into my brain to this day... and still I wouldn't try to claim my binary predilictions should hold sway over the international standard in court. ;)
Giga-anything is one billion exactly of that thing.
Wikipedia notes its techie-colloquial usage, and states that it is incorrect according to the SI/metric standard.
"The prefixes k and greater are common in computing, where they are applied to information and storage units like the bit and the byte. Since 2^10 = 1024, and 10^3 = 1000, this led to the SI prefix letters being used to denote "binary" powers. Although these are incorrect usages according to the SI standards it seems common to apply base 10 prefixes, when relating to computers, as follows..."
Strange "victory".
Well, simply... no.
I can validly assert that "Libertarianism is the best political system", as an assertion of how reality is, i.e., as fact, and provide evidence for that assertion, without being able to "prove" it.
I can validly assert that "Capitalist countries will outperform communist ones over the next ten years", as an assertion of how reality is, and I need not "prove" it if the domain is not amenable to proof, as economics among many others is.
And, I can come up with a thousand more examples like those...
While "fact" and "opinion" makes a neat little false dichotomy, there are things that are ultimately facts (one way or the other), which are of a presently-indeterminate nature in terms of proof--and making an assertion regarding them is not merely purely-subjective "opinion".
A problem with this approach is that its rather easy to structure the challenge such that "for the purposes of this contest, 'proof' will be defined as whatever criteria you don't meet".
It's rather similar to the common demand we hear from atheists in this forum, rather than seeking "evidence" (e.g., NDE studies, highly improbable medical "cures", willing martyrdom of contemporaries, probability of fulfillment of future-event predictions) what is sought is "proof", and in my experience, what the skeptic will consider "proof" shrinks in scope in direct proportion to the evidential support provided. Oddly (from the standpoint of intellectual honesty), there's no interest in "evidence", but specifically (their notion of) "proof"--which they don't actually want.
So, by extension--they apparently want "proof" so clear and compelling that they don't have a choice, in order to make a choice.
Somewhat tangential to your point--but I have, in a long history of forum debates, heard negative impressions given by people looking into the specifics of Randi's contest, who are of a variety of worldviews and stances regarding "the supernatural". For instance, I wonder how he would structure a test of the rather uncontroversially-accepted uncanny psychological synchronization of identical twins, under various circumstances.
Here you go.
Do all unprovable claims get equal value in your mind?
No, of course not. We have (or at least I have--I won't speak for you) the ability to evaluate -plausibility-.
Yes, you know yourself that whether capitalism or communism is a superior economic system can't be proven, but one is definitely more plausible. Yes, you know yourself that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is less plausible than Christianity. If you choose to lie, however, that's your temporary choice.
Let's hear this "it's own falsifiable test of itself".
Because if that's the case, I think you've thoroughly repudiated Godel, and that is likely to win you some intractable mathematics/science problem prize money.
But I know that's a hard thing for lots of people who believe in God to understand, belief in oneself.
I understand it fine. It's just that it will inevitably fail within 120 years.
By the way, there is absolutely no way you can determine whether I do, or do not, have proof of anything whatsoever.
There's a big problem with such negative assertions...
"Somebody has proof of who killed JFK."
This assertion requires that you know one point of fact--that is, you know a person who has the proof. This is possible to you.
"Nobody has proof of who killed JFK."
This claim is tantamount to a claim of personal omniscience. I requires that you have personal access to the knowledge of every human being on Earth, and can make this assertion on the basis of reviewing and finding the -absence- of proof in the mind and experience of every other human. This, you can never validly assert.
See the difference?
I'll take that bet.
The burden of proof lies on the side of people asserting...
Heard this many times recently, but sorry, metaphysics, and philosophy in general, isn't Judge Judy.
At minimum, philosophy in general is at least 50% unprovable, but plausible, assertions.
Try, for instance, providing general proof of anything in the domain of aesthetics. Then, failing that, be consistent and personally avoid ever claiming something is "beautiful", "good", or "bad", or acting upon such an impression.
I wasn't suggesting that it was the ID "side" that was doing the "twisting".
Sounds like a movie review by Dawkins.
;)
"The enemy was swarming, blotting out the sun with their wings... until they scrambled The Exterminator, the best F17 pilot around..."
"Wait a minute... how could he be so great if all he fought was bugs, with a fighter jet?"
The distinction being, my B-Movie trailer is fiction; his inability to recognize that a text containing allegory is not by definition exclusively allegory and lacking real-world referents, is not.
Don't take it personally. From my viewpoint, I'm addressing an argument, which, I'm pretty-much obliged to do. And some arguments really can't be validly addressed in any kind of compromising or finessed way--they have to be refuted outright or let stand.
;)
If you want, blame my previous years as an Objectivist--or if you really want to consider it on a personal level, you should probably forward it to Dawkins.
"6000 years" is an interpretation of the years of Adam's descendants. The bible says people pre-existed Adam.
The only way to make your statement "work" is to stubbornly fail to acknowledge any other possible meaning of "day" (of the "seven") in a highly-allegorical book.
I held my comment the last 20 times this exact same lame joke was modded +5 Funny, but this time I'll comment.
...he's retracting his paper?
Is his paper right, or wrong? If he's claiming the first and retracting it, science is harmed, not furthered. If it's wrong, retraction should happen anyway.
This is really irrational. I understand the motivation to find any position of anyone on the planet that decries "creationism" and post it, but do you really want to overtly demonstrate your complete dependence on it in that way, while committing some really obvious non-sequiturs along the way?