And there you have it!

_{William Dembski

August 23, 2009

Eyes Rolling, Religion, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Janna Levin, Columbia astrophysicist, gives us the cutting-edge science on the origin of the universe: there was nothing, really nothing, nothing at all … but the potential to exist. Was it Aristotle who said that nothing admits no predicates? So where did nothing get the potential to exist and then bring the universe into existence? Not to worry. Janna does give us this assurance: “We know that something happened.” Yes, this is science at its best. Let’s not bring God or design into this discussion — we wouldn’t want to be accused of “acting stupidly.” Oh, one more thing, she’s an assistant professor (go here). Want to bet that she doesn’t have problems getting tenure? Compare this to Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State.

YouTube Source

Comments

---vividbleau: "It still blows my mind that people actually assert that from nothing you can get something, that events happen without a cause,etc. I mean this is absurd." Yes, and in the name of science, which assumes uncompromising causality as one of its metaphysical foundations. Clearly, you get it.StephenB_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT}

Correction: BTW Diffaxial do you think causeless wet streets are possible? Vividvividbleau_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT}

Dif:"I can hear it now: “Why just last week I was discussing this with Diffaxial, and he insisted that causeless wet streets were possible!” It still blows my mind that people actually assert that from nothing you can get something, that events happen without a cause,etc. I mean this is absurd. Stephens point is very germaine. If at the most fundamental level of reality events have no causes then why would one not think that causeless wet streets are possible. Why not? BTW Diffaxial to you think it causeless wet streets are possible? Vividvividbleau_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 68:
Thus, I must assume that you think causeless wet streets are possible.
I can hear it now: "Why just last week I was discussing this with Diffaxial, and he insisted that causeless wet streets were possible!"Diffaxial_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT}

If Darwinists, [you if you like] think that a universe can appear without a cause, matter can come from non-matter, life from non-life, and quantum events can occur without a cause, then clearly they allow for the possibility that all kinds of events can occur without causes. That means that causality is a take it or leave it proposition for Dariwnists, which is another way of saying that they have no reason to reject the possibility that wet streets can appear without a cause. Indeed, each time I have asked, you have refused to declare that causeless wet streets are an impossibility. Thus, I must assume that you think causeless wet streets are possible. Now you have said this: "Macrophysical events (such as the wetting of streets) obey classical causality with a fidelity sufficient to prompt us all, Darwinists and those among us who are less bright alike, to always expect that macrophysical events have macrophysical causes." So, you "expect" wet streets to have causes, but you cannot say with certainly that causeless wet streets are impossible. Thus, you allow for the possbilit that, perhaps under some circumstances, streets could just get wet without a cause. After all, you allow for a causeless universe. A causeless wet street is much less problematical than a causeless universe.StephenB_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

I didn’t say that they asserted any such thing. I said, “it is clear that they ‘think’ that streets could “just get wet.” That is absolutely true.
OK. But no participant has stated that they think that streets could "really just get wet." Therefore you are simply guessing, or perhaps deploying a heretofore undisclosed talent for telepathy. Yet your powers have failed you, because the assertion is almost certainly factually incorrect: no Darwinist has said that because no Darwinist believes it. I certainly don't. What you want to say is that it follows from the claim that there is an element of acausality/indeterminism at the quantum level vis, for example, timing of particle decay, that streets can "really just get wet." Further, you want to say that that an individual who asserts that elements of quantum indeterminacy amount to a limited domain of acausality is being inconsistent in denying that that "streets can really just get wet." But the physics itself tells us that that doesn't follow: the indeterminacy and profound randomness of quantum events is displayed at the quantum level to degrees that can be predicted probabilistically with great precision, probabilities that render meaningful macrophysical violations a non factor in our experience of and reasoning over ordinary macrophysical events. Macrophysical events (such as the wetting of streets) obey classical causality with a fidelity sufficient to prompt us all, Darwinists and those among us who are less bright alike, to always expect that macrophysical events have macrophysical causes. You also stated:
So [postmodernists] will ask, “Why can’t the streets just get wet?” “Can you provide me with evidence that moisture, like the cosmos or life cannot just come from out of nowhere.” or “you are wrong because quantum particles can appear without a cause,” and so on. For them physical events, or anything else for that matter, can “just happen.”
To the extent that this refers to exchanges on UD in which I have participated, this is pure fiction. (Perhaps you court such dimwitted corespondents in another venue.) No one here (in my experience) has asked "why can't the streets just get wet?" No one has requested "evidence that moisture, like the cosmos or life cannot just come out of nowhere." And no one has stated that it follows from the facts of quantum physics that macrophysical events such as the wetting of roads can "just happen." No one has made statements that even remotely resemble these. To the extent that this refers to our previous conversations on UD, these statements are false and misleading. Your simple refutation is to quote someone asking "why can't the streets just get wet?" "Why can't moisture come out of nowhere?" or asserting that quantum indeterminacy means that the wetting of roads can "just happen."Diffaxial_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

