< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 114 OF 114 ·
|Aug-01-16|| ||truepacifism: I just personally am avoiding that page for obvious reasons and don't see the point of saying anything there or complaining about it, since I doubt it would change anything.|
|Aug-03-16|| ||Richard Taylor: <truepacifism> Yes. I was 'seduced' into the Rogoff page. Of course my comments about 9/11 were far more subtle than poor old Big Pawn wanted to know. |
But re the rules, they aren't that strict. What the unwritten law is, is good, you can go to a place such as Odd Lie, and people do, and rant incessantly (the key there is off course to lie!)... and so on.
The 'rules' though are broken when threats, and nastiness, and so on erupt. And if we shift a little off centre from philosophy, and try to get to wisdom, then perhaps that is where it could be used. But even in Plato's time such arguments adn madnesses went on: the war between Sparta and Athens, the Peloppenesus War (not sure how that is spelt) went on for thirty years. (A friend of mine told me that, he is a classics scholar.)
So they started out debating things on there, the point being that the rules are more strictly kept to when say there is a major game (once I made a satirical comment thinking I was here and I was 'live'...it was one of the World Championship games I think).
But the ad hominem thing is not avoided. People attack each other with great gusto so I suppose it is like politics everywhere.
Wisdom comes in for me when I can here a negative comment directed at myself, and then say (as Dr Wayne Dyer talks about) that it is someone else's view, not yours, Richard. So I think about it and then realise that I am making myself unhappy about the comment! That comes more from practical philosophy, or psychology rather than Philosophy as a kind of "official" subject...but of course the definition is broad.
I think it is the way we discuss religion or politics. I have to keep calm as just after 9/11 I started getting "political" again, and was watching the BBC most of the night! I also protested the proposed wars and we had a political issue here where the NZ Govt. held Akmed Zaoui here for months with no trial, somewhat in line with the US anti-terrorist laws, in fact as we have no constitution I think in NZ they can, potentially, invoke more draconian laws than in the US. But we don't quite have the equivalent of Gauntanamo or, of course, the Gulags etc. Akmed Zaoui was not visited by the Labour Party politicians or anyone except one man whose mother was a well known socialist (I have a book about her - Elsie Locke) whose name is Keith Locke. A group of us involved with a literary mag called Brief, published some poems by Zaoui. He was from Algeria. To be honest, now I think of it, I cant recall if it was Morocco or Algeria...He eventually gained citizenship. It was a bizarre case. Frightening.
In any case, people such as Big Pawn who bully are a worry. They don't go anywhere towards any kind of understanding. We need to attempt to understand what makes humans 'tick' as much as we can.
One problem there is that there are those who actually implicitly threaten others. It is ironic that the whole tenor of the Trump faction is undemocratic inside a democracy. We have had some such in NZ but being a small place it hasn't been so much of a problem, but there are some complex issues here...
But, no, I wouldn't want to shut down Rogoff (it is a bit sad poor old Rogoff 's games aren't discussed much, I had a look at a few of his games)...
|Aug-03-16|| ||Richard Taylor: But I take your point. Pacifism I prefer to war mongering. I think at certain points we seem to need to go to war, but, in fact, if all those involved decided instead, on an intelligent basis, to negotiate, then could get somewhere.|
But I think there comes a point when either war or revolution is inevitable.
Plato was in favour of war as was the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus, although I think he was referring to struggle.
So, while you could make it a personal philosophy to love and increase wisdom the problem is defining it...but working wisdom, aside from the theoretical stuff, is what helps us in our daily lives and indeed is more important...it is something like a mathematician studying mathematics for the beauty of the ideas, with no view to solving human problems etc Pure mathematics. (If there is really such a thing). And who plays chess to help anyone! Indirectly perhaps...
But of the philosophers who come closest to trying to bring in a moral imperative etc there have been many.
