[_ Old Earth _] God Can Count - Can Evolution?

[Asyncritus]

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, Darwin discovered it wasn't about chance.

"We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance. How, then, did they come into existence? The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step-by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance.

Dawkins, begging every question going, and introducing the ridiculous monkeys on typewriters analogy, admits that evolution COULDN'T HAVE BEEN BY CHANCE.

Darwin on the other hand, assumed that it did.

You did read that last sentence, didn't you? No, I bet you didn't. Here it is again for your perusal:

Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step-by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance.

You said that Darwin showed that it couldn't have come about by chance. Dawkins, far better read than you, says that Darwin DID say that it was by chance.

Even Dawkins admits that the process isn't by chance, as you inadvertently admitted here.

It is essential, nay, imperative for Dawkins case that it WASN'T by chance. Unfortunately for you, Darwin did say so.

Now, are you Darwin's or Dawkins' disciple? They flatly contradict each other, and you would be lying to say otherwise.

If you tossed a coin a hundred times, but only counted the heads that appeared on odd tosses, would the result be random? No, it wouldn't.

That is pure nonsense, and you should know better. If the result is non-random, then the coin is biassed. Or the counting is biassed and unfair. Evolution is a random process, as I have shown you on countless occasions now.

The mutations occur randomly, and any selection is based on this random occurrence. You are deceitfully attempting to load the dice by, to use Dawkins' analogy, bringing in a selecting Head Monkey who accepts the useful and rejects the useless.

And in any case, you have no real evidence of beneficial mutations occurring. I've seen you produce some ridiculous 'examples' which could have no possible effect on the generation of new species or higher taxa.

That article I quoted above buries you even deeper as far as the human species is concerned.

Amazing stupidity

No. Not stupidity. You just don't know enough about biology to understand the quotes you mine for us.

The usual pathetic bleat emerges once more.

You have mined innumerable quotes of monumental irrelevancy - the last 2 being prize examples - hoping that I and others would be overimpressed with the heavy type and citation of the references, and fearfully creep away.

However, I read them, and can detect irrelevance a mile away. You, on the other hand, can't, and it is your total failure to be able to distinguish between the relevant and the irrelevant that you have demonstrated. You have also satisfactorily demonstrated a total inability to distinguish between HOW and WHY in your answers.

Even more amazing stupidity:

38 Nobel Laureates: http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/darwin.htm

"Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."

Sounds like chance to me!

Do you agree that we have there a very fair description of 'by chance'? From 38 Nobel laureates?

Well, that might be stupid. Many unguided unplanned processes are not random. And a random process, winnowed by a non-random process, is not random. I gave you an example, above.

Your pathetic examples don't wash. You are presupposing, as Dawkins so foolishly does, the presence of a Head Monkey, selecting material from a randomly generated series of typed letters, on a pre-established basis,.

If you were to stand there picking out the relevant letters of 'methinks it is like a weasel' as and when the key is hit by a monkey, then the process cannot reasonably be described as 'random'.

Nor would it take very long! I think Dawkins got the sentence in 43 goes. Which, you will agree, is an idiotically low number.

That is Dawkins' folly, as both Lennox and Berlinski point out painfully. You're in bad company.

But what the hey, that's only Dawkins, Dennett and 38 Nobel Laureates. What do they know about what Darwin said?

They actually read what he wrote. So they have a considerable advantage on you.

I'm pleased that you admit that they read Darwin.

Now when 38 Nobel Laureates who read Darwin, agree that Darwin said that it was a chance process, then does that make me a Nobel Laureate too, because I figured that out years ago?

You certainly don't know any better than the 39 of us. Do you agree?

 

[Grazer]

But John Lennox only argues against evolution being a mindless unguided process, not against evolution itself. I'm sure that's the basis of Francis Collins's rebuttal to Dawkins as well.

 

[Sparkey]

Thought-provoking points and an entirely fascinating link. Thanks. As you would expect, I disagree with the implications you draw, but appreciate the elegance with which you have expressed them.

Implications? What, other than anthropomorphism, is this discussion about? I don't believe that our ability to notice mathematical relationships in nature proves anything except that we like to notice such things and point to our favorite conclusions about things that are not understood.