----Daffixial: "We are volleying about this repeated claim of yours: I am focusing on your proclivity to run away from your own statements. You have stated categorically that all the principles of right reason that I have alluded to, including that one, do not apply to the real world. Among others, we can include the law of non-contradiction, the law of causation, and the principle that something cannot come from nothing. ---"Flat fact: No “Darwinist” UD participant has asserted that streets can “really” just get wet without a cause." I didn't say that they asserted any such thing. I said, "it is clear that they 'think' that streets could "just get wet." That is absolutely true. They think, and have stated, that physical events can occur without causes. Under those circumstances, streets could just get wet. No cause needed. ----"Yet in the above you certainly intend that readers take from your statement that some daft Darwinists have claimed that “streets really can just get wet without a cause.” No, I did not, as is clear with my explanation. ----"Your insertion of “really” reflects your intent that your readers accept this as a literal claim." No, it reflects my intent to show what Darwinists think, just I said. Darwinists think that events can occur without causes. So, that means that, in principle, there is no reason to think that streets couldn't get wet without a cause. Darwinists think that something can come from nothing. That's what you think. Can you state categorically that streets cannot get wet without a cause? If so, on what principle do you make that statement? You either think that it is possible or you do not. Make up your mind. ---"Therefore arguments referring to the putative acausality of quantum events, and so on, don’t meet this description." Yes, they do. You have stated that quantum events are acausal. So, you clearly believe that they occur without a cause. So, clearly, you accept the proposition that events can occur without causes.StephenB_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 64:
I don’t want to continue vollying about other bloggers.
We are volleying about this repeated claim of yours:
Indeed, when I asked these same bloggers if an automobile could be a part of a crankshaft, they insisted that such a thing is, indeed, possible.
Which is false and misleading. No participant has insisted that an ordinary automobile can be part of an ordinary crankshaft, in a sense that violates a part-whole relationship, and in the sense you intended your readers to take from the above quote. Equally false and misleading is the following:
But in my correspondence with Darwinists, it is clear that they think that streets really can just get wet without a cause.
Flat fact: No "Darwinist" UD participant has asserted that streets can "really" just get wet without a cause. Yet in the above you certainly intend that readers take from your statement that some daft Darwinists have claimed that "streets really can just get wet without a cause." Your insertion of "really" reflects your intent that your readers accept this as a literal claim. Therefore arguments referring to the putative acausality of quantum events, and so on, don't meet this description. Your simple refutation is a quote or a link to a participant asserting "streets really can just get wet without a cause." Perhaps I missed it.Diffaxial_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

Diffaxial: While I don't agree with your above analysis, I am going to focus on your comments alone. I don't want to continue vollying about other bloggers. ---"I have never commented directly on your “crankshaft” illustration, one way or the other." True enough. ---"The closest I have come to commenting on the principle it purports to clarify (not very successfully) was to observe that “a whole is always greater than any one of its parts” mostly exercises the definitions of “whole,” “part” and “greater than.” You have stated categorically that all the principles of right reason that I have alluded to, including that one, do not apply to the real world. Among others, we can include the law of non-contradiction, the law of causation, and the principle that something cannot come from nothing. Without those principles, science cannot endure and rational discouse collapses.StephenB_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 62:
Diffaxial, you are all wet. Lenoxus responded to exactly that point and exactly those words.
You seem to have forgotten that the point of your crankshaft example was to concretize the principle, "a whole is always greater than any one of its parts." Does an enormous crankshaft-sculpture built from automobiles violate this part-whole relationship? (Lenoxus) It does not. In that instance automobiles are the parts, and the crankshaft the whole. Does a crankshaft of greater value than the auto of which it is part violate the part-whole relationship? (Seversky and Faded.) It does not. "Greater than" no longer refers to a part whole relationship, rather other forms of relative value. Do any of these "Darwinists" therefore assert that a violation of the part-whole relationship is possible? They do not. Do they therefore support the intent of your woebegone anecdote? They do not. Their attempts are problematic, however, and I can help you see why. Each of the examples they offer attempts to describe a context in which the statement "the crankshaft is greater than the automobile" is true. However, in establishing those contexts they have so altered the meanings of either "crankshaft" (in Lenoxus' case) or "greater than" (in Seversky's and Faded's examples) that the resulting statement, understood in that context, no longer violates the part-whole relationship. In the instance of Lenoxus' enormous sculpture the crankshaft has legitimately become the whole and the autos the parts, so there is no violation. The "valuable crankshaft" example of Faded doesn't challenge the part whole relationshp and, in my opinion, doesn't really work, but it does raise a good question: what is meant by "greater than?" Larger? Larger quantity? Greater (aesthetic, engineering, monetary value? This is a good question, also raised by Seversky, one that I haven't seen answered.
You know very well that you have declared that it does not apply to the real world.
I have never commented directly on your "crankshaft" illustration, one way or the other. The closest I have come to commenting on the principle it purports to clarify (not very successfully) was to observe that "a whole is always greater than any one of its parts" mostly exercises the definitions of "whole," "part" and "greater than."Diffaxial_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