But say Kant, Marx and Hegel in a way, Sartre, and Derrida. So I will quote something about Derrida in the next "box" here. But there is also, on the other side, Bertrand Russell, although there is no (necessary) connection between his anti war activities and protests and his philosophic studies...and there is Epictetus who I have read as well as Marcus Aurelius.
And perhaps the inventor of the essay Montaigne (but all his work has a kind of almost dark ambiguity which clearly influenced Shakespeare, who seems to me to be, despite his greatness as a poet or play wright, to almost a nihilist....But Montaigne writes against (against?) the Conquistadors (although I haven't read that essay).
But for 'wisdom' we need good parents, who show a good example in discussion, handling communication etc My parents were good, but not so good at praising which left me with problems. But otherwise I had a good childhood. But in person I always struggled against or with my own ego etc...In some degree I found help through funny old books such as 'Release from Nervous Tension', and later some of the books of Dr Wayne Dyer and perhaps added to that reading and studying and living itself helped me. The most difficult thing is changing habits! Here one needs to play act, or the help of a psychologist, or a psychotherapist...and in addition, some people seem, temperamentally, simply to find being benign and to be good communicators, quite easy. This may be a complex of genotype and upbringing and luck...
|Aug-03-16|| ||Richard Taylor: Here is part of a project I am doing which is not philosophy only it is a mix of things. Par of it I take notes from things I read. Here is Penelope Deutscher about Derrida:|
Derrida's definition of the term [desconstruction]....
Deconstruction in a nutshell.
Derrida's writings not only address how we read philosophical works of, say Plato and Aristotle, but also engage with contemporary ideas about democracy. These projects are connected; Plato and Aristotle offer some of the earliest ideas about democracy, and the influence of that heritage is still at work on us today:
“The way I tried to read Plato, Aristotle, and others, is not a way of commanding
repeating or conserving this heritage. It is an analysis which tries to find how
their thinking works or does not work, to find the tension, the contradictions, the
heterogeneity within their own corpus... “
“What is the law of his self-deconstruction is is not a method or some tool that you apply
to something from the outside ... Deconstruction is something which happens and which
happens inside; there is a deconstruction at work within Plato's texts, for instance. As my colleagues know,each time I study Plato I try to find some heterogeneity in his own corpus
and to see how, for instance, within the Timaeus the there of the khôra is incompatible
with this supposed system of Plato. So, to be true to Plato, and this is a sign of Love and
respect for Plato, I have to analyse the functioning and disfunctioning of his work... I would
say the same for democracy...”
(Derrida 1997, p - 10)
[From How to Read Derrida by Penelope Deutscher.]
--- --- ---
|Aug-03-16|| ||Richard Taylor: 12/3/2016 P 8 / 9 / 10
Some arguments found in philosophers as ancient as Plato about the value of speech over writing remain with us today. In Plato's Phaedrus it is argued that written documents may appear to remedy the limitations of memory but actually threaten it. When we rely on written aids, memory works less hard and my become feeble. Writing is described by the Greek term pharmakon. In the opening excerpt, Derrida refers to the pharmakon, noting that it embodies the purportedly destructive
rules for writing.
In ancient Greek, pharmakon had multiple meanings and can be translated either as 'poison' or 'remedy'. The Phaedras asks whether writing is a remedy for bad memory or a poison to memory.
Today, also, we might except that someone who knows a subject thoroughly can speak spontaneously about it. We are not convinced if they possess written notes. If they rely on such notes, we might,in agreement with the Phaedras argument consider that writing a hindrance, not a help.
Perhaps we too think that writing is a pharmakon: both a help and a
Reading these ambivalent devaluations with a deconstructive eye, we see that the Phaedrus evokes an ideal which is at apparent risk from writing (just as surrogacy apparently threatens 'natural' motherhood and drugs threaten 'natural' bodies).
We must ask whether speech has ever guaranteed the knowledge, or the testimonial value, apparently threatened by writing and whether we can dislodge the mystique and the apparent promise of speech.