When we look at natural processes and say, "Look! That is Math!" -- then conclude, "O! It must be God" I don't argue directly, being Christian, but where does the bible say that God is a mathematician?? This certainly is not my belief. He is not limited in any way. Why, math does not even include infinity as a number. One implication would be that God can not be described (or even approached) by mathematical science. Mathematics makes no attempt at describing or approximating the Christian God; the Bible makes no attempt at describing or approximating the mathematical process. There should be no argument.

(Looking forward to hearing your criticism, as always)
~Michael

 

[Asyncritus]

When we look at natural processes and say, "Look! That is Math!" -- then conclude, "O! It must be God" I don't argue directly, being Christian, but where does the bible say that God is a mathematician??

I am somewhat perplexed about this comment SH.

The Bible begins with SEVEN days of creation. The book of Revelation is crammed from top to bottom with series of SEVENS. The sabbath is the SEVENTH day of the week. There are 10 commandments.

God declares that He can name the stars: and by implication, count them.

I could go on, but surely that tells us something about His mathematical abilities? And when we find about 14 features of seven in the first verse of Genesis, it should make us take a very respectful step back to His mathematical prowess.

Why should it say He is a mathematician? It's everywhere on the pages of the Bible.

 

[Asyncritus]

But John Lennox only argues against evolution being a mindless unguided process, not against evolution itself. I'm sure that's the basis of Francis Collins's rebuttal to Dawkins as well.

Grazer

I have revisited God's Undertaker, and cannot agree with your assessment of Lennox' position vis a vis evolution.

He is very severe on Dawkins, as is only to be expected - but since Dawkins is the acknowledged high priest of evolution, it is very obvious that Lennox views evolution with considerable disfavour.

The whole of ch 5, entitled 'Designer Biosphere' is against evolution. Its very name tells us that.

Chapter 6 has the interesting quotation from The Mathematics of Evolution which he clearly approves:

'Why no trace of the fabled blind watchmaker? The simplest explanation is that, like the ether, the blind watchmaker does not exist'.

 

[Barbarian]

Dawkins, begging every question going, and introducing the ridiculous monkeys on typewriters analogy, admits that evolution COULDN'T HAVE BEEN BY CHANCE.

Darwin on the other hand, assumed that it did.

Nope. His answer was natural selection, which as you learned, is the antithesis of chance. Read his book and learn.

You did read that last sentence, didn't you? No, I bet you didn't. Here it is again for your perusal:

Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step-by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance.

Well, let's take a look...

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species

Surprise.

You said that Darwin showed that it couldn't have come about by chance.

Yep. See above. Natural selection is not a matter of chance. As Darwin wrote.

Dawkins, far better read than you, says that Darwin DID say that it was by chance.

If so, too bad for him. He'll get no support from Darwin or evolutionary theory.

It is essential, nay, imperative for Dawkins case that it WASN'T by chance. Unfortunately for you, Darwin did say so.

See above. You've been snockered again, because you don't think for yourself.

Now, are you Darwin's or Dawkins' disciple? They flatly contradict each other, and you would be lying to say otherwise.

I haven't read much about Dawkin's views, except Goulds review of "hyperselectionism."

Barbarian observes:
If you tossed a coin a hundred times, but only counted the heads that appeared on odd tosses, would the result be random? No, it wouldn't.

That is pure nonsense

It's mathematically demonstrable. Would you like me to show you?

If the result is non-random, then the coin is biassed. Or the counting is biassed and unfair.

It's simple. A random process, like flipping coins or mutations, when acted upon by a non-random process like natural selection, produces a non-random result.

Evolution is a random process

I know you want us to believe you, but the evidence shows something quite different.

The mutations occur randomly, and any selection is based on this random occurrence.

And yet you always get a non-random result. Surprise.

You are deceitfully attempting to load the dice

The way natural selection loads the dice. It winnows out the harmful and preserves the useful. That's how it works.

And in any case, you have no real evidence of beneficial mutations occurring.

You've been shown numerous examples here. No point in denying it. Everyone knows.

I've seen you produce some ridiculous 'examples' which could have no possible effect on the generation of new species or higher taxa.

The first one I showed you produced a new species. Want to see it again?

Barbarian chuckles:
No. Not stupidity. You just don't know enough about biology to understand the quotes you mine for us.

You have mined innumerable quotes of monumental irrelevancy - the last 2 being prize examples - hoping that I and others would be overimpressed with the heavy type and citation of the references, and fearfully creep away.