We could, of course, shift to any one of reason’s first principles to make a similar point about the futility of trying to think without honoring reason’s rules, which is what Darwinists do. Let’s think about the ridiculous notion that something can come from nothing or the related concept that physical events could occur without causes. Once again, we can put flesh, blood, and bones on an abstract principle with a specific example. Consider the following proposition: Streets don’t just “get wet.” Using the scientific and philosophical principle of causation, we understand that something had to cause the streets to get wet. Thus, we say that if the streets are wet, then it must be raining, or else someone turned on a fire hydrant, or for some other reason. But in my correspondence with Darwinists, it is clear that they think that streets really can just get wet without a cause. For them physical events do not necessarily need causes or necessary conditions; for them, something can come from nothing. (Each time I raise the point, they appeal to quantum mechanics and I have to explain to them that quantum particles are spontaneous and unpredictable, but they are not uncaused) For Darwinists, a universe can pop into existence, life can come from non-life, and streets can just “get wet.” [Incredibly, one Darwinist labored intently over the meaning of the word “wet.”] He just could not reconcile himself with the notion that moisture cannot appear without some explanation. As all reasonable people know, facts and evidence do not just interpret themselves. That is why I do not often discuss science with Darwinists. They cannot follow where the evidence leads, because they cannot or will not interpret evidence according to the principles of right reason. How can they interpret evidence reasonably when they are hell bent on rejecting reason itself?StephenB_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

---Diffaxial, "No participant has made statements that resemble “an automobile could be part of a crankshaft” in the sense you intend your readers to take from your statement, to wit: Daft Darwinists have insisted that an ordinary automobile can be part of an ordinary crankshaft."] Diffaxial, you are all wet. Lenoxus responded to exactly that point and exactly those words. With slightly different wording, I thanked faded glory for "positing that a crankshaft can be greater than the automobile of which it is a part," and he responded, YOU ARE WELCOME. Al least faded glory has the courage to put his thoughts on the table. He, like seversky, Lenoxus, and others, girded up his loins, entered into the arena, and took his swing. You, on the other hand, remain on the sidelines, harping and sniping from what you believe to be a safe distance from the subject matter. On the other hand, you are not really on safe ground at all. You know very well which principle is being discussed and you know very well that you have declared that it does not apply to the real world. All you have to do is say the following: A crankshaft can never be greater that the automobile of which it is a part because the whole is always greater than any one of its parts. Can you say it? If not, then I must assume that, given your skepticism about the principle that informs the proposition, you accept the alternative proposition, namely that a crankshaft can, indeed, be greater than the automobile of which it is a part.StephenB_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

