Jump to content


Photo

America's Changing Religious Landscape

religion atheism christianity secular

  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#21 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 November 2016 - 04:41 AM

 

 

Goku: I don't agree with this guy's conclusion that God exists, but I use this video to demonstrate that this isn't some atheist conspiracy, and that it is sound science to say that it is possible for a universe like ours to come into existence from a state devoid of space, time, and matter, what he calls "nothing", provided you have the laws of nature.

 

Imagine you go into a room full of nazis. Now believe it or not, there would have been people that supported Hitler, that had good intentions and may have even been duped into thinking his beliefs were somehow good. If I quote what one of those gullible supporters say will this mean that naziism as a whole was good and not intended for evil?

 

It is not, "sound science" to put some gloss on the silly belief that an intelligently designed universe can create itself just because foolish man has chosen to believe that the answer for the creation is a scientific one. If you big bang some space, giraffes aren't going to come out of self-assembling mud anyway. Showing me that a man can blow up a balloon the size of a room, won't prove that he can design and invent the 42 electrical devices stored in the balloon.

 

Here we have the scientific mainstream, and their goal is to explain everything scientifically because they BELIEVE everything can be explained that way, which is a faith-assumption which is a faith in materialism/naturalism. That a small percentage of theistic bone-heads have been duped into believing that we can use nazism (metaphor) to achieve good things just means they are a peculiar minority of gullible people. They themselves have a propensity to only understand things in scientific terms.

 

Your argument is this;

 

Science fairytalism stories of creation are believed by some theists, therefore science fairytalism as a whole is a good motive, (Hasty generalisation fallacy).

 

Just because you give an example of one guy that accepts atheism as his theism doesn't mean all atheism is good.

 

:P

 

This is the problem Goku. You aren't selling wisdom, you're selling fallacies and you should know by now that we don't buy them. We don't buy that evolution is an innocent little scientific fact, what it is, is man's foolish attempt to explain the creation without a Creator. Sorry, no sale - Creators create creations, and only God can create something as wonderful and as miraculous as a giraffe or a butterfly. If you think they invented themselves you are another duped, gullible person that has been deceived. For Goku, a giraffe is not an evolution, it is a marvelous creation. It just is. I invite you to read about it's design, here; The clear facts reveal it's designed anatomy, and evolution is 100% absent;

 

http://creation.com/...-have-headaches


  • Mike Summers likes this

#22 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 03 November 2016 - 08:25 AM

Goku said:

Yes, absence of a deity, not necessarily the supernatural in total. I know it is hard for many Christians to think outside of their world view even hypothetically, but it is possible and there are people out there who disbelieve in God yet still accept some supernatural realm or phenomena.

Actually, I don't find it hard to think anything.

On the other hand, Our thinking is not known to be sacrosanct.

Yes, and how did they do that? They used their intelligence and creative ability to think it it up. Darwin did the same. But make no mistake, he had to  use intelligence and creativity to write his book. I suppose thinking something up is about as easy as falling off a greased log.

Perhaps this article will help clarify: http://atheism.about...uls-Spirits.htm
 
If you must know the single best label I identify as, without getting into minutia, is pantheism. Out of EFF's extremely limited choices I thought "atheism" best represented my views in the context of what this forum discusses.

Bing Definition:

Pantheism is the belief that the Universe (or Nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God. Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god. Some Asian religions are considered to be pantheistically inclined.

The problem with this definition is that most of us see ourselves as individuals
--Autonomous self-governing individuals. If we argue there is no God then who ends up being the second runner-up--us. We are the closest thing to God on the planet.

The fact that we disagree with each other demonstrate that we are individuals that can form our own opinions and beliefs. When I say "form our own opinion", I mean create them.

I contend that the truth as you inferred being outside of our mind is a dubious idea. I don't think truth is an entity that you can know and talk to--I think it's a concept created by a mind.

Moreover for you to make the claims you make about who
can't exist in the nethers of the universe you would have to have powers of the being you claim does not exist.

One thing you might want to ask yourself is, "How will I know what I'm saying is true?" There are a couple suggested answers: Assume that you are all-knowing. Number two; use your creative abilities to crerate the idea that there is no God Via your mind. The letter is what I think you've done. Now you may check out whether you have the ability to un--create beings. Try it and see! Uncreate me. LOL

Do I think my use of logic here will stop you from making god like decrees --to admit you exceed your information database--that you are not all-knowing--hardly. As I have often quoted Dale Carnegie, "Convinced against your will of the same opinion still!" I am sure I'm not the only one on EFF that doubts your divinity. :)

 

PS: I expect you will ignore this. But then that's what alleged atheist do is ignore the existence of being they don't wish to  believe exist. The reason I don't ignore you is because I believe you exist. LOL  :)


  • mike the wiz likes this

#23 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 03 November 2016 - 07:55 PM

Imagine you go into a room full of nazis. Now believe it or not, there would have been people that supported Hitler, that had good intentions and may have even been duped into thinking his beliefs were somehow good. If I quote what one of those gullible supporters say will this mean that naziism as a whole was good and not intended for evil?

 

It is not, "sound science" to put some gloss on the silly belief that an intelligently designed universe can create itself just because foolish man has chosen to believe that the answer for the creation is a scientific one. If you big bang some space, giraffes aren't going to come out of self-assembling mud anyway. Showing me that a man can blow up a balloon the size of a room, won't prove that he can design and invent the 42 electrical devices stored in the balloon.

 

Here we have the scientific mainstream, and their goal is to explain everything scientifically because they BELIEVE everything can be explained that way, which is a faith-assumption which is a faith in materialism/naturalism. That a small percentage of theistic bone-heads have been duped into believing that we can use nazism (metaphor) to achieve good things just means they are a peculiar minority of gullible people. They themselves have a propensity to only understand things in scientific terms.

 

I honestly don't understand half of your post. I don't know what the Nazis are supposed to represent, the scientific community, atheism, science itself? Isn't using Nazis as a metaphor for the group you don't like kind of like an epithet? I know it is not an epithet proper, but imagine if I used the Nazis as a metaphor for Christians in some example, that would have half the forum bringing out their torches and pitchforks. At the very least it is highly biased language with the clear intent of invoking an emotional response from the readers.

 

Of course the scientific community is going to look for scientific answers, that is kind of their job. I don't know how many scientists believe everything can be explained by using the scientific method, but last time I checked 40 to 45 percent of scientists believe in God. So it would appear that close to half of the scientific community disagrees with your statement right off the bat.

 

Did you even listen to the video I put up? It's not sound science because "foolish man has chosen to believe that the answer for the creation is a scientific one", but because it has been demonstrated as a real possibility using physics that has gone through the crucible of peer review.

 

Isn't calling it a "silly" belief, and only "foolish" man chose it, and calling the theistic scientists that accept it "bone-heads", all epithets?

 

Your argument is this;

 

Science fairytalism stories of creation are believed by some theists, therefore science fairytalism as a whole is a good motive, (Hasty generalisation fallacy).

 

Just because you give an example of one guy that accepts atheism as his theism doesn't mean all atheism is good.

 

:P

 

:huh:

 

Isn't calling it "fairytalism" an epithet? Or are these things only epithets when others use it, and when you use it it is telling the truth?

 

I really don't understand this section of your post. The guy in the video is not an atheist but an orthodox Jew that has a PhD in physics from MIT and teaches at an orthodox Jewish university in Jerusalem.

 

The point of bringing him up, which I explained when I brought him up, is to dispel any atheistic bias. If I quoted Krauss or Hawking people would complain that they are atheists trying to push their atheistic agenda, but I suppose I forgot how quick believers invoke the no true Scotsman fallacy when a believer says something they don't like.

 

This is the problem Goku. You aren't selling wisdom, you're selling fallacies and you should know by now that we don't buy them. We don't buy that evolution is an innocent little scientific fact, what it is, is man's foolish attempt to explain the creation without a Creator. Sorry, no sale - Creators create creations, and only God can create something as wonderful and as miraculous as a giraffe or a butterfly. If you think they invented themselves you are another duped, gullible person that has been deceived. For Goku, a giraffe is not an evolution, it is a marvelous creation. It just is. I invite you to read about it's design, here; The clear facts reveal it's designed anatomy, and evolution is 100% absent;

 

http://creation.com/...-have-headaches

 

What does any of this discussion have to do with giraffes? We weren't even talking about evolution or biology. Talk about selling fallacies, you appeal to emotion with your Nazi metaphor and constant epithets, no true Scotsman assertion about Gerald Schroeder, and now we can add red herring with this giraffe thing.

 

If you think some magical, immoral, anthropomorphic entity that ignorant humans made up around the campfire millennia ago used incantation spells to create everything from the heavens to your hairy knees you are another duped, gullible person that has been deceived. Ad hominem fallacy, or telling it like it is?

 

Regardless of how marvelous the giraffe's anatomy is, or how evolutionarily impossible you think it is (argument from incredulity, fallacy), it did happen.  http://www.livescien...fe-fossils.html 



#24 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 04 November 2016 - 12:10 AM

The problem with this definition is that most of us see ourselves as individuals

--Autonomous self-governing individuals. If we argue there is no God then who ends up being the second runner-up--us. We are the closest thing to God on the planet.

The fact that we disagree with each other demonstrate that we are individuals that can form our own opinions and beliefs. When I say "form our own opinion", I mean create them.

I contend that the truth as you inferred being outside of our mind is a dubious idea. I don't think truth is an entity that you can know and talk to--I think it's a concept created by a mind.

Moreover for you to make the claims you make about who
can't exist in the nethers of the universe you would have to have powers of the being you claim does not exist.

One thing you might want to ask yourself is, "How will I know what I'm saying is true?" There are a couple suggested answers: Assume that you are all-knowing. Number two; use your creative abilities to crerate the idea that there is no God Via your mind. The letter is what I think you've done. Now you may check out whether you have the ability to un--create beings. Try it and see! Uncreate me. LOL

Do I think my use of logic here will stop you from making god like decrees --to admit you exceed your information database--that you are not all-knowing--hardly. As I have often quoted Dale Carnegie, "Convinced against your will of the same opinion still!" I am sure I'm not the only one on EFF that doubts your divinity. :)

 

PS: I expect you will ignore this. But then that's what alleged atheist do is ignore the existence of being they don't wish to  believe exist. The reason I don't ignore you is because I believe you exist. LOL  :)

 

I ignored you to make a point: people are influenced by outside stimuli, and I think it is fair to say you were affected. Also, I confess, continually correcting the same straw man ad nauseam was getting tiresome.

 

Pantheism doesn't say we have no individuality, but rather each of us is a manifestation of God, as are the trees, rocks, and all else in existence. We are not God in the classical theistic sense of the word. To paraphrase Dawkins, "pantheism is a spiced up atheism", and at one end of the pantheistic spectrum that is true, but there are other forms of pantheism that delve into more supernatural happenings. There are pantheistic sects with Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism, not to mention it is believed that many of the pagan religions grew out of pantheistic concepts.

 

I think truth is that which is concordant with reality. If reality is real, then truth is real.

 

Do you recognize the difference between believing that entity X doesn't exist versus asserting that entity X cannot exist as an absolute statement with no caveats? For all I know Lord Xenu exists, killed a bunch of aliens, brainwashed their souls/thetans, and these lost thetans have attached themselves to our bodies causing us grief and confusion, and through auditing and such we can rid ourselves of these foreign thetans while enlightening our own thetan/soul/self (i.e. the doctrine of Scientology). That might actually be true; I cannot say Lord Xenu as described does not, cannot, exist as an absolute statement with no caveats, but I do not believe Lord Xenu exists.

 

As for how can we know if what we believe is true or not, I think a good place to start is to rid ourselves the need of absolute truth, and focus on degrees of certainty or confidence in our beliefs based on evidence, logic, and reason.
 



#25 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 November 2016 - 04:15 AM

 

 

Goku: I honestly don't understand half of your post. I don't know what the Nazis are supposed to represent, the scientific community, atheism, science itself? Isn't using Nazis as a metaphor for the group you don't like kind of like an epithet? I know it is not an epithet proper, but imagine if I used the Nazis as a metaphor for Christians in some example, that would have half the forum bringing out their torches and pitchforks. At the very least it is highly biased language with the clear intent of invoking an emotional response from the readers.

 

The only point of using an analogy with nazis is because it is a very overt example of the point I try to make. Because it's obvious to everyone, and everyone agrees that the nazis were wrong, and it is a kind of evil term, it makes for a good analogy because everyone can immediately understand it. It has nothing to do with actually linking nazis to you in any way. 

 

 

 

Goku:  I don't know how many scientists believe everything can be explained by using the scientific method, but last time I checked 40 to 45 percent of scientists believe in God. So it would appear that close to half of the scientific community disagrees with your statement right off the bat.

 

You should know that, "off the bat" reasoning is nearly always wrong.

 

Think about your statement again. Those people who are 40% of them theist, do they believe that the universe can be explained scientifically? According to the law of the excluded middle, either you believe everything can be explained scientifically or you don't. Those who believe the big bang scenario, abiogenesis and evo, by definition believe that everything can be explained scientifically, whether they claim belief in God or not. 

 

What I specifically meant is that everything in the universe and every cause, can be as an assumption, explained scientifically.

 

This assumption in and of itself is an illogical assumption of arrogance and human reason. There is an assumption for example, that things with all of the usual elements of intelligent design only to a miraculous level superior to our own ID as deductively proved by biomimetics, can be explained by science simply because of a pride-based DESIRE to explain it that way, and a strong desire to not allocate the usually correct cause, logically.

 

Surely you must agree somewhat with me. Imagine if scientists were told to stop studying for scientific causes. There may well even be in such an example, many suicides, because their whole life, their whole passion, is science. That the answer is not scientific, would be a devastation to science-mainstream, as they have made their mission to provide scientific explanation of all things.

 

This has went way beyond the original and effective tool and subject science was. It's original operational success is now used to bandy it's poor theories, (innocence by association).

 

Yes I use epithets in my posts. Sometimes, like everyone else I say things because I passionately believe them. Look upon my epithets as personal outrage, because I feel offended on God's behalf. When you know the Lord as your true friend and people say He did do things or people say He didn't do things you know He did do, would you not be angry on behalf of your friend, and defend Him when you know these things said are false?

 

God is the epitome of all goodness, love, beauty, intelligence, creativity. To say He has not made what He has clearly made, is an affront to me which is almost a kind of blasphemy. All those who argue thus, are without excuse for the very reason that I know that their eyes function like mine, meaning, they can see the creation before them. They can see the amazing design of the giraffe when explained to them, because they understand english. They can see the symmetry and colour and order in nature, because I can see it. They can see the most incredible level of genius in a lifeform when explained to them, like I can. For example the incredible physics in the Archer fish, the calculation of the parabolic jet of water, which has to all be precision. They can see these things point to a designer beyond our full understanding. You can see these things, just as I can.

 

WHEN, I point at a light in the sky and I see it, and everyone with me sees it and describes it as the same pattern, and you say you do not see it, it makes me angry. Partly it makes me more angry with some people more than others. Because I know you are basically a good guy who has a good grasp of things and can use your intelligence, it upsets me more because I know you can see all of the things I see and I know you can think all of the things I can thing, but you won't. Your WILL, WILL not. You WILL not, as a matter of WILL, stubborn, WILL.

 

You WILL not see the creation before you, because do not want to.

 

Sure, you can replace all my words and insert "evolution" but we both know I can smash evolution to pieces and reveal why it is false, but nobody can smash the truth to pieces. Nobody can change the intelligent design which is factual in nature. But evolution - that is a tenuous argument, and all of the things of evolution I have, "seen" can be explained away EASILY, but not so with the creation before you each day, which testifies to the one Who clearly did make it.

 

So, now you should know, that it is out of Goku-love that I commit these righteous fallacies. :D :P Like when Bones says to Kirk; "you really piss me off, Jim". Permit me to say, that these righteous epithets have been bathed in Goku love, so in all truth, yes, and with good faith I can say, that when I commit epithets it is logical. :rotfl3: 

 

;)

 

(I do like colour in posts too. See my sig. I often use my own words and Roald Dahl's own einvented words such as, "flushbunking", and "troggleumper", etc..."evolution is a flushbunking pifflehoff delirium!" The sounds of words and the combination of words to create tongue twisters, greatly satisfies my inner goon.) 


  • Mike Summers likes this

#26 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 November 2016 - 05:20 AM

Also Goku, there are a couple of issues there I don't agree with. Technically you can be a theist and be a part of the secular scientific mainstream sure, just as surely as technically you can be a Christian and shake hands with the devil. ;-)

 

My point is, let's face it, if you don't believe God made the universe and basically would argue had He not, everything would still be here because of big-bang evo-story, then if your "theism" is no different basically from atheism, one has to at least question how important that tenuous theism is to the person that argues such things, at the very least it is a very wishy washy theism, that is so plastic it can agree pretty much and be no different to, atheism.

 

Secondly I don't believe a universe can happen on it's own. You can't study a fully designed universe and from the things which exist within it, infer that a universe could spring into being from that which does not exist, without assuming a portion of this actual universe, existed before the universe, meaning we get into arguments that can be referred to as, "semantic drivel". 

 

Exhibit A;

 

"nothing isn't truly nothing, it's a very special mysterious kind of nothing, a nothing that can't be grasped in the ordinary sense."

 

Oh boy! A something-nothing then!

 

Yeah right... and have you been neglecting your logic-pills again? 

 

Even if I was GENEROUS, and I assumed an eternal something existed which gave rise to the universe, what then? If I prove a man can lift 100 kilograms would that prove he could also lift 500 kilos while giving a speech and not perspiring even one drop of sweat?

 

It is not possible, that is - IMPOSSIBLE for an intelligently designed creation to be randomly created, just as it is impossible for a car chassis to be created from naturally occurring metal over eons of time. There is no logical, rational reason to believe that rabbits built the pyramids either. Just as bunnies don't have opposable thumbs, neither do atoms have the brains to invent eyes, ears, giraffes, peas, beas fleas, cheese, seas and hairy knees, nor do they have the wisdom to create abscission, photosynthesis, or calculus or algebra.

 

In short, nature theoretically can create a tornado but does that mean it can create a 747 jet from the tornado? And what is the problem with this statement? The problem is, "nature" would firstly have to exist, but everything we know of is nature, who is to say nature can create itself if nature itself does not exist, according to the usual definition of nothing?

 

Doesn't it frighten you how much evolutionists have to twist the definitions of words beyond meaning just so we can buy their story?



#27 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 November 2016 - 08:43 AM

 

 

 Goku: For all I know Lord Xenu exists, killed a bunch of aliens, brainwashed their souls/thetans, and these lost thetans have attached themselves to our bodies causing us grief and confusion, and through auditing and such we can rid ourselves of these foreign thetans while enlightening our own thetan/soul/self 

 

For all I know a fictional series of pre-bats, call zogonuts, transitioned into modern bats. Pre-whales and pre-Ichthyosaurs, pink zogobrands, evolved into whales and green snotbatchers evoled into Ichthyosaurs.

 

The moronic appeal to inventing anything, like Dawkins does, won't remove the ACTUAL facts before us.

 

For example, and invisible teapot flying around Saturn, had no affect on the reality that the higgs boson did exist after all, despite no direct detection for many decades, and no knowledge of it for centuries before it's discovery. 

 

In reality, the unique bible, the unique and wonderful gospel message of Christ, is not comparable to any of the clearly phoney, superficial codswallop you can invent and then say "now believe until disproven".

 

You forget, Christianity is a meaningful message, it answers the big questions in life and addresses human behaviour, (sin), God's word answers the big questions in life if you study the theology properly. So invented gods, is obviously an easy thing to do, which is precisely why God specifically said, and I quote, "oh do not do this thing that I hate". (inventing false gods).

 

Just because you compare our belief to some poppycock you make up doesn't mean our belief is comparable to that poppycock. Just because we can say, "anything may be possible" doesn't mean the Lord God Himself is comparable to those suggestions. In actual fact not everything will turn out to be possible but that doesn't mean the Lord is one of those things just because you lump Him in the phoney group, begging-the-question.



#28 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 04 November 2016 - 10:38 PM

The only point of using an analogy with nazis is because it is a very overt example of the point I try to make. Because it's obvious to everyone, and everyone agrees that the nazis were wrong, and it is a kind of evil term, it makes for a good analogy because everyone can immediately understand it. It has nothing to do with actually linking nazis to you in any way.

 

I was just being difficult, but you never did answer who the Nazis represent in your metaphor; the scientific community, atheists, or something else?

 

You should know that, "off the bat" reasoning is nearly always wrong.

 

Think about your statement again. Those people who are 40% of them theist, do they believe that the universe can be explained scientifically? According to the law of the excluded middle, either you believe everything can be explained scientifically or you don't. Those who believe the big bang scenario, abiogenesis and evo, by definition believe that everything can be explained scientifically, whether they claim belief in God or not. 

 

What I specifically meant is that everything in the universe and every cause, can be as an assumption, explained scientifically.

 

If we mean "science" in this context to be "explainable purely by natural means", then by definition any theist would not believe that everything can be explained scientifically. For example if these 40% of scientists believed Jesus turned water into wine through divine intervention that wouldn't have a natural explanation.

 

I assume you are familiar with William Lane Craig, Christian apologist and philosopher, and he accepts the big bang and actually uses it in his arguments to prove the existence of God (i.e. everything that has a beginning......). I would love to be a fly on the wall when you tell him that because he accepts the big bang theory that means God had no part in the creation of the universe and his stance on the creation of the universe is logically equivalent to an atheist.

 

This assumption in and of itself is an illogical assumption of arrogance and human reason. There is an assumption for example, that things with all of the usual elements of intelligent design only to a miraculous level superior to our own ID as deductively proved by biomimetics, can be explained by science simply because of a pride-based DESIRE to explain it that way, and a strong desire to not allocate the usually correct cause, logically.

 

Surely you must agree somewhat with me. Imagine if scientists were told to stop studying for scientific causes. There may well even be in such an example, many suicides, because their whole life, their whole passion, is science. That the answer is not scientific, would be a devastation to science-mainstream, as they have made their mission to provide scientific explanation of all things.

 

This has went way beyond the original and effective tool and subject science was. It's original operational success is now used to bandy it's poor theories, (innocence by association).

 

I hate to break it to you but biological evolution is supported by a myriad of evidence from transitional fossils to genetics. We know the mechanisms theoretically work through genetic algorithms which do make designs superior to human engineering, and genetics with transitional fossils demonstrate that life found a viable pathway for such evolution.

 

The fact that the theory of evolution is accepted by virtually all scientists (~99.98%) irrespective of their cultural background or religious beliefs is a testament to how strong the scientific evidence is for the theory. I can just as easily turn your statement around and say that the reason why you don't accept it is because of your emotional desire to adhere to your a priori belief of a literal Genesis which you rationalize with things like biomimetics.

 

Of course scientists desire to explain things scientifically, that is what their career is all about. Given that it is difficult to become a scientist and the pay is generally not that great, usually scientists are passionate about their work. But as I've mentioned a good 40+% do not think everything is inherently explainable by science. Pending any earth-shattering revelations the logical conclusion is that evolution is accepted by virtually all scientists because those with the qualifications to assess its validity at the highest levels have found the theory to be well supported.

 

Yes I use epithets in my posts. Sometimes, like everyone else I say things because I passionately believe them. Look upon my epithets as personal outrage, because I feel offended on God's behalf. When you know the Lord as your true friend and people say He did do things or people say He didn't do things you know He did do, would you not be angry on behalf of your friend, and defend Him when you know these things said are false?

 

God is the epitome of all goodness, love, beauty, intelligence, creativity. To say He has not made what He has clearly made, is an affront to me which is almost a kind of blasphemy. All those who argue thus, are without excuse for the very reason that I know that their eyes function like mine, meaning, they can see the creation before them. They can see the amazing design of the giraffe when explained to them, because they understand english. They can see the symmetry and colour and order in nature, because I can see it. They can see the most incredible level of genius in a lifeform when explained to them, like I can. For example the incredible physics in the Archer fish, the calculation of the parabolic jet of water, which has to all be precision. They can see these things point to a designer beyond our full understanding. You can see these things, just as I can.

 

WHEN, I point at a light in the sky and I see it, and everyone with me sees it and describes it as the same pattern, and you say you do not see it, it makes me angry. Partly it makes me more angry with some people more than others. Because I know you are basically a good guy who has a good grasp of things and can use your intelligence, it upsets me more because I know you can see all of the things I see and I know you can think all of the things I can thing, but you won't. Your WILL, WILL not. You WILL not, as a matter of WILL, stubborn, WILL.

 

You WILL not see the creation before you, because do not want to.

 

Sure, you can replace all my words and insert "evolution" but we both know I can smash evolution to pieces and reveal why it is false, but nobody can smash the truth to pieces. Nobody can change the intelligent design which is factual in nature. But evolution - that is a tenuous argument, and all of the things of evolution I have, "seen" can be explained away EASILY, but not so with the creation before you each day, which testifies to the one Who clearly did make it.

 

So, now you should know, that it is out of Goku-love that I commit these righteous fallacies. :D :P Like when Bones says to Kirk; "you really piss me off, Jim". Permit me to say, that these righteous epithets have been bathed in Goku love, so in all truth, yes, and with good faith I can say, that when I commit epithets it is logical. :rotfl3: 

 

;)

 

(I do like colour in posts too. See my sig. I often use my own words and Roald Dahl's own einvented words such as, "flushbunking", and "troggleumper", etc..."evolution is a flushbunking pifflehoff delirium!" The sounds of words and the combination of words to create tongue twisters, greatly satisfies my inner goon.) 

 

I only brought up the epithets because you complain about them so often when others use them. While my post was rather dry I was having a fun time and not taking it too serious. Righteous fallacies for God eh.  ;) 

 

I see the 'design', I just think the 'design' is better explained through evolution than a God designing it like you would a car and planting it all here like a geranium in a flower pot. If God does exist, then for me it is obvious that natural law is the primary mechanism God used to create the world before us.



#29 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 05 November 2016 - 03:07 AM

......
I hate to break it to you but biological evolution is supported by a myriad of evidence from transitional fossils to genetics. We know the mechanisms theoretically work through genetic algorithms which do make designs superior to human engineering, and genetics with transitional fossils demonstrate that life found a viable pathway for such evolution.

 So why do we still have to wait to be shown this "myriad of evidence"? 

There is no "transitional fossils". If the fossil record shows anything, it's stasis. 
 
 

The fact that the theory of evolution is accepted by virtually all scientists (~99.98%) irrespective of their cultural background or religious beliefs is a testament to how strong the scientific evidence is for the theory. I can just as easily turn your statement around and say that the reason why you don't accept it is because of your emotional desire to adhere to your a priori belief of a literal Genesis which you rationalize with things like biomimetics.

 Just that nature and science are no democracies. This ad populum argument doesn't stick it all. General agreement (and I'd question your figure) doesn't have to mean that there is evidence for something. It more often then not is evidence for the power of paradigm. Of course an a priori commitment to Materialism ("Naturalism") only allows for some evolutionary model of explanation. But that doesn't mean that it is like this. 
 
 

Of course scientists desire to explain things scientifically, that is what their career is all about. Given that it is difficult to become a scientist and the pay is generally not that great, usually scientists are passionate about their work. But as I've mentioned a good 40+% do not think everything is inherently explainable by science. Pending any earth-shattering revelations the logical conclusion is that evolution is accepted by virtually all scientists because those with the qualifications to assess its validity at the highest levels have found the theory to be well supported.

Their careers are first and foremost about securing a position and funding. You don't get those, if you are an ardent dissident about something that is paradigmatic and hegemonic. That's how even stupid ideas maintain themselves over time. Those knowledgeable in the field of course all know about the corrosiveness of mutation, the insufficiency of "natural selection" or the observed stasis. By now they also ought to know about awesome complexity and functionality within even simple cell. So all the excuse they got is, "but all the other scientists believe it" (aka supported). And what we see with them is all they do is just interpreting and fitting all they observe into the Neodarwinian paradigm. But just saying "Evolution" that and "evolutionary" this, doesn't prove anything, except for the observers own bias and prejudice. 


  • mike the wiz likes this

#30 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 05 November 2016 - 12:29 PM

 

 

Goku: Pending any earth-shattering revelations the logical conclusion is that evolution is accepted by virtually all scientists because those with the qualifications to assess its validity at the highest levels have found the theory to be well supported.

 

The problem is Goku, in life everything is a claim, and everyone uses reasoning to expound their case, including evolutionary scientists. They actually aren't experts in reason. It isn't enough to only be an expert in evolutionary hypothetics. For example, a lot of the reasons they give as to why evolution is well supported, can be shown to actually be reasons why micro-evolution is well supported.

 

You seem to live under a misconception that this means anything spectacular to the scientists themselves. By and large it doesn't, the real scientists that accept evolution and know it, would say it is supported in the sense that they would say it is viable. This is all a theory can be. It's purpose is to give a thorough explanation of the facts, without any reliance on proof. Einstein said, "100 experiments won't prove me right but one will prove me wrong".

 

The main problem with evolutionary experts is that they use selective reasoning. They will argue (use reasoning) that evolution is well supported over here, while they will perhaps unwittingly shovel some other problems under the carpet by use of sloppy, intuitive reasoning. For example I have read sloppy secularist science papers that say things such as, "evolutionary stasis", which logically speaking, if we look to the definition of both words, is to say, "changing non-change". Logically speaking, the evidence animals stay the same is what would be expected from animal kinds, thus stasis or normalised selection, is a name-tag. It's an epithet, :P There are weak areas of evolutionary theory that I have explained to you many times, and I have explained why on an expert level of logical reasoning, those falsifications are consequential. Do you seriously expect the scientific mainstream to focus on the falsifications of evolution when their belief is there is only one scientific answer which can only be evolution? What do you think happens between their ears when they come across a fact that breaks evolution such as soft dino tissue? Do you think they acknowledge it for what it is, or do they find a way to REASON that somehow it is evo?

 

The problem is Goku, I have patiently told you why the arguments for evolution don't stack up on a logical level and you don't accept my findings even though they are sound and they are sound for reasons evolutionary scientists aren't even aware of. You constantly repeat the same story as though by sticking to the story, this makes the story true.

 

It doesn't matter if the scientists that are most expert in evolution say it is well supported because this is a tautological statement for under all circumstances it would be absurd to expect if they were asked if evolution is well supported, that they would say, "no". But what is really supported? Not macro, clearly.

 

The things that are, "well supported" can actually be explained without macro evolution. Think about it, if you asked for the top five arguments from these experts do you think I wouldn't have heard of those arguments? Do you think I wouldn't know that those arguments could be explained well as actually supporting micro-evolution?

 

You see, you don't want to actually evaluate evolution, you just want to repeat the party line that it is accepted. But the mistakes with evolution have been well explained at this forum. Again, I am 100% confident, that the worlds most established evolutionary expert could not beat my argument in any formal setting. I know this to be true otherwise I would not be that confident. I have come across scientists before and it always amuses me how ignorant they are of what reasoning actually is. They truly don't seem to be conscious of what it actually is because they are fat, spoilt cats because evolution has never been critically examined within science. That is why I would win the debate, it is exactly the same as Rocky 1, Apollo Creed was so relaxed and so cocky he could win that he didn't even train for the fight against Rocky Balboa. But Balboa was so hungry he stuck it out all of the way to the end because he was underestimated because he wasn't a famous expert.

 

Sure, on a personal level it means a great deal to you. You will no doubt think in these terms; "well, all those scientists being wrong, all that work, 150 years of science..yeah right" ..this is the kind of average thinking that OCCURS to people but unfortunately they don't think beyond that stage.

 

Sure, I can admit how absurd it must be from your perspective, you are thinking; "what, this one guy thinks he is clever enough to refute all of science?"

 

That is the kind of sloppy thought that goes through peoples' heads. In fact the chances are, I would likely agree that everything the scientist says is factual, is factual, apart from his inference of macro-evolution. I would agree they could show genetic drift, gene flow, a change in allele frequencies in gene pools, etc..I would agree that there was an example of a beneficial mutation leading to a fairly substantial change such as anti-freeze in fish and what not. 

 

 I know that in a court of law I could send evolution packing because they have never had to really study their arguments because nobody ever required that evolution should be critically analyzed.

 

That's why I can win, because my training has been gruelling to the mind. (OCD) I have passed through the maelstrom to purchase wisdom from the Lord. I did not devise it, I did not foresee it, He just afflicted me when I thought my mind was useless. (2003/4)

 

Give me the best argument your expert has. Go on, and we'll see if he has even ever heard of the answer I give. Not likely, Bilbo my lad. For they are only experts in evolution, and to ascertain the truth value of an argument (as they must use reasoning for evolution) you have to be an expert. This gives me the advantage and the upper hand, because the reasoning-part of their position can be very, very weak, it is like the soft part of the dragon with no scales on Smaug, it is waiting for an arrow and I can fire arrows accurately. :P

 

"See you fly you mother, see you fly!!" - Kevin Bacon - Tremors.

 

Mithrandir has spoken. Flee from his shining staff!

 

;)



#31 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 05 November 2016 - 04:41 PM

Also Goku, there are a couple of issues there I don't agree with. Technically you can be a theist and be a part of the secular scientific mainstream sure, just as surely as technically you can be a Christian and shake hands with the devil. ;-)

 

My point is, let's face it, if you don't believe God made the universe and basically would argue had He not, everything would still be here because of big-bang evo-story, then if your "theism" is no different basically from atheism, one has to at least question how important that tenuous theism is to the person that argues such things, at the very least it is a very wishy washy theism, that is so plastic it can agree pretty much and be no different to, atheism.

 

Well if you are a theist then kind of by definition you believe God made the universe. Of the 40% of scientists that are theists I suspect they believe God made the universe through the big bang. You seem to be arguing a false dichotomy of either faith or science. There is no atheistic or theistic science, there is only science. How each individual interprets the science within their larger world view is up to them.

 

Creationists often say that God gave each "kind" the genetic information to speciate into various types, e.g. lions and tigers. Since lions and tigers speciated, presumably through natural law set up by God, does that mean God didn't create lions and tigers, or that God created lions and tigers through (at least in part) natural processes?

 

Secondly I don't believe a universe can happen on it's own. You can't study a fully designed universe and from the things which exist within it, infer that a universe could spring into being from that which does not exist, without assuming a portion of this actual universe, existed before the universe, meaning we get into arguments that can be referred to as, "semantic drivel". 

 

Exhibit A;

 

"nothing isn't truly nothing, it's a very special mysterious kind of nothing, a nothing that can't be grasped in the ordinary sense."

 

Oh boy! A something-nothing then!

 

Yeah right... and have you been neglecting your logic-pills again? 

 

Even if I was GENEROUS, and I assumed an eternal something existed which gave rise to the universe, what then? If I prove a man can lift 100 kilograms would that prove he could also lift 500 kilos while giving a speech and not perspiring even one drop of sweat?

 

It is not possible, that is - IMPOSSIBLE for an intelligently designed creation to be randomly created, just as it is impossible for a car chassis to be created from naturally occurring metal over eons of time. There is no logical, rational reason to believe that rabbits built the pyramids either. Just as bunnies don't have opposable thumbs, neither do atoms have the brains to invent eyes, ears, giraffes, peas, beas fleas, cheese, seas and hairy knees, nor do they have the wisdom to create abscission, photosynthesis, or calculus or algebra.

 

In short, nature theoretically can create a tornado but does that mean it can create a 747 jet from the tornado? And what is the problem with this statement? The problem is, "nature" would firstly have to exist, but everything we know of is nature, who is to say nature can create itself if nature itself does not exist, according to the usual definition of nothing?

 

Doesn't it frighten you how much evolutionists have to twist the definitions of words beyond meaning just so we can buy their story?

 

Yet our understanding of physics allows a universe such as ours to come forth from a state devoid of space, time, and matter due to quantum fluctuations. I think you are getting too hung up on the word "nothing". As I understand it when physicists say that the universe can come from nothing they mean physical nothing where the laws of nature still apply, whereas you want a philosophical nothing where not even the laws of nature apply.

If we assume that we have to start with such a philosophical nothing, then not even God himself exists or could come forth. If we want to say that God is exempt from this "nothing", then why not say the laws of nature can be exempt as well? Why there is something rather than nothing is a problem for both camps I think. I know believers like to say by definition God is eternal, but that line of reasoning doesn't actually address why or how God exists in the first place. I suppose another way to put it would be why do atheists have to start with philosophical nothing, but theists are conveniently exempt from this?

 

As for biological systems analogies dealing with car parts and tornadoes forming jets fall short. The big difference, which is very crucial, is that biological systems reproduce. Evolution is not random; sure mutations may be, but natural selection ensures that the end product is not random.



#32 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 05 November 2016 - 06:22 PM

For all I know a fictional series of pre-bats, call zogonuts, transitioned into modern bats. Pre-whales and pre-Ichthyosaurs, pink zogobrands, evolved into whales and green snotbatchers evoled into Ichthyosaurs.

 

The moronic appeal to inventing anything, like Dawkins does, won't remove the ACTUAL facts before us.

 

For example, and invisible teapot flying around Saturn, had no affect on the reality that the higgs boson did exist after all, despite no direct detection for many decades, and no knowledge of it for centuries before it's discovery. 

 

In reality, the unique bible, the unique and wonderful gospel message of Christ, is not comparable to any of the clearly phoney, superficial codswallop you can invent and then say "now believe until disproven".

 

You forget, Christianity is a meaningful message, it answers the big questions in life and addresses human behaviour, (sin), God's word answers the big questions in life if you study the theology properly. So invented gods, is obviously an easy thing to do, which is precisely why God specifically said, and I quote, "oh do not do this thing that I hate". (inventing false gods).

 

Just because you compare our belief to some poppycock you make up doesn't mean our belief is comparable to that poppycock. Just because we can say, "anything may be possible" doesn't mean the Lord God Himself is comparable to those suggestions. In actual fact not everything will turn out to be possible but that doesn't mean the Lord is one of those things just because you lump Him in the phoney group, begging-the-question.

 

You completely missed the point. The point is that while it may be logically impossible to say any absurd proposal doesn't actually exist as a proven fact (proving a negative), we can still use reason to conclude that it probably doesn't exist and as a matter of practical philosophy we can go about our lives as if it does not exist.
 

Mike S's MO is to conflate absolute proof of an entity's nonexistence with the conclusion that it probably doesn't exist so as a matter of practical philosophy we can go about our lives as if it does not exist. This is why in the past I told him to leave steak out every night for the invisible goblins or the invisible goblins will die, and why I brought up Lord Xenu (Scientology) as an obvious entity which clearly does not exist save some academic exercise in absolute proof. It's to highlight that there is a difference between absolute proof of an entity's nonexistence and concluding that in all likelihood said entity does not exist so you do not believe the entity exists.



#33 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 05 November 2016 - 10:15 PM

 So why do we still have to wait to be shown this "myriad of evidence"? 

There is no "transitional fossils". If the fossil record shows anything, it's stasis.

 

People have brought up evidence numerous times on EFF, just as people have brought up the evidence against evolution and for creation numerous times too, however neither side is particularly convinced.

 

There are plenty of transitional fossils out there. Three famous ones are archeopteryx, tiktaalik, and Lucy. I don't understand how you can say that the fossil record shows only stasis; sure there are "living fossils" which is explained by the rate of evolution depending on the environmental pressures a population receives, but it is obvious that there are organisms that existed in the past which do not exist today and there are organisms that exist today which did not exist in the past.

 

Just that nature and science are no democracies. This ad populum argument doesn't stick it all. General agreement (and I'd question your figure) doesn't have to mean that there is evidence for something. It more often then not is evidence for the power of paradigm. Of course an a priori commitment to Materialism ("Naturalism") only allows for some evolutionary model of explanation. But that doesn't mean that it is like this.

 

I understand that consensus doesn't equal proof or truth, but when virtually all experts in a given subject accept the same basic theory I think that compels us to think twice before going with something entirely different. Especially in the case of science where consensus is primarily achieved through peer review of empirical evidence.

 

The 99.98% figure was obtained through project Steve IIRC. Either way the figure is around 99%. The largest percentage of creationist scientists that I have ever seen was 5%, and the poll included engineers which are not scientists and are known to be more likely to support creationism/ID than evolution compared to those in the natural sciences. I found this which states that 98% of AAAS scientists accept evolution: http://www.pewresear...12/darwin-day/ 

 

While we can argue about a few percentage points, the data is rather unambiguous that the overwhelming majority of scientists (95% to 99.98%) accept evolution. Given that polls generally show that around 40% of scientists are religious we cannot conclude that the divide is between philosophical naturalists and philosophical theists. So there is no a priori commitment to philosophical naturalism which is responsible for the scientific consensus. As for an a priori commitment to methodological naturalism, that is simply part of the scientific method.

 

Their careers are first and foremost about securing a position and funding. You don't get those, if you are an ardent dissident about something that is paradigmatic and hegemonic. That's how even stupid ideas maintain themselves over time. Those knowledgeable in the field of course all know about the corrosiveness of mutation, the insufficiency of "natural selection" or the observed stasis. By now they also ought to know about awesome complexity and functionality within even simple cell. So all the excuse they got is, "but all the other scientists believe it" (aka supported). And what we see with them is all they do is just interpreting and fitting all they observe into the Neodarwinian paradigm. But just saying "Evolution" that and "evolutionary" this, doesn't prove anything, except for the observers own bias and prejudice. 

 

The flip side is that every main-stream position was once obscure and in conflict with the then main-stream paradigm, including evolution. Through peer review of empirical evidence the main-stream scientific paradigm can and does change, and when such a change happens the person or people responsible are given accolades like Nobel prizes, and forever remembered in the history textbooks. So to the contrary of what you state, if a scientist can demonstrate that ToE is fundamentally flawed and ID has this amazing explanatory and predictive power they would be hailed as one of the greatest scientists of all time. I think it is rather telling that creationists with money tend to neglect any kind of research funding and spend most of it on public attractions.

No evolutionary scientist will say that all mysteries have been solved, but the basics of evolutionary theory have been well established. It is far from "but all the other scientists believe it". I bring up the overwhelming consensus because those people are the most qualified to know about and evaluate the evidence. When you get a consensus like that there aren't too many explanations out there for why so many accept it if the basics aren't even close. Is there some conspiracy taking hold of nearly all scientists from around the world with different cultures, backgrounds, and religious beliefs, all while there is virtually no evidence for such a conspiracy? Are the most qualified experts, nearly all of them, simply ignorant of the facts or otherwise don't know how to evaluate evidence despite that is what they do professionally for a living? Is the scientific method somehow fundamentally flawed, or perhaps we simply haven't discovered the evidence to disprove ToE yet? Simply put I find the alternatives far more unbelievable than the interpretation that the vast majority of scientists accept ToE because that is what the evidence overwhelmingly supports.



#34 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 06 November 2016 - 05:04 AM

The problem is Goku, in life everything is a claim, and everyone uses reasoning to expound their case, including evolutionary scientists. They actually aren't experts in reason. It isn't enough to only be an expert in evolutionary hypothetics. For example, a lot of the reasons they give as to why evolution is well supported, can be shown to actually be reasons why micro-evolution is well supported.

 

You seem to live under a misconception that this means anything spectacular to the scientists themselves. By and large it doesn't, the real scientists that accept evolution and know it, would say it is supported in the sense that they would say it is viable. This is all a theory can be. It's purpose is to give a thorough explanation of the facts, without any reliance on proof. Einstein said, "100 experiments won't prove me right but one will prove me wrong".

 

Scientists may not be professional logicians, but they do have to know the basics. How do you think scientists set up scientific tests and evaluate competing theories? Scientists must use sound logic and reasoning daily at their jobs. Honestly your point about scientists not understanding logic and reason well enough to evaluate scientific theories at a basic level is laughable.

 

Evolution is more than viable, it is the best scientific explanation we have of the evidence. Of course science doesn't deal in proof, I've been saying that from day 1, but it does deal in levels of confidence based on evidence, logic, and reason.

 

The main problem with evolutionary experts is that they use selective reasoning. They will argue (use reasoning) that evolution is well supported over here, while they will perhaps unwittingly shovel some other problems under the carpet by use of sloppy, intuitive reasoning. For example I have read sloppy secularist science papers that say things such as, "evolutionary stasis", which logically speaking, if we look to the definition of both words, is to say, "changing non-change". Logically speaking, the evidence animals stay the same is what would be expected from animal kinds, thus stasis or normalised selection, is a name-tag. It's an epithet, :P There are weak areas of evolutionary theory that I have explained to you many times, and I have explained why on an expert level of logical reasoning, those falsifications are consequential. Do you seriously expect the scientific mainstream to focus on the falsifications of evolution when their belief is there is only one scientific answer which can only be evolution? What do you think happens between their ears when they come across a fact that breaks evolution such as soft dino tissue? Do you think they acknowledge it for what it is, or do they find a way to REASON that somehow it is evo?

 

The problem is Goku, I have patiently told you why the arguments for evolution don't stack up on a logical level and you don't accept my findings even though they are sound and they are sound for reasons evolutionary scientists aren't even aware of. You constantly repeat the same story as though by sticking to the story, this makes the story true.

 

Evolutionary stasis is not a contradiction; you simply ignore certain aspects of the theory, and apparently equivocate the process of biological evolution with a general dictionary definition of evolution. That is not good or sound logic.