They aren't quotes. They are evidence from the literature. And they aren't overly technical or difficult. If you'd spend a little more time learning about the issue in the literature, you wouldn't be so easy to flummox.

38 Nobel Laureates: http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/darwin.htm
"Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."

Sounds like chance to me!

Gravity is unguided and unplanned. If a rock falls, it doesn't fall in a random direction. You made a bad assumption, and it led you to a foolish conclusion.

Do you agree that we have there a very fair description of 'by chance'? From 38 Nobel laureates?

As you see, they said "random variation and natural selection." You just hit the wall again.

Many unguided unplanned processes are not random. And a random process, winnowed by a non-random process, is not random. I gave you an example, above.

Your pathetic examples don't wash.

It's quite sufficient to show why your assumption is wrong.

You are presupposing, as Dawkins so foolishly does, the presence of a Head Monkey

Nope. Just a Creator powerful enough to create a universe in which such wonders can happen.

But what the hey, that's only Dawkins, Dennett and 38 Nobel Laureates. What do they know about what Darwin said?

Enough to realize that evolution isn't a random process.

They actually read what he wrote. So they have a considerable advantage on you.
I'm pleased that you admit that they read Darwin.

Now when 38 Nobel Laureates who read Darwin, agree that Darwin said that it was a chance process

As you just learned, neither Darwin nor those scientists said it was a chance process. Nice try, though.

then does that make me a Nobel Laureate too, because I figured that out years ago?

Reality just blindsided you again.

You certainly don't know any better than the 39 of us.

Turns out, there's only one of you, after all. The scientists, notice, said that it was random mutation and natural selection, not chance.

Read about it, and learn.

 

[Barbarian]

Fred Williams, bless his soul (and I mean that sincerely; I kinda like the guy) is still working on Remine's revision of "Haldane's Dilemma." But it's not a concern for science, and hasn't been for a long time.

Haldane's Dilemma refers to a limit on the speed of beneficial evolution, first calculated by J. B. S. Haldane in 1957, and clarified further by later commentators. Creationists, and proponents of intelligent design in particular, claim it remains unresolved. Contrary to creationist claims, Haldane's dilemma is of no importance in the evolutionary genetics literature. Today, Haldane's Dilemma is raised mostly by creationists opposed to evolution, who claim it is evidence against large-scale evolution, and a supposed example of negligence on the part of the scientific community.

Haldane stated at the time of publication "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision", and subsequent corrected calculations found that the cost disappears. He had made an invalid simplifying assumption which negated his assumption of constant population size, and had also incorrectly assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, while sexual recombination means that two can be selected simultaneously so that both reach fixation more quickly. The creationist claim is based on further errors and invalid assumptions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane's_dilemma

This from talk.origins:
ReMine (1993), who promotes the claim, makes several invalid assumptions. His model is contradicted by the following:

The vast majority of differences would probably be due to genetic drift, not selection.

Many genes would have been linked with genes that are selected and thus would have hitchhiked with them to fixation.

Many mutations, such as those due to unequal crossing over, affect more than one codon.

Human and ape genes both would be diverging from the common ancestor, doubling the difference.

ReMine's computer simulation supposedly showing the negative influence of Haldane's dilemma assumed a population size of only six (Musgrave 1999).

Big goofs, those.

 

[Grazer]

Grazer

I have revisited God's Undertaker, and cannot agree with your assessment of Lennox' position vis a vis evolution.

He is very severe on Dawkins, as is only to be expected - but since Dawkins is the acknowledged high priest of evolution, it is very obvious that Lennox views evolution with considerable disfavour.

The whole of ch 5, entitled 'Designer Biosphere' is against evolution. Its very name tells us that.

Chapter 6 has the interesting quotation from The Mathematics of Evolution which he clearly approves:

'Why no trace of the fabled blind watchmaker? The simplest explanation is that, like the ether, the blind watchmaker does not exist'.

I'll need to re-read those chapters because I came to a completely different view on the points he makes. I dont know him personally so cannot say what his views on the theory are, only that he has only challenged the theological conclusions people have drawn from it.

Care needs to be taken reading too much into titles. Stephen Hawkings last book was called The Grand Design but that was precisely what the book set out to deny/refute. Also, I think John Lennox does approve of that quote, so do I but that doesn't mean either of us disbelieve the theory of evolution.