FG: No, sorry, I cannot affirm you examples. In both cases you are trying to subjectivize an objective principle of measurement. Even at that, in the first instance, you separated the part from the whole. Using your standard of market value, a junked out car with a valuable crankshaft is still worth more than a valuable crankshaft without the car. In the second instance, you are trying to elevate the innovation of a crankshaft, however novel it may be, to a level higher than that the entity which it serves, namely the automobile. That would be like saying that the creation of an innovatively designed artificial heart could be a greater accomplishment than the creation a human being, which is that which the heart serves. The human being is always greater than its heart, or its liver; the automobile is always greater than its crankshaft, or its oil pan.StephenB_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 56:
Thank you for positing that a crankshaft can be greater than the automobile of which it is a part. Please inform Diffaxial that you are the latest entry in a long list of Darwinists that he claims does not exist.
Faded's comment is very similar to Seversky's earlier remark (quoted in its entirety above). The sense in which he suggests that a crankshaft can be "greater than" the automobile in which it is contained (specifically, "greater" in artistic, monetary, or engineering value) does not, in any way, exemplify your favorite part-whole violation. He does not posit that an automobile can be part of its (or any other) crankshaft. Rather, he (as did Seversky) notes that "greater" can have many meanings (greater value, etc.) and needs disambiguation. No participant has made statements that resemble "an automobile could be part of a crankshaft" in the sense you intend your readers to take from your statement, to wit: Daft Darwinists have insisted that an ordinary automobile can be part of an ordinary crankshaft. But you have a "long list." Post that list, with quotes. A bit of cut and paste is all it takes. Until you, do my characterization of your tiresome anecdote as distorted and misleading stands.Diffaxial_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

StephenB, you are welcome. Would you agree that my post you responded to contains two valid examples of how we sometimes can say that a part can be greater than its whole? fGfaded_Glory_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

DATCG: Thanks for the kind words. I also continue to read your excellent posts with interest.StephenB_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

---faded glory: Thank you for positing that a crankshaft can be greater than the automobile of which it is a part. Please inform Diffaxial that you are the latest entry in a long list of Darwinists that he claims does not exist.StephenB_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

Hello all. I wasn't really planning to come back into the arena, but I would like to offer a slightly different view on this 'the whole must be greater than its parts' discussion. There is actually a lack of specification in the expression as stated. 'Greater' is of course often used in reference to physical size, but it does not have to be. Something can also be greater in other respects (as already alluded to by another poster). For some of those other meanings, it is not hard to think of examples where the part can, indeed, be greater than the whole it is part of. For a random example, consider a highly valuable, unique classic car. This particular car has over the ages been repaired and restored to a large degree, and one of the few remaining genuine original parts is the crankshaft. Imagine an unfortunate accident where this car was totally wrecked and written off, with most parts damaged beyond repair, and the wreck resting in a remote part of the country in a 200 ft deep gully where it left the road. If the owner put the entire wreck as one lot on Ebay it is easy to see how this would attract lower bids, and thus be of smaller value, than if he were to salvage the original and fortunately undamaged crankshaft and put that on Ebay by itself. So in this case the part is greater than the whole, in value terms. One can easily think of other measures by which this may be the case. For instance, a different crankshaft is an iconic piece of innovative engineering, mounted in an otherwise wholly mediocre and unremarkable car. In that case the crankshaft would be greater than the car itself, in the sense of being an important feat of engineering. As always, context is essential, and few situations are black and white (or great and small). fGfaded_Glory_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

Diffaxial, Thy name is Distration if you cannot honestly answer his direct question to you 4 times at least. Why refuse to answer?
Diffaxial, I ask you again: Can an automobile be a part of a crankshaft? Yes of no. If not, why not? If you don’t like that example, let’s try another one: Can you be a part of your liver. Yes or no. If not, why not
Answer the question. It is very simple yes or no. StephenB is correct. Your refusal to answer this simple, direct question speaks volumes. And btw, not everyone is here monitoring 24/7 like the unusual number of revolving door Darwinist at UD. I just read this and find it amusing how you twist, turn and slither out of answering a direct question. If you refuse to answer, then StephenB's statement:
"If you say, yes, an automobile must be larger than its crankshaft, you are conceding that the principle alluded to [the whole is always greater than any one of its parts] really does apply to the real world, and your entire argument is shredded. If you say no, an automobile can, indeed, be smaller than its crankshaft, all reasonable people [except your Darwinist friends, who may well agree] will laugh their heads off. That is why you will not answer the question and why all of your colleagues equivocate, affirm the ridiculous, or remain silent.
... has merit. StephenB is not playing a broken record. He's playing music, with repetitive notes - yes to make a point, much like any well composed piece resoundingly moves forward measure by measure with added sticatto and melody repeats that can sing out with a flourish and a crescendo. Marches are famous for this as are any ballads that return to a well worn path. Where would Hip Hop artist be without repeats of great classics intertwined through their songs? DJs are famous for phat fingering old school records. Keep playing the good music StephenB. I like the beat and the repeat. DJ DJizzle FoSchizzle around line 33, then hop to 45 and repeat on the down beat. Sanity is to much for some folks to comprehend when it blows apart their worldviews. Rather than admitting their worldviews have obvious flaws, they'll dither and dather around and fiddle faddle. I'm one reader glad you reset the replay of the Darwinist faux free way. Otherwise, I'd never known they blew past the free lunch.DATCG_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT}