Returning to spoken testimony in trials, someone relating his or her
evidence in person is not necessarily persuasive... [to Plato], it is possible to not fully understand facts one can recount.
When it is a matter of competency, someone might speak persuasively of a knowledge they have merely learnt by note. In other words, many of the terms through which writing is devalued: non-reliability, lack of conviction, the absence of true knowledge, also apply to much speech.
Derrida argued that speech is definable in similar terms to writing,through it is posited as primary to it
Similarly we saw previously that 'natural' bodies are definable in terms similar to 'drugged' bodies as they both ingest artificial toxins, and 'unnatural motherhood' is definable in terms similar to natural motherhood as both are a matter of social construction and interpretation.
The hierarchies between the terms natural and unnatural, pure and contaminated, are unstable. Plato's Phaedras claims that speech is closer to live, physical presence of the individual conveying ideas.
Thought or ideas, knowledge or truth, is considered the 'original' position. Derrida countered that although writing might be deemed a copy of speech, speech is a kind of writing.
If we define writing as the inscription of a communicated idea the mind itself can count as a psychic material in which ideas are inscribed. The Phaedrus claims that speech is actually a kind of 'psychic inscription' of ideas,that is written in the soul of the learner.
Today too, its not uncommon to believe that facts can be mentally 'burnt' by saying them out loud, or to a friend... yet Derrida is right that we just as commonly think that we just as commonly think that speech does not, after all, gaurantee immediacy with consciousness.
I might find myself dissatisfied by the way that my speech communicates my ideas my spoken words seem to 'slip out pf my control', just as my written words can. I might tell you that what I say is not what I meant, or I might find myself surprised by what I say.
What is attributed to 'writing' must also be attributed to 'speech': in both there is some delay, some lack of satisfaction, some possible discrepancy from what is imagined as the originating idea, or consciousness. If 'writing' is devalued as a form a form of communication beyond the control of the originating speaker, and a form that only imperfectly renders one's thought, then speech can also be included under this definition.
Speech, from that perspective, can be considered a form of 'writing'.
|Aug-03-16|| ||Richard Taylor: So Derrida's approach is to analyse, not to denigrate: and to see the contradictions. He doesn't make so many judgments as far as I know, although I think he was concerned about social justice etc, but it seems he was wary of cliches and over-formulaic ways of thinking.|
|Aug-03-16|| ||Richard Taylor: Some more: this is important in light of the immigration and terrorism discussions going on: |
--- --- --------------
Quite far from dissolving the always relative specificity, however cruel,of situations of linguistic oppression or colonial expropriation, this prudent and differentiated Universal must account,is and I would even say that it is the only way one can account for the determinable possibility of a subservience and a hegemony. And even account for a terror inside languages (inside languages there is a terror, soft discrete,or glaring;that is our subject.).For contrary to what one is most often tempted to believe, the master is nothing. And he does not have exclusive possession of anything. Because the master does not possess exclusively, and naturally, what he calls his language, because whatever he wants or does, he cannot maintain any relations of property or identity that are natural, national, congenital, or ontological with it, because he can give substance to and articulate [dire] this appropriation only in the course of an unnatural process of politico-phantasmatic constructions, because language is not his natural possession he can, thanks to that very fact, pretend historically, through the rape of a cultural usurpation, which means always essentially colonial, to appropriate it in order to impose it as 'his own'. That is his belief: he wishes to make others share it through the use of force or cunning.
Extract from Derrida 1998 A, 23
Deconstruction was, in Searle's opinion, not false, but trivial: 'by such methods one can prove that the rich are really poor, the true is really false, etc.' (Searle, 1983, 76 -7). Why should one take the trouble to do so, or to question the tautology that white is white?