 

[Sparkey]

I am somewhat perplexed about this comment SH.

The Bible begins with SEVEN days of creation. The book of Revelation is crammed from top to bottom with series of SEVENS. The sabbath is the SEVENTH day of the week. There are 10 commandments.

God declares that He can name the stars: and by implication, count them.

I could go on, but surely that tells us something about His mathematical abilities? And when we find about 14 features of seven in the first verse of Genesis, it should make us take a very respectful step back to His mathematical prowess.

Why should it say He is a mathematician? It's everywhere on the pages of the Bible.

Mathematicians absolutely love the idea that their science can describe God. "It's like looking into the very mind of god," they say. Yeah, the bible contains numbers - but it does not elevate knowledge to a divine state. Math does not show the mind of God. I am simply astounded that some think this is the case.

You make the case that mathematical realism is plausible only within a theistic worldview. I'm much more comfortable simply stating that I don't understand. Trying to force a conclusion from something obviously outside my depth doesn't seem prudent. Plato and Pythagoras would agree with you. They both believed that it is man's duty to discover the various mathematical properties that exist somewhere "out there", independent of and outside of human minds. Most mathematicians believe that numbers, equations, perfect circles, and so on, exist in some ideal, abstract sense.

I disagree. To me, math is a tool invented to help describe observations. They go too far when they invent non-physical entities and ascribe ideal properties to 'them'. Nothing to worship there.

 

[Asyncritus]

Nope. His answer was natural selection, which as you learned, is the antithesis of chance. Read his book and learn.

Which part of this don't you understand?

Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step-by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance.

As you're so convinced that Darwin didn't say so, I think you'd better write Dawkins and remind him that he was WRONG then. Try doing that and see how far you'll get.

Well, let's take a look...

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species

This is him making a friendly nod to appease the wrath he knew was going to descend. Having spent a whole book saying the exact opposite, he now begs off - and more fool you for not recognising and for swallowing his 'apology'.

The man is at least consistent. In the Descent of Man he practically advocates the genocidal elimination of the 'sub-species' on the basis of the 'survival of the fittest' doctrine he espoused and taught in this evil book. Hitler and the rest thought this was great, and set about putting the teachings into practice - which we know as social Darwinism.

Dawkins, far better read than you, says that Darwin DID say that it was by chance.
If so, too bad for him. He'll get no support from Darwin or evolutionary theory.

Well, aha! The first crack in the evolutionary establishment appears. Are you sure you don't want the wrath of the high priest descend on you?

But you have now guiltily agreed that Dawkins does say that Darwin said that chance was the thing. I remind you that Dawkins is better read than you, and you should bow to his superior knowledge and acquaintance with the literature! So polish up those knees!

It is essential, nay, imperative for Dawkins case that it WASN'T by chance. Unfortunately for you, Darwin did say so.
See above. You've been snockered again, because you don't think for yourself.

Now here's the pot calling the kettle black! You've been backed into smuggling design (as opposed to chance) into (alleged) evolutionary processes.

You have done so just as your high priest does, by attributing qualities of design ability to something that clearly could not possibly possess them. In fact, possessing them is a flat denial of the nature of evolution.

I could quotemine a dozen evolutionists all saying words to the effect that evolution is a chance process, but all of whom, like you, are trying very hard to smuggle a Designer in by the back door.

For the benefit of any reader who isn't acquainted with Dawkins' analogy, let me try to paraphrase.

Dawkins attempts to prove that a zillion monkeys, typing away on a zillion typewriters at random, will very shortly produce the sentence 'methinks it is like a weasel'.

I emphasise the 'very shortly' because Dawkins, like every intelligent writer, recognises the simple fact that it would take from here to infinity for those monkeys to produce the works of Shakespeare.

Therefore, he reasons, he has to shorten the process somehow. How?

By assuming that every time a letter is typed in the right place, that letter is fixed somehow. Berlinski mocks this by saying that there must be a Head Monkey there making the decisions about whether to retain the letter there or not! I find that quite amusing.

That is precisely what Barbarian is saying.

Mutation produces some quality which is beneficial (a highly questionable assumption, but we'll let that pass).

Then what happens? That quality is 'selected' and remains in the population. So over a long time(Q = beneficial quality) Q1 + Q2 +Q3 + Q4.....etc all add up to new species, and ultimately new phyla such as reptiles into birds.

But you notice, 'selection' is what he says has occurred. That is an unfortunate choice of word, because it takes some form of intelligence to make the 'selection'!

Also, the Head Monkey must know WHAT HE IS SELECTING FOR! There is an end in view.

But all that is the exact opposite of the evolutionary paradigm.

That is 'teleology' to use evolution's favourite, and most feared bogey-word. There is a distinct end in view, for which the selections are made.

Sorry Barbarian. You can't have your cake and eat it at the same time. They were designed. And design, as Paley said so long ago, requires the existence of a Designer. Design is the exact antithesis of chance occurrences.

Now, are you Darwin's or Dawkins' disciple? They flatly contradict each other, and you would be lying to say otherwise.
I haven't read much about Dawkin's views, except Goulds review of "hyperselectionism."

Perhaps you should. After all, he is the high priest. Add something to his coffers. As Berlinski said, the only reason Dawkins isn't activating for Darwin's likeness to appear on more British pound notes, is because he's been too busy counting them of late!

Barbarian observes:
If you tossed a coin a hundred times, but only counted [the Head Monkey reappears!]the heads that appeared on odd tosses, would the result be random? No, it wouldn't.

That is pure nonsense

It's mathematically demonstrable. Would you like me to show you?

Yes. Go right ahead. LK, you've had some statistical training. Please observe and criticise the procedure when necessary.

If the result is non-random, then the coin is biassed. Or the counting is biassed and unfair.

It's simple. A random process, like flipping coins or mutations, when acted upon by a non-random process like natural selection, produces a non-random result.

So NS has some form of intelligence to select the good ones. That is exactly what you're saying here. You're trying to smuggle in the Head Monkey again.

And that Head Monkey has instructions to select with an end in view.

Sorry. You can't have your cake and eat it at the same time, as I've said before.

Evolution is a random process
I know you want us to believe you, but the evidence shows something quite different.

Darwin, Dawkins, Dunnett, Ruse, and I don't care to count how many others, say it is a random process. Barbarian says it isn't. Well....

And in any case, you have no real evidence of beneficial mutations occurring.
You've been shown numerous examples here. No point in denying it. Everyone knows.

Those trashy example you brought up? Everyone knows just how useless they are in producing the Cambrian explosion, and all the others that have occurred.

Try another tack.

I've seen you produce some ridiculous 'examples' which could have no possible effect on the generation of new species or higher taxa.

The first one I showed you produced a new species. Want to see it again?

Yes. Go right ahead, and while you're at it, show how youw speciation rates could account for the CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION.

Hi chuckles:

No. Not stupidity. You just don't know enough about biology to understand the quotes you mine for us.

You have mined innumerable quotes of monumental irrelevancy - the last 2 being prize examples - hoping that I and others would be overimpressed with the heavy type and citation of the references, and fearfully creep away.

They aren't quotes. They are evidence from the literature. And they aren't overly technical or difficult. If you'd spend a little more time learning about the issue in the literature, you wouldn't be so easy to flummox.

If you'd spend some time THINKING CRITICALLY about what you read in the literature and not SIMPLY SWALLOWING what you read in the literature, you would be far better off.

38 Nobel Laureates: http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/darwin.htm
"Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."

Sounds like chance to me!

And probably to everybody else, bar you.

Gravity is unguided and unplanned. If a rock falls, it doesn't fall in a random direction. You made a bad assumption, and it led you to a foolish conclusion.

We are not discussing physics here - but I again point out that when Sir Isaac Newton discovered the mathematics behind the law of gravity, he didn't immediately start prancing round shouting 'hey look, this is unguided and unplanned'. Far from it, and you as a catholic should take the same POV.

What did he say?

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being.

Do you agree that we have there a very fair description of 'by chance'? From 38 Nobel laureates?

As you see, they said "random variation and natural selection." You just hit the wall again.

I really worry about those blinkers you're wearing. Here they are again. Which piece of this don't you understand?

38 Nobel Laureates: http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/darwin.htm

"Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."

Those 3 words really make your case distressingly nonsensical.

What were they again? Repeat after me. All together now:

UNGUIDED. UNPLANNED. RANDOM.

You get the impression that they're talking about CHANCE here? Here's Merriam Webster to help you:
a : something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause

You are presupposing, as Dawkins so foolishly does, the presence of a Head Monkey

Nope. Just a Creator powerful enough to create a universe in which such wonders can happen.

You've gone that far as to accept the existence of a Creator. Why not go the whole way?

They actually read what he wrote. So they have a considerable advantage on you.

I'm pleased that you admit that they read Darwin.

Now when 38 Nobel Laureates who read Darwin, agree that Darwin said that it was a chance process

As you just learned, neither Darwin nor those scientists said it was a chance process. Nice try, though.

See above. And repeat after me. Slowly and carefully now:

UNGUIDED. UNPLANNED. RANDOM.

You certainly don't know any better than the 39 of us.
Turns out, there's only one of you, after all. The scientists, notice, said that it was random mutation and natural selection, not chance.

Repeat after me:
UNGUIDED. UNPLANNED. RANDOM.

So to return to my OP.

There before us is very clear evidence of design in the lilies (3's in the monocots, 4s and 5s in the dicots, and all the other carefully counted and designed structures in the living world).

These structures are intelligently designed, carefully constructed, and planned for us to admire and discover and enjoy.

Not for us to yank away the glory from The Creator of all things who has done all things so well, so perfectly and so completely, and hand it over to this creation myth of our time.

 

[cupid dave]

Gardner's model has 8 intelligences and he considered adding a ninth.

That is true.

His original Thesis which was the basis of his Famenenumerated only 7, and never investigated Emotional Intellihence which seemed a mistake IMO.

These first sven are tied into archetypal sources as can be seen by the names he used to distinguish them, one from the other.
The main applications of Gardner's work came from the Education Community which immediately applied the seven intelliegences touses in their teaching model.

Sparked by theinterestworld=wide and the immediate eductional applications, Gardner continued to futher differentiate the first seven into subdivisions.

For instance, the connection between the Libido and what Gardner initially developed as the Kinesthetic Intelligence that is sourced from lead him to define Cooking Intelligence.
That is merely a specific expression of Kinesthetic Intelligence.

Gardner continues to capitalize upon his initial work, but in the classroom, his 7 major archetypal divisions remain the basis for applications in Education:

 

[cupid dave]

Mathematicians absolutely love the idea that their science can describe God. "It's like looking into the very mind of god," they say. Yeah, the bible contains numbers - but it does not elevate knowledge to a divine state. Math does not show the mind of God. I am simply astounded that some think this is the case.

You make the case that mathematical realism is plausible only within a theistic worldview. I'm much more comfortable simply stating that I don't understand. Trying to force a conclusion from something obviously outside my depth doesn't seem prudent. Plato and Pythagoras would agree with you. They both believed that it is man's duty to discover the various mathematical properties that exist somewhere "out there", independent of and outside of human minds. Most mathematicians believe that numbers, equations, perfect circles, and so on, exist in some ideal, abstract sense.

I disagree. To me, math is a tool invented to help describe observations. They go too far when they invent non-physical entities and ascribe ideal properties to 'them'. Nothing to worship there.

I am not sure what is the point here, above, but I remind you that by using numbers it is man who can model the Creation and the Natural Laws used to form it.
It is not relevent whether the Creator actually counts as those Law operate with such precision that we can number and account their activity.

My point is that everything that exists external to us is the almighty force of Reality to "whom" men must bow and from whom thyey can not escape until death do they part.

Very hair on our head can be numbered and our very eistence is controlled by a genetic encoding. This Creator does not count perhaps, but "He" performs in ways that man's Mathematical/Logical Intelligence can see his hand at work reaching solutions and producing consequences by the numbers we use.

This means that the whole Cosmos and our experiences here in this Reality are interwoven in this same web of inter-related Natural Laws that represent a concert of orchestrated harmony that defines existence.

It is like music that every beat and tone is counted out in a pefection that we can analyze mathematically, if we wish, but the song of life is played by ear.

 

[cupid dave]

There are 29 extinct species.

None of them are spoken of in the bible.

Source...?

 

[cupid dave]

Let me put paid to this piece of nonsense which you continually parrot:



"We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance. How, then, did they come into existence? The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step-by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance.

Each successive change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple enough, relative to its predecessor, to have arisen by chance." (THE BLIND WATCHMAKER; 1986)

Amazing stupidity:

"Whereas people used to think of meaning coming from on high and being ordained from the top down, now we have Darwin saying, No, all of this design can happen, all of this purpose can emerge from the bottom up, without any direction at all." (http: //216.92.11.9/portal/Daniel_Dennett/)

Sounds like chance to me!

Even more amazing stupidity:

38 Nobel Laureates: http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/darwin.htm

[FONT=&quot]"Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."

[/FONT]Sounds like chance to me!

But what the hey, that's only Dawkins, Dennett and 38 Nobel Laureates. What do they know about what Darwin said?

You certainly know better. Don't you?

It is hard to conceive of small simple changes gradually transforming living things in what appears to have been very radical ways because the idea of a million years is unfathonable for us, the product of only about 5000 years of civilization.

But the one hing wedo know is that Change is the only thing permanent about this existence where al life is trapped within the ever unfolding Reality that maust be faced in order not to become Extinct.

That ever changing force in the life of all organisms is the creator of those that manage to continue the trip through time with this merciless dictator to whom all must bow down.

Man has become wiser over the Seven Ages because counting has contributed to his survival, as have all the other things man has invented and utilized.
Certainly, we can all see the Social Evolution that has made men today quite different from the Cave man, and the change from the agricultural Age to the Atomic Age is a sign of these changes which are forced upon us or else.

We can see the 7 billion humans as evidence that we have learned to adapt to the Reality confronting us by changing the way we behave.
We read what is science fiction concerning things to come 200 year fom now and see man as transforming into a creature more and more unlike what we are today.

It seems merely common sense that we are becoming new creatures ever since we appeared 7 million years ago. We can look back 4000 years and see great diferences in that short a time, image looking back a 1000 times further and a 1000 times ahead.

 

[Adam]

That is true.

His original Thesis which was the basis of his Famenenumerated only 7, and never investigated Emotional Intellihence which seemed a mistake IMO.

These first sven are tied into archetypal sources as can be seen by the names he used to distinguish them, one from the other.
The main applications of Gardner's work came from the Education Community which immediately applied the seven intelliegences touses in their teaching model.

Sparked by theinterestworld=wide and the immediate eductional applications, Gardner continued to futher differentiate the first seven into subdivisions.

For instance, the connection between the Libido and what Gardner initially developed as the Kinesthetic Intelligence that is sourced from lead him to define Cooking Intelligence.
That is merely a specific expression of Kinesthetic Intelligence.

Gardner continues to capitalize upon his initial work, but in the classroom, his 7 major archetypal divisions remain the basis for applications in Education:

Gardner created the eighth because he recognized it fit into his criteria for what consituted a behavior.

Every one of your claims regarding this subject have been grossly innacurate.

"Libido"? No, not Gardner.

Insisting that only 7 intelligences are used in the classroom? Sorry, no.

Referring to the intelligences as "archetypal divisions"? Again, no.

Implying that the 8th is a subdivision and not in equal status as the other 7? No.

 

[Adam]

Source...?

It's called the bible.

 

[cupid dave]

I disagree. To me, math is a tool invented to help describe observations.

.

Mathematicians tend to disagree with you, in that they believe that not only is the math restrained by the relationship of the logical connections between them, but that they feel they are discovering the new relationships that exist but have just been unknown o them prior to then.

This is to say, the mathematics are already a fixed set of relationships that exist, and math researchers are just finding more and more out about that structure.

That physical applications become apparent over time hasbeen demonstrated in many cases, such as the Boolian Algbra that was more a math game played by mathematicians before Electronics was develiped and the math explained Logic Gates and the the whole relationship between the game and the real world.

Our computers' language today is basically constructed using Boolian Algbra.

 

[cupid dave]

Gardner created the eighth because he recognized it fit into his criteria for what consituted a behavior.

Every one of your claims regarding this subject have been grossly innacurate.

"Libido"? No, not Gardner.

Insisting that only 7 intelligences are used in the classroom? Sorry, no.

Referring to the intelligences as "archetypal divisions"? Again, no.

Implying that the 8th is a subdivision and not in equal status as the other 7? No.

Yeah, it hard to convince some people that these seven intelliegences are tied into our Freudian archetypal behavior, but the physical behaviors of athelets rationally seem to be connected with the Libido, for instance, which is certainly the source of their physical energies.

The present weak science of psychology does not even have strong empiricaloofs for the seven archetypes, but most people can see the Ego at work in a slaeman who is strong in Interperson Intelliegence.


If one checks out Learning Style it become immediately evident that the educators agree with me, there are seven intelliegences that they deal with:


The Seven Learning Styles

• Visual (spatial):You prefer using pictures, images, and spatial understanding.
• Aural (auditory-musical): You prefer using sound and music.
• Verbal (linguistic): You prefer using words, both in speech and writing.
• Physical (kinesthetic): You prefer using your body, hands and sense of touch.
• Logical (mathematical): You prefer using logic, reasoning and systems.
• Social (interpersonal): You prefer to learn in groups or with other people.
• Solitary (intrapersonal): You prefer to work alone and use self-study.

Things like Math seem pretty reasonable associated with the nerdy Superego, while the Spacial Intelligence is reasonable connected to the way women think si much more so than men, i.e., Anima: prefer using pictures, images, and spatial understanding.









Why Learning Styles? Understand the basis of learning styles

Your learning styles have more influence than you may realize. Your preferred styles guide the way you learn. They also change the way you internally represent experiences, the way you recall information, and even the words you choose. We explore more of these features in this chapter.
Research shows us that each learning style uses different parts of the brain. By involving more of the brain during learning, we remember more of what we learn. Researchers using brain-imaging technologies have been able to find out the key areas of the brain responsible for each learning style.
For example:

• Visual: The occipital lobes at the back of the brain manage the visual sense. Both the occipital and parietal lobes manage spatial orientation.
• Aural: The temporal lobes handle aural content. The right temporal lobe is especially important for music.
• Verbal: The temporal and frontal lobes, especially two specialized areas called Broca�s and Wernicke�s areas (in the left hemisphere of these two lobes).
• Physical: The cerebellum and the motor cortex (at the back of the frontal lobe) handle much of our physical movement.
• Logical: The parietal lobes, especially the left side, drive our logical thinking.
• Social: The frontal and temporal lobes handle much of our social activities. The limbic system (not shown apart from the hippocampus) also influences both the social and solitary styles. The limbic system has a lot to do with emotions, moods and aggression.
• Solitary: The frontal and parietal lobes, and the limbic system, are also active with this style.

 

[Adam]

Yeah, it hard to convince some people that these seven intelliegences are tied into our Freudian archetypal behavior,

That's because there are neither seven intelligences in Gardner's model or 7 Freudian archetypes.

Or, if there is some book of Freud's which only you and no one else in history has read that details these "7 archetypes" please tell me the title, so that I may read it for myself.

 

[Adam]

If one checks out Learning Style it become immediately evident that the educators agree with me, there are seven intelliegences.

www.ldrc.ca/projects/miinventory/miinventory.php?eightstyles=1
www.quizlet.com/12966964/eight-styles-of-learning-flash-cards/
www.breitlinks.com/careers/
www.ms8hw.pbworks.com/f/Eight+Learning+Styles.ppt
www.daniellinton.blogspot.com/2009/10/haaah.html
www.9types.com/chatboard/messages/17260.html
http://www.uniquedailyarticles.com/...-Evolution-and-the-Eight-Learning-Styles.html
www.glencoe.com/ps/teachingtoday/educationupclose.phtml/7
www.amazingcatechists.com/2010/05/using-different-learning-styles/
www.americasangel.org/parent-resources/learning-styles/multiple-intelligences/
www.klstagg.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/reflection-5-learning-styles.pdf
http://teamtutors.com/documents/new..._Your_Childs_Learning_Style_February_2010.pdf
www.heathwood.org/ourprogram/SCJAS11doc/gSmith.pdf
www.johnwmsanders.com/Sanders%20%20Hausler%20(PK)-2.doc
http://www.oncoursesystems.com/school/webpage.aspx?id=482441&xpage=544688
http://www.ehow.com/info_8561113_learning-styles-inventory-teachers.html
www.swiha.edu/articles/196-psychology-academics-vs-attitude.html
http://www.passingexams.co.nz/downloads/other/Dicovering_How_You_Learn_Best.pdf

I could continue, but I believe any reasonable person can see my point: among those who accept different intelligences regarding learning styles, eight is a standard number.

And while there is not a consensus on whether there are 6, 7, 8 or 9, if you are going to appeal to Gardner's model, you must actually USE his model, in which he has enumerated 8 Intelligences.

If you want to think that there are only 7, that's fine. After all, it is only a model. But you can no longer appeal to Gardner, because your model is not in agreement with his.