---Diffaxial: "The topic I am pursuing is not the validity of these principles." That is very convenient for you. It is, however, the subject that I am pursuing, the one that I introduced prior to your distraction, and the one which confirms the theme of the thread. So, my question for you at 48 and 50 remains.StephenB_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 50:
His reply indicates exactly what I said it indicates. The words speak for themselves. In any case, there are other examples I could offer besides Lenoxus, but I don’t want to provide you with further distractions and excuses for running and hiding.
No quote, no refutation. My characterization of your anecdote stands.Diffaxial_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

----Diffaxial: But Lenoxus’ reply fails to exemplify that, and fails to exemplify a Darwinist irrationally advocating a violation of the part-whole principle, and therefore his inability to think. It is certainly true that an automobile could be part of an enormous sculpture of a crankshaft. That has no bearing upon the part-whole violation you wished to exemplify. (That, by the way, was the problem with his tongue-in-cheek reply). His reply indicates exactly what I said it indicates. The words speak for themselves. In any case, there are other examples I could offer besides Lenoxus, but I don't want to provide you with further distractions and excuses for running and hiding. ----Diffaxial: "That’s another topic. The topic I am pursuing is not the validity of these principles. The topic I am pursuing is your frequent repetition of a distorted and misleading anecdote. On the contrary, it is the topic. I introduced it much earlier in this thead. It is also consistent with the overall theme first proposed, which is another of reason's principles [something cannot come from nothing]. You introduced the distraction much later. The issue is very simple. Darwinists cannot reason in the abstract because they refuse to rule out logical impossibilities indicated by the reason's rules. Thread after thread, you have asserted that the principles of right reason do not really apply to the real world. Yet, when I clarify those principles in the form of easily understood concrete examples and ask you the relevant questions, you always find some excuse to avoid discussion. Clearly, you are afraid to answer the question and the reason is obvious: If you say, yes, an automobile must be larger than its crankshaft, you are conceding that the principle alluded to [the whole is always greater than any one of its parts] really does apply to the real world, and your entire argument is shredded. If you say no, an automobile can, indeed, be smaller than its crankshaft, all reasonable people [except your Darwinist friends, who may well agree] will laugh their heads off. So, you use the history of other bloggers as a distraction and an excuse for not answering the question. Still, because you have consistently claimed that the principles of right reason are "mere tautologies" and do not apply to the real world, you are morally obliged to stand up to the challenge and provide an honest answer to an honest question.StephenB_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 48:
I used the less restrictive language, and yet he responded in the affirmative. Just as I charged, he argued that an automobile can be a part of A crankshaft. Therefore, your objection is pointless.
Squirm all you like. The sense you intend your readers to take from “I asked if an automobile could be part of a crankshaft" is what is important. The only reasonable reading is that you intend to convey that some daft Darwinist has claimed that an ordinary automobile can be part of an ordinary crankshaft: "they insisted that such a thing is, indeed, possible." But Lenoxus' reply fails to exemplify that, and fails to exemplify a Darwinist irrationally advocating a violation of the part-whole principle, and therefore his inability to think. It is certainly true that an automobile could be part of an enormous sculpture of a crankshaft. That has no bearing upon the part-whole violation you wished to exemplify. (That, by the way, was the problem with his tongue-in-cheek reply).
Your thoughts are absolutely essential since you have asserted all along that the principles of right reason do not apply to the real world.
That's another topic. The topic I am pursuing is not the validity of these principles. The topic I am pursuing is your frequent repetition of a distorted and misleading anecdote.
Indeed, when I asked these same bloggers if an automobile could be a part of a crankshaft, they insisted that such a thing is, indeed, possible.
I say this is false. Your simple refutation is to quote a participant insisting that an ordinary automobile can be part of an ordinary crankshaft, in the sense you intend your reader to take from "I asked if an automobile could be part of a crankshaft".Diffaxial_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

StephenB (49), "The broader point I made at 15, which, of course, you also avoid, [Darwists always avoid context] holds now more than ever" I think YOU are the one avoiding context with this example of automobiles/crankshafts. If you want a sensible answer then you must define explicitly what you mean by "greater than". So do you have a definition? Frankly, I doubt it.Gaz_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT}

