Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?

"Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism

Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?

My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes, major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.

On 12/8/23 9:03 PM, MarkE wrote:
> Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?
>
> "Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
> philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
> worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
> principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural
> sciences." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
Sorry, but that world "natural" isn't well defined. Is God not natural,
in your view? Is he then artificial? What is necessarily beyond the
reach of "natural sciences", and how would we know? Your question is
just too bad to be answered.

> Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?

I wouldn't think so, but that all depends on how you define "natural".

> My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes, major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.

How is any of the preceding relevant to that claim?

On 09/12/2023 05:03, MarkE wrote:
> Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?
>
> "Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism

You are confusing apples and oranges. Epistemology is about the source
of knowledge. Ontology is about the nature of reality. In other words
metaphysical naturalism is not an epistemology.

I'd don't care for Meinongian ontology (as I understand it from
Burkhard's exposition), but taken literally that definition from
Wikipedia goes too far in the other definition, and I doubt that anyone
holds to it.
>
> Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?

No. (But there may be scope for quibbling about the definitions of
atheism and natural.)
>
> My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes, major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
>

--
alias Ernest Major

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 12:07:03 AM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
> Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?

Epistemology is not ontology. If you were really asking about my epistemology I'd tell you I'm a methodological naturalist, but you're really asking about ontology.
>
> "Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism

Everything depends on how you define "natural." I'd call "natural" anything that follows (even statistically) regular patterns of behavior, everything from falling apples to human societies behaving in loosely predictable ways. I'd say that whether or not non-natural things exist is an always open question. But if they do exist, there'd be no way for me to know anything about them - taking us back to epistemology and methodological naturalism. I'd say, too, that many descriptions of the Christian God imply that He is "natural" in the sense that I mean - there are categorical statements about how He behaves and will behave that are, potentially, testable predictions about His behavior.
>
> Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?

Don't think so. I can imagine a God that follows laws of nature, and such a God would be compatible with metaphysical naturalism. I can imagine things that are not God, but which do not follow laws of nature. So I'd say that atheism and metaphysical naturalism are orthogonal.
>
> My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes, major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 4:07:03 PM UTC+11, MarkE wrote:
> Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?
>
> "Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
>
> Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
>
> My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes, major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.

I’ve mentioned both ontology and epistemology here, as they seem closely connected in this context. But feel to include your own qualifiers and clarifications.

“If ontology asks what exists, then epistemology asks, and how do people know what exists? In many cases, philosophers may blend epistemology and ontology when asking important questions. Philosophical debates about the existence or non-existence of a god often rely on arguments from both ontology and epistemology.”
https://study.com/academy/lesson/ontology-vs-epistemology-differences-examples.html#:~:text=Epistemology%20and%20ontology%20are%20both,existence%20of%20such%20a%20thing.

MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?
>
A rolling stone of crushing doubt I push up hill every day in an exercise
of futility. I try not to “know” things based on blind faith.
>
> "Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
> philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
> worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
> principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
>
Methodological naturalism works.
>
> Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
>
Atheism can be a form of metaphysical naturism if the presumption pushed is
the Emperor idea has no clothes.

> My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,
> major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
>
What is macroevolution?

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 6:07:03 AM UTC+1, MarkE wrote:
> Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?
>
> "Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism

That's an ontological position rather than an epistemological one, so
I'm a bit confused from the word go. But if the question is: do you
adhere to "ontological naturalism" my answer would very
clearly be "no, quite on the contrary".

>
> Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?

No, not all all. One can be atheist and believe in all sorts
of non-material entities if one wishes: numbers, including
very large ones, sets, fictional entities, ghosts, spirits,
minds etc etc . Belief in ghosts e.g. was very popular among
educated victorian atheists, that was the basis of
Chesterton's Father Brown (often misquoted) saying that
"You hard-shelled materialists were all balanced on the
very edge of belief — of belief in almost anything.
(“The Miracle of Moon Crescent” (1924) - the atheists
in question in that story consider the efficiency of
curses, before Brown gives them a perfectly naturalistic
explanation - I'd strongly recommend that story to you)

All metaphysical naturalists may be also atheists (well, tbh
I might even debate this, there are after all
perfectly material/physical deities) . But most
certainly not all atheists are metaphysical naturalists.

>
> My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes, major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.

On Saturday 9 December 2023 at 07:07:03 UTC+2, MarkE wrote:
> Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?
>
> "Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
>
> Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
>
> My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes, major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
>
I am atheist in sense that I lack belief into gods. I do not deny that
gods may exists. I merely see no reason to think that they do exist.
Most probably they don't.

There are plenty of science theories or hypotheses (like string theory,
big bang and abiogenesis on early earth) that have problems and gaps.
I think there most likely will be some, might be major, changes in those
theories and hypotheses.

That is unrelated to gods, that is unrelated to paranormal, that is
unrelated to supernatural that are also possibly unrelated to each other.
Those things have to have their own evidence for me to start to believe
anything like that.

On 12/8/2023 11:03 PM, MarkE wrote:
> Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?
>
> "Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
>
> Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
>
> My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes, major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
>

The ID scam was based on the notion that their designer could be
determined to be part of nature. Science is just the best means we have
developed for understanding nature. The ID perps claimed that they
could do the same science that everyone else was doing and demonstrate
that their designer existed. When the ID perps stupidly put out the Top
Six designer-did-it-gaps as a related group in their logical order of
occurrence in this universe (something that they admitted at the time
that they had avoided doing for decades) most of the IDiots on TO
realized that they had never wanted the ID perps to succeed in doing any
ID science, and they quit the ID creationist scam. The designer that
filled those gaps was not their Biblical designer.

Pagano claimed that the Top Six were bogus, and were not the best
evidence for IDiocy because they did not support his geocentric
creationist beliefs. Pagano had only been interested in the gap denial
that wasn't about the structure of the universe and our solar system.
Bill claimed that he had never supported the ID scam, but what he likely
meant was that he had never supported what it had always been. Kalkidas
now claims that the Top Six are just not worth thinking about any more,
and he came out as just a plain Biblical creationist and claimed that he
had never claimed to be Hindu. They all realized that they had never
wanted the ID perps to succeed in filling those gaps with a designer.
It would not have been their Biblical designer.

MarkE understands that he never wanted the ID perps to succeed in
accomplishing any IDiotic science, but MarkE wants to wallow in the gap
denial as the only thing left for him to do.

It doesn't matter what philosophy you have, it turned out that nature is
not Biblical. IDiots have to either deny nature or accept it for what
it is. The IDiots at reason to believe have tried to mix denial with
acceptance, and they have pretty much failed to convince very many
Biblical creationists that they are on the right track. MarkE is
currently failing to do the same thing. Tour is just into the denial.
You have the Biblical creationists at BioLogos that admit that nature
isn't Biblical, and they think that is the way it is supposed to be.
Some of them are evangelical Christians, but they claim nature doesn't
have to be Biblical, and that nature is just what it seems to be.

The sad thing about the current situation is that Christianity has known
that nature isn't Biblical from the beginning of the early church. The
authors of the Bible had adopted a flat earth geocentric cosmology that
had a firmament above the earth that some god would open up and let the
rain fall. The Greeks were estimating the circumference of the earth
centuries before Christ was born. Kepler failed to support the last
vestiges of the firmament with his crystal spheres and instead came up
with elliptical orbits. Newton was born the year Galileo died under
house arrest and would go on to demonstrate that geocentrism was a dead
issue. The realization that the earth was much older than described in
the Bible predated Darwin. Saint Augustine was admonishing the faithful
that they should not use the Bible to deny what we could determine about
nature for ourselves. They were already having issues with Biblical
literalists and nature denial at the beginning of the Catholic church.

Nature had been established to not be Biblical long before we had the
scientific creationist denial that the ID perps continued. It hasn't
been a philosophical argument for a very long time, except in the sense
of how much you are willing to deny.

Ron Okimoto

On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:

> On 12/8/2023 11:03 PM, MarkE wrote:
>> Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal
>> epistemology?
>>
>> "Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
>> philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
>> worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
>> principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences."
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
>>
>> Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
>>
>> My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,
>> major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
>>
>
> The ID scam was based on the notion that their designer could be
> determined to be part of nature. Science is just the best means we
> have developed for understanding nature. The ID perps claimed that
> they could do the same science that everyone else was doing and
> demonstrate that their designer existed. When the ID perps stupidly
> put out the Top Six designer-did-it-gaps as a related group in their
> logical order of occurrence in this universe (something that they
> admitted at the time that they had avoided doing for decades) most of
> the IDiots on TO realized that they had never wanted the ID perps to
> succeed in doing any ID science, and they quit the ID creationist scam.
> The designer that filled those gaps was not their Biblical designer.
>
> Pagano claimed that the Top Six were bogus, and were not the best
> evidence for IDiocy because they did not support his geocentric
> creationist beliefs. Pagano had only been interested in the gap denial
> that wasn't about the structure of the universe and our solar system.
> Bill claimed that he had never supported the ID scam, but what he
> likely meant was that he had never supported what it had always been.
> Kalkidas now claims that the Top Six are just not worth thinking about
> any more, and he came out as just a plain Biblical creationist and
> claimed that he had never claimed to be Hindu. They all realized that
> they had never wanted the ID perps to succeed in filling those gaps
> with a designer. It would not have been their Biblical designer.
>
> MarkE understands that he never wanted the ID perps to succeed in
> accomplishing any IDiotic science, but MarkE wants to wallow in the gap
> denial as the only thing left for him to do.
>
> It doesn't matter what philosophy you have, it turned out that nature
> is not Biblical. IDiots have to either deny nature or accept it for
> what it is. The IDiots at reason to believe have tried to mix denial
> with acceptance, and they have pretty much failed to convince very many
> Biblical creationists that they are on the right track. MarkE is
> currently failing to do the same thing. Tour is just into the denial.
> You have the Biblical creationists at BioLogos that admit that nature
> isn't Biblical, and they think that is the way it is supposed to be.
> Some of them are evangelical Christians, but they claim nature doesn't
> have to be Biblical, and that nature is just what it seems to be.
>
> The sad thing about the current situation is that Christianity has
> known that nature isn't Biblical from the beginning of the early
> church. The authors of the Bible had adopted a flat earth geocentric
> cosmology that had a firmament above the earth that some god would open
> up and let the rain fall. The Greeks were estimating the circumference
> of the earth centuries before Christ was born. Kepler failed to
> support the last vestiges of the firmament with his crystal spheres and
> instead came up with elliptical orbits. Newton was born the year
> Galileo died under house arrest and would go on to demonstrate that
> geocentrism was a dead issue. The realization that the earth was much
> older than described in the Bible predated Darwin. Saint Augustine was
> admonishing the faithful that they should not use the Bible to deny
> what we could determine about nature for ourselves. They were already
> having issues with Biblical literalists and nature denial at the
> beginning of the Catholic church.
>
> Nature had been established to not be Biblical long before we had the
> scientific creationist denial that the ID perps continued. It hasn't
> been a philosophical argument for a very long time, except in the sense
> of how much you are willing to deny.

ID scam 1
ID perps 5
Top Six 1
IDiotic 1
IDiots 2
denial 2

If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On 12/9/2023 10:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
>
>> On 12/8/2023 11:03 PM, MarkE wrote:
>>> Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal
>>> epistemology?
>>>
>>> "Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
>>> philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
>>> worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
>>> principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural
>>> sciences." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
>>>
>>> Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
>>>
>>> My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,
>>> major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
>>>
>>
>> The ID scam was based on the notion that their designer could be
>> determined to be part of nature.  Science is just the best means we
>> have developed for understanding nature.  The ID perps claimed that
>> they could do the same science that everyone else was doing and
>> demonstrate that their designer existed.  When the ID perps stupidly
>> put out the Top Six designer-did-it-gaps as a related group in their
>> logical order of occurrence in this universe (something that they
>> admitted at the time that they had avoided doing for decades) most of
>> the IDiots on TO realized that they had never wanted the ID perps to
>> succeed in doing any ID science, and they quit the ID creationist
>> scam.  The designer that filled those gaps was not their Biblical
>> designer.
>>
>> Pagano claimed that the Top Six were bogus, and were not the best
>> evidence for IDiocy because they did not support his geocentric
>> creationist beliefs.  Pagano had only been interested in the gap
>> denial that wasn't about the structure of the universe and our solar
>> system. Bill claimed that he had never supported the ID scam, but what
>> he likely meant was that he had never supported what it had always
>> been. Kalkidas now claims that the Top Six are just not worth thinking
>> about any more, and he came out as just a plain Biblical creationist
>> and claimed that he had never claimed to be Hindu.  They all realized
>> that they had never wanted the ID perps to succeed in filling those
>> gaps with a designer. It would not have been their Biblical designer.
>>
>> MarkE understands that he never wanted the ID perps to succeed in
>> accomplishing any IDiotic science, but MarkE wants to wallow in the
>> gap denial as the only thing left for him to do.
>>
>> It doesn't matter what philosophy you have, it turned out that nature
>> is not Biblical.  IDiots have to either deny nature or accept it for
>> what it is.  The IDiots at reason to believe have tried to mix denial
>> with acceptance, and they have pretty much failed to convince very
>> many Biblical creationists that they are on the right track.  MarkE is
>> currently failing to do the same thing.  Tour is just into the denial.
>> You have the Biblical creationists at BioLogos that admit that nature
>> isn't Biblical, and they think that is the way it is supposed to be.
>> Some of them are evangelical Christians, but they claim nature doesn't
>> have to be Biblical, and that nature is just what it seems to be.
>>
>> The sad thing about the current situation is that Christianity has
>> known that nature isn't Biblical from the beginning of the early
>> church.  The authors of the Bible had adopted a flat earth geocentric
>> cosmology that had a firmament above the earth that some god would
>> open up and let the rain fall.  The Greeks were estimating the
>> circumference of the earth centuries before Christ was born.  Kepler
>> failed to support the last vestiges of the firmament with his crystal
>> spheres and instead came up with elliptical orbits.  Newton was born
>> the year Galileo died under house arrest and would go on to
>> demonstrate that geocentrism was a dead issue.  The realization that
>> the earth was much older than described in the Bible predated Darwin.
>> Saint Augustine was admonishing the faithful that they should not use
>> the Bible to deny what we could determine about nature for ourselves.
>> They were already having issues with Biblical literalists and nature
>> denial at the beginning of the Catholic church.
>>
>> Nature had been established to not be Biblical long before we had the
>> scientific creationist denial that the ID perps continued.  It hasn't
>> been a philosophical argument for a very long time, except in the
>> sense of how much you are willing to deny.
>
> ID scam 1
> ID perps 5
> Top Six 1
> IDiotic 1
> IDiots 2
> denial 2
>
> If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
>
>

Are you channeling Kerr-Mudd or are you using multiple nyms? How
worthless was your current exercise? Sour grapes should have no future
on TO. The IDiots gave up and you missed it. What happened, happened 5
years ago, and you missed it due to your own incompetence. Nyikos is a
counter, and he missed it too. Nyikos missed it because he has always
lied to himself about what the ID scam has been for over 2 decades. How
does that make you feel? What is your excuse? You need to take
responsibility for your own stupidity and move forward.

Ron Okimoto

Ron Okimoto

On 12/9/23 8:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
>
>> On 12/8/2023 11:03 PM, MarkE wrote:
>>> Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal
>>> epistemology?
>>>
>>> "Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
>>> philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
>>> worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
>>> principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural
>>> sciences." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
>>>
>>> Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
>>>
>>> My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,
>>> major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
>>>
>>
>> The ID scam was based on the notion that their designer could be
>> determined to be part of nature.  Science is just the best means we
>> have developed for understanding nature.  The ID perps claimed that
>> they could do the same science that everyone else was doing and
>> demonstrate that their designer existed.  When the ID perps stupidly
>> put out the Top Six designer-did-it-gaps as a related group in their
>> logical order of occurrence in this universe (something that they
>> admitted at the time that they had avoided doing for decades) most of
>> the IDiots on TO realized that they had never wanted the ID perps to
>> succeed in doing any ID science, and they quit the ID creationist
>> scam.  The designer that filled those gaps was not their Biblical
>> designer.
>>
>> Pagano claimed that the Top Six were bogus, and were not the best
>> evidence for IDiocy because they did not support his geocentric
>> creationist beliefs.  Pagano had only been interested in the gap
>> denial that wasn't about the structure of the universe and our solar
>> system. Bill claimed that he had never supported the ID scam, but what
>> he likely meant was that he had never supported what it had always
>> been. Kalkidas now claims that the Top Six are just not worth thinking
>> about any more, and he came out as just a plain Biblical creationist
>> and claimed that he had never claimed to be Hindu.  They all realized
>> that they had never wanted the ID perps to succeed in filling those
>> gaps with a designer. It would not have been their Biblical designer.
>>
>> MarkE understands that he never wanted the ID perps to succeed in
>> accomplishing any IDiotic science, but MarkE wants to wallow in the
>> gap denial as the only thing left for him to do.
>>
>> It doesn't matter what philosophy you have, it turned out that nature
>> is not Biblical.  IDiots have to either deny nature or accept it for
>> what it is.  The IDiots at reason to believe have tried to mix denial
>> with acceptance, and they have pretty much failed to convince very
>> many Biblical creationists that they are on the right track.  MarkE is
>> currently failing to do the same thing.  Tour is just into the denial.
>> You have the Biblical creationists at BioLogos that admit that nature
>> isn't Biblical, and they think that is the way it is supposed to be.
>> Some of them are evangelical Christians, but they claim nature doesn't
>> have to be Biblical, and that nature is just what it seems to be.
>>
>> The sad thing about the current situation is that Christianity has
>> known that nature isn't Biblical from the beginning of the early
>> church.  The authors of the Bible had adopted a flat earth geocentric
>> cosmology that had a firmament above the earth that some god would
>> open up and let the rain fall.  The Greeks were estimating the
>> circumference of the earth centuries before Christ was born.  Kepler
>> failed to support the last vestiges of the firmament with his crystal
>> spheres and instead came up with elliptical orbits.  Newton was born
>> the year Galileo died under house arrest and would go on to
>> demonstrate that geocentrism was a dead issue.  The realization that
>> the earth was much older than described in the Bible predated Darwin.
>> Saint Augustine was admonishing the faithful that they should not use
>> the Bible to deny what we could determine about nature for ourselves.
>> They were already having issues with Biblical literalists and nature
>> denial at the beginning of the Catholic church.
>>
>> Nature had been established to not be Biblical long before we had the
>> scientific creationist denial that the ID perps continued.  It hasn't
>> been a philosophical argument for a very long time, except in the
>> sense of how much you are willing to deny.
>
> ID scam 1
> ID perps 5
> Top Six 1
> IDiotic 1
> IDiots 2
> denial 2
>
> If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
>
>
This is exactly what happens when a chatbot is educated on its own output.

RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
> On 12/8/2023 11:03 PM, MarkE wrote:
>> Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?
>>
>> "Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
>> philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
>> worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
>> principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences."
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
>>
>> Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
>>
>> My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,
>> major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
>>
>
> The ID scam was based on the notion that their designer could be
> determined to be part of nature. Science is just the best means we have
> developed for understanding nature. The ID perps claimed that they
> could do the same science that everyone else was doing and demonstrate
> that their designer existed. When the ID perps stupidly put out the Top
> Six designer-did-it-gaps as a related group in their logical order of
> occurrence in this universe (something that they admitted at the time
> that they had avoided doing for decades) most of the IDiots on TO
> realized that they had never wanted the ID perps to succeed in doing any
> ID science, and they quit the ID creationist scam. The designer that
> filled those gaps was not their Biblical designer.
>
> Pagano claimed that the Top Six were bogus, and were not the best
> evidence for IDiocy because they did not support his geocentric
> creationist beliefs.

How long ago had Pags stopped posting? Is he still relevant? Was he then?

> Pagano had only been interested in the gap denial
> that wasn't about the structure of the universe and our solar system.
> Bill claimed that he had never supported the ID scam, but what he likely
> meant was that he had never supported what it had always been. Kalkidas
> now claims that the Top Six are just not worth thinking about any more,
> and he came out as just a plain Biblical creationist and claimed that he
> had never claimed to be Hindu. They all realized that they had never
> wanted the ID perps to succeed in filling those gaps with a designer.
> It would not have been their Biblical designer.
>
> MarkE understands that he never wanted the ID perps to succeed in
> accomplishing any IDiotic science, but MarkE wants to wallow in the gap
> denial as the only thing left for him to do.
>
> It doesn't matter what philosophy you have, it turned out that nature is
> not Biblical. IDiots have to either deny nature or accept it for what
> it is. The IDiots at reason to believe have tried to mix denial with
> acceptance, and they have pretty much failed to convince very many
> Biblical creationists that they are on the right track. MarkE is
> currently failing to do the same thing. Tour is just into the denial.
> You have the Biblical creationists at BioLogos that admit that nature
> isn't Biblical, and they think that is the way it is supposed to be.
> Some of them are evangelical Christians, but they claim nature doesn't
> have to be Biblical, and that nature is just what it seems to be.
>
> The sad thing about the current situation is that Christianity has known
> that nature isn't Biblical from the beginning of the early church. The
> authors of the Bible had adopted a flat earth geocentric cosmology that
> had a firmament above the earth that some god would open up and let the
> rain fall. The Greeks were estimating the circumference of the earth
> centuries before Christ was born. Kepler failed to support the last
> vestiges of the firmament with his crystal spheres and instead came up
> with elliptical orbits. Newton was born the year Galileo died under
> house arrest and would go on to demonstrate that geocentrism was a dead
> issue. The realization that the earth was much older than described in
> the Bible predated Darwin. Saint Augustine was admonishing the faithful
> that they should not use the Bible to deny what we could determine about
> nature for ourselves. They were already having issues with Biblical
> literalists and nature denial at the beginning of the Catholic church.
>
> Nature had been established to not be Biblical long before we had the
> scientific creationist denial that the ID perps continued. It hasn't
> been a philosophical argument for a very long time, except in the sense
> of how much you are willing to deny.
>
Are you an AI?

Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
>
>> On 12/8/2023 11:03 PM, MarkE wrote:
>>> Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal
>>> epistemology?
>>>
>>> "Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
>>> philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
>>> worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
>>> principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences."
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
>>>
>>> Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
>>>
>>> My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,
>>> major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
>>>
>>
>> The ID scam was based on the notion that their designer could be
>> determined to be part of nature. Science is just the best means we
>> have developed for understanding nature. The ID perps claimed that
>> they could do the same science that everyone else was doing and
>> demonstrate that their designer existed. When the ID perps stupidly
>> put out the Top Six designer-did-it-gaps as a related group in their
>> logical order of occurrence in this universe (something that they
>> admitted at the time that they had avoided doing for decades) most of
>> the IDiots on TO realized that they had never wanted the ID perps to
>> succeed in doing any ID science, and they quit the ID creationist scam.
>> The designer that filled those gaps was not their Biblical designer.
>>
>> Pagano claimed that the Top Six were bogus, and were not the best
>> evidence for IDiocy because they did not support his geocentric
>> creationist beliefs. Pagano had only been interested in the gap denial
>> that wasn't about the structure of the universe and our solar system.
>> Bill claimed that he had never supported the ID scam, but what he
>> likely meant was that he had never supported what it had always been.
>> Kalkidas now claims that the Top Six are just not worth thinking about
>> any more, and he came out as just a plain Biblical creationist and
>> claimed that he had never claimed to be Hindu. They all realized that
>> they had never wanted the ID perps to succeed in filling those gaps
>> with a designer. It would not have been their Biblical designer.
>>
>> MarkE understands that he never wanted the ID perps to succeed in
>> accomplishing any IDiotic science, but MarkE wants to wallow in the gap
>> denial as the only thing left for him to do.
>>
>> It doesn't matter what philosophy you have, it turned out that nature
>> is not Biblical. IDiots have to either deny nature or accept it for
>> what it is. The IDiots at reason to believe have tried to mix denial
>> with acceptance, and they have pretty much failed to convince very many
>> Biblical creationists that they are on the right track. MarkE is
>> currently failing to do the same thing. Tour is just into the denial.
>> You have the Biblical creationists at BioLogos that admit that nature
>> isn't Biblical, and they think that is the way it is supposed to be.
>> Some of them are evangelical Christians, but they claim nature doesn't
>> have to be Biblical, and that nature is just what it seems to be.
>>
>> The sad thing about the current situation is that Christianity has
>> known that nature isn't Biblical from the beginning of the early
>> church. The authors of the Bible had adopted a flat earth geocentric
>> cosmology that had a firmament above the earth that some god would open
>> up and let the rain fall. The Greeks were estimating the circumference
>> of the earth centuries before Christ was born. Kepler failed to
>> support the last vestiges of the firmament with his crystal spheres and
>> instead came up with elliptical orbits. Newton was born the year
>> Galileo died under house arrest and would go on to demonstrate that
>> geocentrism was a dead issue. The realization that the earth was much
>> older than described in the Bible predated Darwin. Saint Augustine was
>> admonishing the faithful that they should not use the Bible to deny
>> what we could determine about nature for ourselves. They were already
>> having issues with Biblical literalists and nature denial at the
>> beginning of the Catholic church.
>>
>> Nature had been established to not be Biblical long before we had the
>> scientific creationist denial that the ID perps continued. It hasn't
>> been a philosophical argument for a very long time, except in the sense
>> of how much you are willing to deny.
>
> ID scam 1
> ID perps 5
> Top Six 1
> IDiotic 1
> IDiots 2
> denial 2
>
> If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
>
We need a BINGO card.

John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/9/23 8:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
>>
>>> On 12/8/2023 11:03 PM, MarkE wrote:
>>>> Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal
>>>> epistemology?
>>>>
>>>> "Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
>>>> philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
>>>> worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
>>>> principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural
>>>> sciences." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
>>>>
>>>> Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
>>>>
>>>> My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,
>>>> major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The ID scam was based on the notion that their designer could be
>>> determined to be part of nature.  Science is just the best means we
>>> have developed for understanding nature.  The ID perps claimed that
>>> they could do the same science that everyone else was doing and
>>> demonstrate that their designer existed.  When the ID perps stupidly
>>> put out the Top Six designer-did-it-gaps as a related group in their
>>> logical order of occurrence in this universe (something that they
>>> admitted at the time that they had avoided doing for decades) most of
>>> the IDiots on TO realized that they had never wanted the ID perps to
>>> succeed in doing any ID science, and they quit the ID creationist
>>> scam.  The designer that filled those gaps was not their Biblical
>>> designer.
>>>
>>> Pagano claimed that the Top Six were bogus, and were not the best
>>> evidence for IDiocy because they did not support his geocentric
>>> creationist beliefs.  Pagano had only been interested in the gap
>>> denial that wasn't about the structure of the universe and our solar
>>> system. Bill claimed that he had never supported the ID scam, but what
>>> he likely meant was that he had never supported what it had always
>>> been. Kalkidas now claims that the Top Six are just not worth thinking
>>> about any more, and he came out as just a plain Biblical creationist
>>> and claimed that he had never claimed to be Hindu.  They all realized
>>> that they had never wanted the ID perps to succeed in filling those
>>> gaps with a designer. It would not have been their Biblical designer.
>>>
>>> MarkE understands that he never wanted the ID perps to succeed in
>>> accomplishing any IDiotic science, but MarkE wants to wallow in the
>>> gap denial as the only thing left for him to do.
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter what philosophy you have, it turned out that nature
>>> is not Biblical.  IDiots have to either deny nature or accept it for
>>> what it is.  The IDiots at reason to believe have tried to mix denial
>>> with acceptance, and they have pretty much failed to convince very
>>> many Biblical creationists that they are on the right track.  MarkE is
>>> currently failing to do the same thing.  Tour is just into the denial.
>>> You have the Biblical creationists at BioLogos that admit that nature
>>> isn't Biblical, and they think that is the way it is supposed to be.
>>> Some of them are evangelical Christians, but they claim nature doesn't
>>> have to be Biblical, and that nature is just what it seems to be.
>>>
>>> The sad thing about the current situation is that Christianity has
>>> known that nature isn't Biblical from the beginning of the early
>>> church.  The authors of the Bible had adopted a flat earth geocentric
>>> cosmology that had a firmament above the earth that some god would
>>> open up and let the rain fall.  The Greeks were estimating the
>>> circumference of the earth centuries before Christ was born.  Kepler
>>> failed to support the last vestiges of the firmament with his crystal
>>> spheres and instead came up with elliptical orbits.  Newton was born
>>> the year Galileo died under house arrest and would go on to
>>> demonstrate that geocentrism was a dead issue.  The realization that
>>> the earth was much older than described in the Bible predated Darwin.
>>> Saint Augustine was admonishing the faithful that they should not use
>>> the Bible to deny what we could determine about nature for ourselves.
>>> They were already having issues with Biblical literalists and nature
>>> denial at the beginning of the Catholic church.
>>>
>>> Nature had been established to not be Biblical long before we had the
>>> scientific creationist denial that the ID perps continued.  It hasn't
>>> been a philosophical argument for a very long time, except in the
>>> sense of how much you are willing to deny.
>>
>> ID scam 1
>> ID perps 5
>> Top Six 1
>> IDiotic 1
>> IDiots 2
>> denial 2
>>
>> If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
>>
>>
> This is exactly what happens when a chatbot is educated on its own output.
>
>
You beat me to it.

On 12/9/2023 11:00 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 12/9/23 8:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
>>
>>> On 12/8/2023 11:03 PM, MarkE wrote:
>>>> Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal
>>>> epistemology?
>>>>
>>>> "Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
>>>> philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
>>>> worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
>>>> principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural
>>>> sciences." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
>>>>
>>>> Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
>>>>
>>>> My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,
>>>> major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The ID scam was based on the notion that their designer could be
>>> determined to be part of nature.  Science is just the best means we
>>> have developed for understanding nature.  The ID perps claimed that
>>> they could do the same science that everyone else was doing and
>>> demonstrate that their designer existed.  When the ID perps stupidly
>>> put out the Top Six designer-did-it-gaps as a related group in their
>>> logical order of occurrence in this universe (something that they
>>> admitted at the time that they had avoided doing for decades) most of
>>> the IDiots on TO realized that they had never wanted the ID perps to
>>> succeed in doing any ID science, and they quit the ID creationist
>>> scam.  The designer that filled those gaps was not their Biblical
>>> designer.
>>>
>>> Pagano claimed that the Top Six were bogus, and were not the best
>>> evidence for IDiocy because they did not support his geocentric
>>> creationist beliefs.  Pagano had only been interested in the gap
>>> denial that wasn't about the structure of the universe and our solar
>>> system. Bill claimed that he had never supported the ID scam, but
>>> what he likely meant was that he had never supported what it had
>>> always been. Kalkidas now claims that the Top Six are just not worth
>>> thinking about any more, and he came out as just a plain Biblical
>>> creationist and claimed that he had never claimed to be Hindu.  They
>>> all realized that they had never wanted the ID perps to succeed in
>>> filling those gaps with a designer. It would not have been their
>>> Biblical designer.
>>>
>>> MarkE understands that he never wanted the ID perps to succeed in
>>> accomplishing any IDiotic science, but MarkE wants to wallow in the
>>> gap denial as the only thing left for him to do.
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter what philosophy you have, it turned out that nature
>>> is not Biblical.  IDiots have to either deny nature or accept it for
>>> what it is.  The IDiots at reason to believe have tried to mix denial
>>> with acceptance, and they have pretty much failed to convince very
>>> many Biblical creationists that they are on the right track.  MarkE
>>> is currently failing to do the same thing.  Tour is just into the
>>> denial. You have the Biblical creationists at BioLogos that admit
>>> that nature isn't Biblical, and they think that is the way it is
>>> supposed to be. Some of them are evangelical Christians, but they
>>> claim nature doesn't have to be Biblical, and that nature is just
>>> what it seems to be.
>>>
>>> The sad thing about the current situation is that Christianity has
>>> known that nature isn't Biblical from the beginning of the early
>>> church.  The authors of the Bible had adopted a flat earth geocentric
>>> cosmology that had a firmament above the earth that some god would
>>> open up and let the rain fall.  The Greeks were estimating the
>>> circumference of the earth centuries before Christ was born.  Kepler
>>> failed to support the last vestiges of the firmament with his crystal
>>> spheres and instead came up with elliptical orbits.  Newton was born
>>> the year Galileo died under house arrest and would go on to
>>> demonstrate that geocentrism was a dead issue.  The realization that
>>> the earth was much older than described in the Bible predated Darwin.
>>> Saint Augustine was admonishing the faithful that they should not use
>>> the Bible to deny what we could determine about nature for ourselves.
>>> They were already having issues with Biblical literalists and nature
>>> denial at the beginning of the Catholic church.
>>>
>>> Nature had been established to not be Biblical long before we had the
>>> scientific creationist denial that the ID perps continued.  It hasn't
>>> been a philosophical argument for a very long time, except in the
>>> sense of how much you are willing to deny.
>>
>> ID scam 1
>> ID perps 5
>> Top Six 1
>> IDiotic 1
>> IDiots 2
>> denial 2
>>
>> If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
>>
>>
> This is exactly what happens when a chatbot is educated on its own output.
>

No, probably monkey see monkey do.

Just 5 years to late to matter.

Ron Okimoto

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 13:11:44 -0600
RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:

> On 12/9/2023 11:00 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 12/9/23 8:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >> On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
> >>
[Lots]
> >>
> >> ID scam 1
> >> ID perps 5
> >> Top Six 1
> >> IDiotic 1
> >> IDiots 2
> >> denial 2
> >>
> >> If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
> >>
> >>
> > This is exactly what happens when a chatbot is educated on its own output.
> >
>
> No, probably monkey see monkey do.
>
> Just 5 years to late to matter.
>
You're trying to keep a 5 year old argument still going? With the same
keywords? I suggest it's way too much like OCD.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 17:13:48 +0100
Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
>
[Same old]
>
> ID scam 1
> ID perps 5
> Top Six 1
> IDiotic 1
> IDiots 2
> denial 2
>
> If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
>
>
> --
> Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
> in England until 1987.
> Thanks, I took one look and decided it was too much for me; perhaps I need to write a parsing tool - no, that way lies madness also.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 12/9/2023 2:30 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 13:11:44 -0600
> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/9/2023 11:00 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 12/9/23 8:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>> On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
>>>>
> [Lots]
>>>>
>>>> ID scam 1
>>>> ID perps 5
>>>> Top Six 1
>>>> IDiotic 1
>>>> IDiots 2
>>>> denial 2
>>>>
>>>> If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> This is exactly what happens when a chatbot is educated on its own output.
>>>
>>
>> No, probably monkey see monkey do.
>>
>> Just 5 years to late to matter.
>>
>
> You're trying to keep a 5 year old argument still going? With the same
> keywords? I suggest it's way too much like OCD.
>

You may not know what is going on. You should get someone to explain it
to you, since you don't seem to want to understand what I have put out.

ID died on TO 5 years ago when the ID perps put out their Top Six best
evidences for IDiocy. It turned out that most of TO didn't understand
what had happened except for the IDiots that had quit.

What you are seeing is whining about reality 5 years too late to
accomplish anything.

Ron Okimoto

RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
> On 12/9/2023 2:30 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 13:11:44 -0600
>> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/9/2023 11:00 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 12/9/23 8:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
>>>>>
>> [Lots]
>>>>>
>>>>> ID scam 1
>>>>> ID perps 5
>>>>> Top Six 1
>>>>> IDiotic 1
>>>>> IDiots 2
>>>>> denial 2
>>>>>
>>>>> If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> This is exactly what happens when a chatbot is educated on its own output.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, probably monkey see monkey do.
>>>
>>> Just 5 years to late to matter.
>>>
>>
>> You're trying to keep a 5 year old argument still going? With the same
>> keywords? I suggest it's way too much like OCD.
>>
>
> You may not know what is going on. You should get someone to explain it
> to you, since you don't seem to want to understand what I have put out.
>
> ID died on TO 5 years ago when the ID perps put out their Top Six best
> evidences for IDiocy. It turned out that most of TO didn't understand
> what had happened except for the IDiots that had quit.
>
> What you are seeing is whining about reality 5 years too late to
> accomplish anything.
>
If ID actually died here why are you still writing the obituary? All
concerned parties have been amply informed by you already, no? Is ID in
probate and you’re merely contacting named parties for reading of the will?

And if it’s too late to accomplish anything why pile it on more? You can’t
make anything more dead unless we are fighting zombies. Did you suddenly
wake up in hospital in the middle of a desolate city?

On 2023-12-10 04:23:48 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:

> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 12/9/2023 2:30 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 13:11:44 -0600
>>> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/9/2023 11:00 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 12/9/23 8:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
>>>>>>
>>> [Lots]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ID scam 1
>>>>>> ID perps 5
>>>>>> Top Six 1
>>>>>> IDiotic 1
>>>>>> IDiots 2
>>>>>> denial 2
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> This is exactly what happens when a chatbot is educated on its own output.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, probably monkey see monkey do.
>>>>
>>>> Just 5 years to late to matter.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're trying to keep a 5 year old argument still going? With the same
>>> keywords? I suggest it's way too much like OCD.
>>>
>>
>> You may not know what is going on. You should get someone to explain it
>> to you, since you don't seem to want to understand what I have put out.
>>
>> ID died on TO 5 years ago when the ID perps put out their Top Six best
>> evidences for IDiocy. It turned out that most of TO didn't understand
>> what had happened except for the IDiots that had quit.
>>
>> What you are seeing is whining about reality 5 years too late to
>> accomplish anything.
>>
> If ID actually died here why are you still writing the obituary? All
> concerned parties have been amply informed by you already, no? Is ID in
> probate and you’re merely contacting named parties for reading of the will?

I think he explained that with his comment "monkey see monkey do".
Assuming that the monkey in question is himself, he notices that it's
been several hours since he last told us about IDperps and the Top Six
and thinks he needs to copy out the same old stuff yet again in case
we've forgotten.
>
> And if it’s too late to accomplish anything why pile it on more? You can’t
> make anything more dead unless we are fighting zombies. Did you suddenly
> wake up in hospital in the middle of a desolate city?

Never having used chatbot or seen it used I have no idea what John
Harshman's comment meant.

--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

On 2023-12-09 20:32:12 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:

> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 17:13:48 +0100
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
>>
> [Same old]
>>
>> ID scam 1
>> ID perps 5
>> Top Six 1
>> IDiotic 1
>> IDiots 2
>> denial 2
>>
>> If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
>> in England until 1987.
>> Thanks, I took one look and decided it was too much for me; perhaps I
>> need to write a parsing tool - no, that way lies madness also.

Ayway, I was amused that RonO thinks I might be your sock-puppet --
despite my having posted under a siungle name for at least 20 years.
Have you ever thought I might be your sock-puppet?

--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:22:03 PM UTC+11, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?
> >
> A rolling stone of crushing doubt I push up hill every day in an exercise
> of futility. I try not to “know” things based on blind faith.
> >
> > "Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
> > philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
> > worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
> > principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences."
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
> >
> Methodological naturalism works.
> >
> > Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
> >
> Atheism can be a form of metaphysical naturism if the presumption pushed is
> the Emperor idea has no clothes.
> > My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,
> > major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
> >
> What is macroevolution?

This: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02116-7

It's far from a given that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution.

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 09:21:19 +0100
Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 2023-12-09 20:32:12 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:
>
> > On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 17:13:48 +0100
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
> >>
> > [Same old]
> >>
> >> ID scam 1
> >> ID perps 5
> >> Top Six 1
> >> IDiotic 1
> >> IDiots 2
> >> denial 2
> >>
> >> If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
> >>
> >>
[sorry, my NR didn't autosnip the sig]

> >> Thanks, I took one look and decided it was too much for me; perhaps I
> >> need to write a parsing tool - no, that way lies madness also.
>
> Ayway, I was amused that RonO thinks I might be your sock-puppet --
> despite my having posted under a siungle name for at least 20 years.
> Have you ever thought I might be your sock-puppet?
>

Clearly having only recently added my current Nym to this NG, I've been
playing a long game by pretending to be ACB, and have created a highly
detailed imaginary backstory for the last 20 years, but one glance
from RonO has destroyed my cover in one!

I take it as a warning sign that the poster is, erm, somewhat off-balance
if they lash out with accusations of sock-puppetry at an early stage.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 4:47:04 AM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:22:03 PM UTC+11, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> > MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?
> > >
> > A rolling stone of crushing doubt I push up hill every day in an exercise
> > of futility. I try not to “know” things based on blind faith.
> > >
> > > "Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
> > > philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
> > > worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
> > > principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.."
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
> > >
> > Methodological naturalism works.
> > >
> > > Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
> > >
> > Atheism can be a form of metaphysical naturism if the presumption pushed is
> > the Emperor idea has no clothes.
> > > My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,
> > > major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
> > >
> > What is macroevolution?
> This: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02116-7
>
> It's far from a given that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution..

The full paper is available without a paywall at....

https://hal.science/hal-04190499/document

Unsurprisingly, it does not say what MarkE seems to think it does.