An answer emerges when we consider the way people's sense of identity can often be an aspiration to identity. In a racial context the statement 'white is white' is anything but tautological. The statement might be uttered as a declaration of a racist passion a call to upholding exclusion,the ideology that white should be white, the anxiety that white might not be white, the threat that whiteness might be endangered, the covert avowal that whiteness is not as self evident as it pretends and declares. In such contexts, violence is literally at work in the declaration and the related aspiration to racial purity. There's nothing trivial about the deconstructibility of this declaration and the related aspiration to racial purity. Derrida provokes us to read deconstructively in contexts of aspiration and denigration of idealization and debasement, of protection and exclusion. His early claims that philosophical discussions of language were such a context made him a controversial intellectual at least in philosophical circles. Though he never repudiated these claims, later work addressing state policies, race, nation, culture and democracy has been less contentious as the implications of his philosophical discussions have emerged. The exact opening of this chapter, from Derrida's Monolinguism of the Other, dates from a later period. It was written two decades after the excerpt from Dissemination discussed in chapter one.
Monolinguism of the Other challenges the belief in cultural or lingustic authenticity. Derrida claims that notions one's proper home and proper language are always problematic (Derrida 1998A, 59-60) and their consequence can be cruel. Becuase of a country's pretension to natural or historical
entitlement, many immigrants find themselves denied residence in countries where they seek entry
or asylum. Derrida challenges the hierarchichal opposition between the entitled and the unentitled,
and between the colonizer and the colonized.
|Aug-03-16|| ||Richard Taylor: A colonized people undergoes land loss and the imposition of the colonizer's culture and law. Some might like to believe they have not been colonized, and are not exposed to the threat of colonization.
Derrida intervenes, suggesting that if we think of colonization in a sufficiently broad way, we could all be described as colonized. He defies culture itself as a kind of colonization. As children, we are all introduced into cultures, laws territories and identities which we eventually identify as 'ours'. We find ourselves born in a nation,implicated as in its history, and immersed in the language that we acquire.
Law,land and language do not properly belong even to those who are legally 'British', 'American', or 'Australian'. Both legal and and natural born residents must acquire a language. That acquisition is less secure than we like to think. No one speaks their own language perfectly...[and] language is always in transition, involving a perpetual redefinition by experts and non-experts alike of its proper usage. The understanding of cultural identity is also in constant flux. Think of how in the late twentieth century 'multiculturism' newly came to seem essentially 'British'. Legal entitlement to one's country is also less secure than some like to pretend. No one is entirely immune from the threat of losing their citizenship or homeland. A country may be invaded; or authorities may decide to disenfranchise certain of its citizens and have the power to do so; or a country may fragment into new nation states; or one may be driven away from one's country by the extremes of war, chaos or persecution.
It is possible to argue that we are all in some way unstable in our possession of culture and citizenship, colonized and vulnerable to further colonization, without arguing that we are all 'the same'. Instead, one can stress all the ways in which individuals and peoples are differently colonized. The point is not to deny the differences between colonizers and colonized peoples. Yet Derrida is hesitant about those who self-identity as having suffered cultural alienation and loss, if this takes the route of reinforcing the illusion that some are not alienated, and have a particularly legitimate relationship to their language and culture. Derrida's point is that no one has a thoroughly legitimate relationship to language and culture. To this end he questions the self-created privilege of the nativist or colonizer
who pretends to a natural or historical right to exclude others. In Monolinguism of the Other, he argues that anyone claiming the right to deprive others of land or admission to a country, or the right to set conditions for inclusion,disavows the instability of his or her entitlement. Therefore, he says of colonization and lingustic dissappropriation:|
This exceptional situation is, at the same time, certainly
exemplary of a universal structure; it represents or
reflects a type of original 'alienation' that institutes
every language as a language of the other:the impossible
property of a language. But that must not lead to a kind
of neutralization of differences.
One can argue that we are all colonized and alienated without claiming we are all colonized an alienated in the same way.
Deconstruction can prompt changes in perceptions in politics and culture. It calls for a critique of ideas sometimes taken for granted: in this case, that some are at home in their language and culture, entitled to their country, as 'foreigners' are not. These suppositions are to be resisted because inclusion occurs at the price of exclusion, and the legitimacy if the latter is falsely asserted. Some countries, governments, groups and individuals will engage in practices of exclusion....
|Aug-03-16|| ||Richard Taylor: [Derrida has been politically active.] But when he claims that deconstruction intervenes, his political activities are not what he has in mind. Instead, Derrida provokes us to read differently: with closer attention to instability, contradiction, the unstable forces of idealization and debasement. He asks us, how can we read differently, for example, the claims of some to natural authority, ownership and privilege? He prompts us to think in new ways and more critically about received ideas and arguments whether they belong to politics, history, philosophy or contemporary culture.|
[Even communities cannot be said to be 'made up of' different cultures or groups as inside those theoretical groups there are also differences and contradictions...]
[From How to Read Derrida by Penelope Deutscher.]
|Aug-03-16|| ||Richard Taylor: I know it is all a lot to read, but I think that, if we use this approach of 'deconstruction' we can analyse concepts of terrorism, immigration and colonialization etc as well as 'white supremacy' and 'natural'or 'inalienable' rights etc Even say, the "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" (and tack on another abstraction "Justice" etc...and things like that for even without much analysis, we already have three abstractions that don't really mean very much. [Especially considering the course of the French revolution, the Dreyfuss case perhaps, the colonization of Algeria, the later testing of atomic weapons in Muroroa and so on. Not that we can thus say: 'France is a 'bad' place or anything, or even that we can prove any of those things to be 'wrong': just that it is as complex as anywhere else and the three abstract words really don't describe or add anything. Especially the word 'Fraternity'. Brotherhood? What about women and 'Sisterhood'...|
Language, it's a virus.
I think that is via Burroughs but Laurie Anderson sings it:
|Aug-03-16|| ||perfidious: <Richard...In any case, people such as Big Pawn who bully are a worry. They don't go anywhere towards any kind of understanding. We need to attempt to understand what makes humans 'tick' as much as we can....>|
It is regrettable, but true that that is the case, but he will very clearly not change his ways.
<....One problem there is that there are those who actually implicitly threaten others. It is ironic that the whole tenor of the Trump faction is undemocratic inside a democracy....>
It is not for nothing that I have been wont to refer to that poster as <petit trump>. As someone at Rogoff noted, simply replace Trump with his handle and all the signs of narcissism are no less valid.
<....But, no, I wouldn't want to shut down Rogoff (it is a bit sad poor old Rogoff 's games aren't discussed much, I had a look at a few of his games)...>
Just commented on his loss to Portisch the other day; also, his win in their other game had its moments.
Rogoff was a solid, professional GM who was not quite a contender for higher things, same as a good many others who find something else to do.
|Aug-03-16|| ||truepacifism: <Richard Taylor> One problem with a site like this is that there is no way to send private messages; in other words everything I say is public, and I would rather not get into controversy on this particular site, although I do elsewhere (since this is a chess site, I primarily want to talk chess).|
|Aug-03-16|| ||truepacifism: "So, while you could make it a personal philosophy to love and increase wisdom the problem is defining it...but working wisdom, aside from the theoretical stuff, is what helps us in our daily lives and indeed is more important...it is something like a mathematician studying mathematics for the beauty of the ideas, with no view to solving human problems etc Pure mathematics. (If there is really such a thing). And who plays chess to help anyone! Indirectly perhaps"|
Yes, indirectly... first using one's mind for conflict resolution rather than conflict.. yes, for some chess is about winning, the same way one trys to "win" and argument, but, by definition an "argument" or "debate" should employ the use of logic. By defintion emotions have no place in an argument and when people use emotional tactics, it technically is no longer an argument but a fight. Of course, it's better to use strong language than actual physical threats, nobody is permanently damaged when only words are used, although words can "hurt" you if you let them. Also, I know it sounds unrealistic and naive, and certainly not something that is going to happen any time soon, but wouldn't it be more logical to resolve a conflict if they could be settled by a game of chess where nobody gets killed, than by going to war. Obviously the mind set of humans is bellicose and it all goes back to the problem of evil, which we all know goes back millenia.
|Aug-03-16|| ||truepacifism: problem goes back to when humans first appeared and I suppose even further back than that, since "evil" depending on how you want to define it, goes back in time a lot longer.
Unless one subscribes to religious tenets like original sin and believe that the story of Adam and Eve is to be taken literally, which I don't.|
|Aug-04-16|| ||Wayne Power: <truepacifism> "..Also, I know it sounds unrealistic and naive, and certainly not something that is going to happen any time soon, but wouldn't it be more logical to resolve a conflict if they could be settled by a game of chess where nobody gets killed, than by going to war."|
Hmm, well, some might say that international sport tries to sublimate war. Some sports more than others, perhaps. International cricket might be a pretty good example. India and Pakistan are both passionate cricketing nations and I like to think they would have long since nuked each other were it not for the civilizing and sublimating influence of cricket. Actually, I think it would do the USA no end of good to learn to play cricket and suffer the constructive deflation of its ego to be repeatedly beaten by puny nations like New Zealand before inevitably becoming equally or more competitive at it. That's already happening with soccer - the USA is warming to it - especially its already world champion women's team which beat Zealand's team just today.
I think the USA's passion for gridiron, which no other country can quite understand, together with a similar one for baseball is what contributes to the USA's largely unjustified self image of exceptionalism. Yes, they are world champions at both but that kind of follows, doesn't it?
One of the biggest groaners in recent history was when the Americans, having just taken Iraq, drove their tanks straight into the soccer stadium in Baghdad to use as a handy parking place. The Iraqi's revere soccer (or "football" as the non-American world calls it) so that was almost as bad as setting up a McDonalds in the nearest mosque would have been. Cultural and religious sensitivity is not America's strong point.
(I was going to segue the above into a mention of the "T" word but, out of respect for your genuine, commendable pacifist views, I won't).
|Aug-04-16|| ||truepacifism: <Wayne Power>
"I was going to segue the above into a mention of the "T" word but, out of respect for your genuine, commendable pacifist views, I won't."
Thank you for your respect. I don't mind whatever you want to say. I have tried not to get into heated fights about politics on this site, for a number of reasons, which I can list, but I do have strong opinions about politics, not the least of which is that politics can easily be discussed without all the personal attacks, which I prefer even if it weren't a rule here. People have the ability to discipline themselves, and it is a shame that sites feel that they have to have moderators. I think that it is common knowledge who the troublemakers are and have been, (on this site), so I need not mention any names.
|Aug-04-16|| ||Wayne Power: <truepacifism>
- OK, well the segue was to be to Donald Trump. He reminds me and many others of Senator Joseph McCarthy as in:
I was actually around during the McCarthy era but very young and in far away New Zealand. Even so, his "Reds-under-the-bed" message made it to here as well and NZ became more right wing at that time than anytime since.
I remember it being said in a TV documentary about 20 years ago, on a retrospective look at the McCarthy Era, that he was brought down by he newly arrived phenomenon of network television - that once the American people could actually see him live at the grand jury hearings and read his transparent, phony body language, the game was up.
Yet, up till now at least, Donald Trump has confounded that theory. But, as the article suggests, I think Khizr Khan's straight-from-the-heart speech will go down in history as the moment Donald Trump's dam started to burst. If you ever saw the old black and white war movie of the Dam Busters raid, you may remember how, for what seemed an eternity after the last bouncing bomb had exploded, nothing seemed to happen. Then a tiny crack appeared, then a larger one and finally the whole, huge dam came down.
|Aug-06-16|| ||Richard Taylor: <true pacifism> <Wayne Power> I agree re
Big Pawn. Re Pacifism. Yes, and no. I think we are talking about discussion and negotiation rather than being passive.|
I think that we must try (whether we bat it out or gridiron it etc or play chess, which I think is a kind of sublimated war for sure) I am not sure we can avoid war...but overall I feel that war is something that has to be an absolute last resort these days.
I'm not sure. War is strange thing. People can think about it positively in a kind of abstract thing. This phemomenological aspect of human consciousness interests me. We are not simply one thing, even dubious we are one identity. Also reality and that we have or do not have an actual freedom of choice are dubious...but if you asked me, as a grandfather, what I would do etc etc, my advice would be cooperation...rather than war and conflict.
Nationalism I hate but I realise it exists. That's why I have lost interest in the Olympics or even taking any interest in rugby (I never really was much interested in sport though mainly as I was pretty hopeless at all sports).
I'm not really here to talk about chess! Or not much. I came on here looking for a convenient data base some time ago...For the money it is reasonable. But chess does get discussed.
I see the Sinquefield Cup is on again and later we have the World Champs.
I'll look in here later. All the best to all!
|Aug-06-16|| ||truepacifism: I am watching all five games at once, live. Since I am not a great player, I think that I can learn something by watching them. It is fun to try to guess the moves, but I am not very good at it.|
|Aug-07-16|| ||Richard Taylor: I can work out some of the moves if it's not late at night and I'm not tired. I sometimes run a computer also, but not always.|
Mostly they start in NZ about midnight here. Some international games or tournaments are at a better time.
I just had a quick look at Nakamura's game vs. Giri. He was confidant to go for pawns then swing back for defence or Giri may have won. But they know how to evaluate these things.
I'm playing an opponent I know plays the Semi-Slav and also the Petroff, so I'm wondering what policy to adopt as I usually play 1. e4....playing him tommorrow so you might hear the grisly story by Tuesday here or Wed!
|Aug-21-16|| ||Richard Taylor: Another two of my games has been uploaded. Thanks to chessgames.com |
Here they are:
R Gibbons vs R Taylor, 1980
R Taylor vs M Le Brocq, 2006
|Aug-22-16|| ||Benzol: Those two are good games by you. Looks like your knight got caught offside in this one|
P Kelly vs R Taylor, 1981
Pat Kelly is another strong player who seems to have gone into hiding.
|Aug-23-16|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: <Gregor Samsa Mendel: I think that a major weakness in the Creationist argument that evolution cannot lead to greater complexity, is that they ignore the phenomenon of gene duplication.>|
Not so. Informed creationists have long addressed this very thing. You might not agree with the answers, but it's simply false to claim that it has been ignored. E.g. I wrote this article 15 years ago http://creation.com/refuting-evolut...
Some geneticists have written more detailed articles like:
|Aug-23-16|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: <Wayne Power:
Creationists, as I understand their argument, maintain that one species cannot evolve or mutate into another - or, at least that none yet has.>
No, informed creationists even before Darwin recognized that speciation happens. Blame Aristotle then Darwin's mentor Lyell for "fixity of species". However, there is good evidence that non-information-gaining speciation happens much faster than evolutionists expected. See for example http://creation.com/cosmos-neil-deg...
Some advocates of Intelligent Design, including the non-Christian GM Harold James Plaskett, do believe in fixity of species, but he is mistaken on this issue (not on the issue of Intelligent Design though).
|Aug-23-16|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: <Benzol:
Pat Kelly is another strong player who seems to have gone into hiding.>
Yes, I remember him at the 1982 North Island, returning to active to NZ chess after a long layoff, and I think he tied by beating outplaying the strong player Gollogly in the last round P Kelly vs D Gollogly, 1982 Then he disappeared again. He had a great respect for Arcadios Feneridis.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 114 OF 114 ·
A free online guide presented by Chessgames.com