---Diffaxial: "Rather obviously, when Lenoxus stated that an automobile might be a part of an enormous sculpture of a crankshaft (which is certainly true), he was NOT asserting that an automobile can be part of its OWN crankshaft. Ipso facto, he was not arguing for a violation of a part-whole relationship, as you claim." At the time, I used the less restrictive language, and yet he responded in the affirmative. Just as I charged, he argued that an automobile can be a part of A crankshaft. Therefore, your objection is pointless. ---Diffaxial: "My thoughts on the matter, whatever they may be, have no bearing on that." Your thoughts are absolutely essential since you have asserted all along that the principles of right reason do not apply to the real world. Clearly, you are afraid to answer the question and the reason is obvious: If you say, yes, an automobile must be larger than its crankshaft, you are conceding that the principle alluded to [the whole is always greater than any one of its parts] really does apply to the real world, and your entire argument is shredded. If you say no, an automobile can, indeed, be smaller than its crankshaft, all reasonable people [except your Darwinist friends, who may well agree] will laugh their heads off. That is why you will not answer the question and why all of your colleagues equivocate, affirm the ridiculous, or remain silent. The broader point I made at 15, which, of course, you also avoid, [Darwists always avoid context] holds now more than ever. Even after all this fuss, you run from the question in an attempt to avoid refutation. Darwnists cannot reason their way from A to B because they cannot rule out C through Z---they cannot and will not rule out the logically impossible in order to save their illogical paradigm. Thus, when called on it, they do just what you are doing---they look for any means possible to escape, refusing to provide an honest answer to an honest question.StephenB_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PDT}

StephenB clarifies @ 40:
I should probably emphasize the relational component here: Can an automobile be a part of ITS crankshaft?
That is helpful. It is certainly how I have understood your question from the start. Rather obviously, when Lenoxus stated that an automobile might be a part of an enormous sculpture of a crankshaft (which is certainly true), he was NOT asserting that an automobile can be part of its OWN crankshaft. Ipso facto, he was not arguing for a violation of a part-whole relationship, as you claim. Seversky's only comment on the topic is as follows, in its entirety:
Perhaps you – or StephenB – could define “greater than” in this context? For example, obviously a car, viewed as a machine for transporting people from place to place, is assembled from many more components than just the crankshaft. Is that what “greater than” means here: ‘made of more parts than’? On the other hand, an artist might view a car as a form of sculpture: an assemblage of parts whose function is to provide a housing or a context for the crankshaft which is viewed as the focal point of the work and hence ‘greater’ than the other parts either singly or severally. In this case, “greater than” could mean ‘having more aesthetic appeal or significance than’ Words are slippery things in that they can have a number of different meanings – the words ‘information’ and ‘religious’ come to mind in the context of this blog – so we should try to choose them carefully so as to avoid ambiguity as far as possible.
Nowhere in the above does Seversky "insist" upon anything resembling the assertion that an automobile may be part of its crankshaft. What I see is a request for a clarification of the meaning of "greater than" in this context, and the observation that the need for clarification arises because "words are slippery." You state that daft Darwinists insist that such part whole violations are possible, that an automobile can be part of its crankshaft. I say that is incorrect. Your refutation remains a quote of a participant insisting that such a violation is possible. Lenoxus' statement clearly fails to meet that description. Neither does Seversky's. Yet you say,
Indeed, when I asked these same bloggers if an automobile could be a part of a crankshaft, they insisted that such a thing is, indeed, possible.
If your assertion is true, it should be a simple matter to provide quotes. I say it is false. My thoughts on the matter, whatever they may be, have no bearing on that.Diffaxial_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

bornagain77, I guess it's a cool video, but I'm with the commenter that said:
I don't get what you trying to prove in this commercial!!! God Bless!!!
yakky d_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

Also, we're only allowed to be on the surface of the bubble and not inside the bubble because that's totally preposterous and unacceptable even though everything looks like we're in the centre of the bubble. Have I got that right?mad doc_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT}

I think I get it. There was nothing then there was something like a "hot space" then it inflated for a fraction of a second (faster than the speed of light) then it expanded normally and after 3 minutes atoms formed then it produced human beings after 14 billion years then it bounced over and over and it is a bubble and we are on the surface of the bubble. Also almost all of this "something" is undetectable (dark energy and matter) but it must be there otherwise none of this could have happened. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.mad doc_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

talking about if a car is its crankshaft: Is This Intelligent Design or Chance? http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=de79d673c1386efdede8bornagain77_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply