< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
|Dec-13-16|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: <Big Pawn:> Very good!|
|Dec-13-16|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: <Richard Taylor:> I would like to see market solutions and prioritization on the lines of what Bjørn Lomborg proposes. He doesn't deny AGW but thinks there are far cheaper solutions that will help far more people. https://www.prageru.com/courses/env...|
The zonal should be good fun especially so close. Merry Christmas to you and yours too.
|Dec-14-16|| ||Richard Taylor: Regardless of Climate Change. It was very easy to solve all pollution problems in the Capitalist countries at a cost of about 10% of the GDP in the 70s. However the problems are connected also to not only economic problems but to the problem of knowledge. That is to know something the second criteria you have to believe that thing to be true (it has to be true)...regardless of the truth or not of AGW or even the "truth" of various political solutions, in some cases those and in fact people throughout the world have to believe it. Now this isn't to do with religion or anything. Someone simply has to stop believing something to be true (no reason has to be given or even assumed) and they then don't have knowledge. |
This makes knowledge a social question not simply a scientific or economic or a measurable thing. In the end we have to go by commonsense!
I don't try to prove GW but I don't think the taxes proposed have much effect. They are the least the UN etc can propose.
But in NZ I think it is good we spend money on protecting species, watching the high levels of river pollution from fertiliser (overuse) and the problems of erosion as well as the need for rabbit and other control. In additon I think subsidies in NZ and possibly the US are almost essential in some circumstances for farmers. As to tax it needs to be weighted against the very rich in my view. But obviously at the moment, in theory, it would be foolish to diminish Big Money (corrupt as they are) so paradoxically Trump has a point...he is a kind of latter day Muldoon. But de facto the usual market forces will continue...
That said, the real problem with Trump is the corrupt nature of the individual and the ideas he and his followers spread. He is someone they need to get out of the way quickly.
[BP thinks I mean he should be assassinated!! I can see he talks on here but I have him "switched off" as he is like a worn out record and very unimaginative and rather tedious.]
Unfortunately Trump is encouraging the downgrading of women, black people, immigrants and ethnicities of many kinds and putting the boot into those who are disadvantaged.
But we will see what happens.
|Dec-14-16|| ||Richard Taylor: Re the Chess. I am now approaching 69 so I am not sure. When I think about playing, I know I wont improve, but there is always a sense of "what if"....|
Each chess game is like a journey...the "road not taken" and all that. But reality kicks in. Bruce Watson isn't playing as he does a mowing round and has to keep working and I think he likes to be on holiday....
But it is one week with 2 days of 2 rounds so I am still deliberating. I wont have another chance. I might beat that GM!
because my rating has dropped it is possible that in Rd 1 I will face an IM or a GM. Of course in all likelihood I'll be leveled but I was glad to get the chance to play the various IMs and FMs as well as GM Rasmussen in 2015 which was an exciting game given the time pressure he was under...!! But I cracked first.
Leonard McClaren is going to play I think. He has some chances of getting good rating points. Bruce Watson had a chance although he always seems to go under against Solomon.
Earlier this year I talked with Gary Lane about his book on the Scotch etc and in fact I mentioned I was playing it during the game I was playing (last round) and he gave me the thumbs up. But then I played a move I had always known was dubious and eventually lost. But I still like the opening as well as the Ruy. If I play I am still an 1 e4 player....
Oh well, I will have to balance it up. I can save $160.00 and work on my house (slowly painting it and repairing etc)...or go on a short holiday or...play the terrible addictive game of chess!
All the best again.
|Dec-21-16|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: Sometimes the liberal Catholic arguments of the likes of <optimal play> aren't much different to those of atheists.|
|Dec-23-16|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: Review of “Creation, Evolution, and Catholicism: A Discussion for Those Who Believe”|
December 22, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - Evolutionary theory and its arguably massive negative impact on modern culture has come under closer scrutiny and greater criticism in recent decades. The following detailed, scholarly review of Thomas L. McFadden’s recently published book on the subject would hopefully interest readers in purchasing a copy of the 275-page book. This could help them to better comprehend many of the controversies covered in LifeSite reports. Although the title refers to Catholicism, non-Catholic Christians would also benefit from the book.
Creation, Evolution, and Catholicism: A Discussion for Those Who Believe, by Thomas L. McFadden, North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2016.
|Dec-23-16|| ||saffuna: <Evolutionary theory and its arguably massive negative impact on modern culture has come under closer scrutiny and greater criticism in recent decades. >|
The impact of the theory of evolution has nothing to do with whether it is true.
|Dec-23-16|| ||diceman: <saffuna: <Evolutionary theory and its arguably massive negative impact on modern culture has come under closer scrutiny and greater criticism in recent decades. >|
The impact of the theory of evolution has nothing to do with whether it is true.>
Is "impact" the same as "negative impact?"
|Dec-23-16|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: <saffuna>, I never claimed otherwise. Similarly, it is possible to deal with both the negative impact and falsity, as per the review cited. Elsewhere, I have pointed out:|
The two main *logically independent* issues that CMI addresses are:
1. Is evolution right?
2. Why does it matter?
|Dec-23-16|| ||Big Pawn: <1. Is evolution right?>|
Evolution is a word that lends itself to abuse by way of equivocation. In a nutshell, we have scientific evidence of what can be called <micro evolution> but to extrapolate that to mean there is evidence for <macro evolution> is where the problem lies.
Scientists can show that bacteria evolves, but to then to say that explains how bananas and humans evolved from the same stuff is just too much.
Perhaps animals of like kinds can develop differences, like wolves, coyotes and dogs, but we can't go beyond that and say that one <kind> of animal produces another <kind> of animal.
We have never seen an animal of one <kind> produce animals of other <kinds>. All animals that are of the dog kind produce more dogs etc...
Same is true for birds on isolated islands or spotted moths.
Evidence for <micro evolution>? Perhaps.
Evidence for <macro evolution>? None.
The only <evidence> that exists isn't really evidence at all. You'll have one scientist point to another and say, just ask him, there's mountains of evidence. And then that scientist laughs and scoffs and refers to other mountains of evidence, but there really is no evidence.
All of the evidence, and it's important that people understand this, is in the imagination. We are <asked to imagine> how evolution could be true and that's all there is to it.
Of course, if evolution was true (macro evolution) it wouldn't show that God doesn't exist or that moral values do not exist objectively. It would only show that people have read Genesis wrong or that the bible has errors. However, biblical inerrancy is not an argument against theism either. It's all a dead end, but this dead end is where we find all the arrogant atheist gathered up in one place, trying to comfort each other with fairy tales.
|Dec-24-16|| ||diceman: <Big Pawn:
The only <evidence> that exists isn't really evidence at all.>
How did we get from evolution to
"The Great Society" and "Global Warming?"
|Dec-24-16|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: <Big Pawn:> We advise against the micro- / macro-evolution distinction, because the issue is not the size of change but its direction. http://creation.com/the-evolution-t...|
|Dec-24-16|| ||OhioChessFan: I have read creation.com's take on micro- and macro- before and mostly agree. I think the idea of speciation by loss of information and not gain of information is the argument most true to the Scriptures and most logical following a gathering of kinds to survive the flood. Interestingly enough, it's the investigation of DNA that has scientific advances once again confirming the Scriptural position.|
FWIW <You have seen sound evidence to indicate that it is in principle capable of making the whole journey, you don’t need to see it make the whole trip.>
is grammatically incorrect. Add a "so" after the comma and all is well.
|Dec-24-16|| ||saffuna: <DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right>|
<It has been 150 years since Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution in On the Origin of Species, yet in some ways the concept of evolution seems more controversial than ever today. Why do you think that is?
It is a cultural issue, not a scientific one. On the science side our confidence grows yearly because we see independent lines of evidence converge. What we’ve learned from the fossil record is confirmed by the DNA record and confirmed again by embryology. But people have been raised to disbelieve evolution and to hold other ideas more precious than this knowledge.>
|Dec-24-16|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: We reviewed the interviewee's book some time ago http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/...|
|Jan-16-17|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: The 2017 Oceania Zonal is being held in Auckland, and here is the crosstable. After four rounds, four Aussies are on 4/4. http://www.newzealandchess.co.nz/Ve...|
|Feb-14-17|| ||Big Pawn: <jonathan>, what is your take on William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga and John Lennox?|
|Feb-14-17|| ||OhioChessFan: <saff: But people have been raised to disbelieve evolution and to hold other ideas more precious than this knowledge.>|
It drives the liberals crazy that despite their best indoctrination efforts in the public schools, people in the USA still aren't buying what they are selling. Brainwashing doesn't always work.
|Feb-15-17|| ||saffuna: I didn't write that. It was in a comment from someone else I posted.|
|Feb-15-17|| ||diceman: If those were Jim's words, he would have actually been saying something.|
|Feb-21-17|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: Big Pawn: I take on Craig in http://creation.com/william-lane-cr...|
John Lennox's masterpiece, "Seven Days that Divide the World", has opened many people to the fact of long creation days. Now we present Dr Lennox's long-awaited sequel, "Three Days that Divide the World". Be prepared as Dr Lennox applies his great insights from his previous book to these pressing questions. He shows that Jonah was really billions of years in the great sea creature, and Jesus really spent millions of years in His tomb. Compare http://creation.com/review-lennox-s... by a colleague
I have used some of Planinga's insights in http://creation.com/answer-to-philo... A friend reviewed Plantinga at http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/...
|Feb-22-17|| ||OhioChessFan: <Nor can we for a moment hold that air or human breath was what God breathed into man’s nostrils. It was His own vital breath>|
I will give that some thought. I had not considered that before.
|Feb-22-17|| ||OhioChessFan: Sorry to attribute that to you <saff>|
|Feb-26-17|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: <Big Pawn:> John Lennox's masterpiece, "Seven Days that Divide the World", has opened many people to the fact of long creation days. Now we present Dr Lennox's long-awaited sequel, "Three Days that Divide the World". Be prepared as Dr Lennox applies his great insights from his previous book to these pressing questions. He shows that Jonah was really billions of years in the great sea creature, and Jesus really spent millions of years in His tomb. ;)|
|Feb-27-17|| ||Big Pawn: <JS>, do you think that Lennox would agree that the context of these three examples, (creation, Jonah and the NT) is the same, so that a fair comparison is being made?|
I enjoyed reading your article on creation.com that you linked to above. However, Craig makes clear that he is agnostic about the true age of the universe, although he does tend toward the billions years old universe in his arguments, but then again, he's arguing from natural theology and using mainstream science to prove that the universe had a beginning, contrary to what atheists used to claim. They don't like answering for a universe with a beginning because of the strong theistic implications.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·