 

I don't accept most of your arguments because they are not good arguments despite your assertions that they are foolproof. In the case of soft dinosaur tissue creationists over exaggerate what they found. Sure it is preserved much better than what is anticipated, but there are a dozen factors involved in the preservation of such material, and scientists have looked into it and the last I heard the leading idea has to do with high levels of iron in dinosaur blood which acts similar to formaldehyde which is a strong biological preservative. They didn't ignore it like you imagine. Given how solid radiometric dating techniques are, within a few percent, it is much more logical and reasonable to think that there is something going on with the dozen plus factors involved in such preservation than dating techniques that we know to be fairly accurate are off by a factor of 40 or more, never mind all the other evidence we have that the world is older than a few thousand years. One of the hallmarks of fringe scientific ideas is that while they may be able to explain one or two odd occurrences better than the leading paradigm, they contradict many other things we know to be true.

 

It doesn't matter if the scientists that are most expert in evolution say it is well supported because this is a tautological statement for under all circumstances it would be absurd to expect if they were asked if evolution is well supported, that they would say, "no". But what is really supported? Not macro, clearly.

 

The things that are, "well supported" can actually be explained without macro evolution. Think about it, if you asked for the top five arguments from these experts do you think I wouldn't have heard of those arguments? Do you think I wouldn't know that those arguments could be explained well as actually supporting micro-evolution?

 

You see, you don't want to actually evaluate evolution, you just want to repeat the party line that it is accepted. But the mistakes with evolution have been well explained at this forum. Again, I am 100% confident, that the worlds most established evolutionary expert could not beat my argument in any formal setting. I know this to be true otherwise I would not be that confident. I have come across scientists before and it always amuses me how ignorant they are of what reasoning actually is. They truly don't seem to be conscious of what it actually is because they are fat, spoilt cats because evolution has never been critically examined within science. That is why I would win the debate, it is exactly the same as Rocky 1, Apollo Creed was so relaxed and so cocky he could win that he didn't even train for the fight against Rocky Balboa. But Balboa was so hungry he stuck it out all of the way to the end because he was underestimated because he wasn't a famous expert.

 

Sure, on a personal level it means a great deal to you. You will no doubt think in these terms; "well, all those scientists being wrong, all that work, 150 years of science..yeah right" ..this is the kind of average thinking that OCCURS to people but unfortunately they don't think beyond that stage.

 

Sure, I can admit how absurd it must be from your perspective, you are thinking; "what, this one guy thinks he is clever enough to refute all of science?"

 

That is the kind of sloppy thought that goes through peoples' heads. In fact the chances are, I would likely agree that everything the scientist says is factual, is factual, apart from his inference of macro-evolution. I would agree they could show genetic drift, gene flow, a change in allele frequencies in gene pools, etc..I would agree that there was an example of a beneficial mutation leading to a fairly substantial change such as anti-freeze in fish and what not. 

 

 I know that in a court of law I could send evolution packing because they have never had to really study their arguments because nobody ever required that evolution should be critically analyzed.

 

That's why I can win, because my training has been gruelling to the mind. (OCD) I have passed through the maelstrom to purchase wisdom from the Lord. I did not devise it, I did not foresee it, He just afflicted me when I thought my mind was useless. (2003/4)

 

Give me the best argument your expert has. Go on, and we'll see if he has even ever heard of the answer I give. Not likely, Bilbo my lad. For they are only experts in evolution, and to ascertain the truth value of an argument (as they must use reasoning for evolution) you have to be an expert. This gives me the advantage and the upper hand, because the reasoning-part of their position can be very, very weak, it is like the soft part of the dragon with no scales on Smaug, it is waiting for an arrow and I can fire arrows accurately. :P

 

"See you fly you mother, see you fly!!" - Kevin Bacon - Tremors.

 

Mithrandir has spoken. Flee from his shining staff!

 

;)

 

I think you overestimate your abilities to demolish ToE. This isn't due to some refusal to rigorously evaluate ToE, but I think I've seen most of your arguments and they simply don't have the muster you project. I don't think that is a failing on your part per se; ToE is so well supported I don't think anyone could refute it in a formal peer review setting.

 

I don't have an expert on call to ask them the best argument they have for macro evolution, but one argument that I think will carry historical significance would be that we have one less chromosomal pair than the (rest of the) great apes, and we then learned that one of our chromosomes is the fusion of two ape chromosomes. Sure it isn't "proof", but then again science doesn't deal in proof. Sure you have heard this many times, but I'm positive you can name the fallacy of dismissing an argument because it is old. ToE simply provides the best scientific explanation for why we have a fused ape chromosome and one less chromosomal pair than the apes; we are recent evolutionary cousins to the (rest of the) apes.

 

I know that in a court of law I could send evolution packing because they have never had to really study their arguments because nobody ever required that evolution should be critically analyzed.

 

Lol, ever heard of the Dover Trial?



#35 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 946 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 06 November 2016 - 11:32 PM

Parents absolutely shouldn't force their beliefs on children. I'm atheist but I don't try to impose that on my two kids. Religion persists in part because of parents threatening hell to their children if they don't follow the same God as they do, which is horrible. Hopefully the changing religious landscape in the US reflects a more open attitude by parents.

 

Good Idea, If I was one of your children, I wouldn't want you to impose such a foolish Godless philosophy on me either... I mean I wouldn't think much of a parent who thought that the Awesome Majestic Breathtaking beauty of New England during Fall Peak Season AND my eyes and brain being able to behold such splendor where both accidental happenstance brought about my mindless chaotic chance of billions of years of "Evolution"   I would think that you are a very bad parent indeed...

 

driving-through-spectacular-new-england-



#36 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 07 November 2016 - 03:28 AM

 

 

Goku: I think you overestimate your abilities to demolish ToE. This isn't due to some refusal to rigorously evaluate ToE, but I think I've seen most of your arguments and they simply don't have the muster you project. I don't think that is a failing on your part per se; ToE is so well supported I don't think anyone could refute it in a formal peer review setting.

 

This is where you are slightly obtuse as to what is going on, such as in Dover trials, etc. Because evolution is thoroughly accepted and there is a natural bias towards thinking anything going against science is crackpottery, those who "decide" in such trials, that evolution is not refuted and the counter-arguments aren't valid or aren't science (yawn) and all the rest of it, is because they aren't able to understand a high level of reason, or think in strictly objective, logical terms.

 

Believe it or not, thinking in strictly objective logical terms is not a common thing. It is very, very, very difficult to remove bias. It would actually be an intellectual project in itself, just to assure a neutral setting for such a trial.

 

For example here, you say, "I've seen most of your arguments and they simply don't have the muster you project" but I have seen no abilities from you, that would make me think your opinion was qualified.

 

Obviously if I am able to figure out a maths sum and you only ever state my maths is wrong despite the fact I have studied a course and my teacher says I am often correct, then wouldn't that prove you are not able to understand the maths?

 

If you have the ability to understand my arguments that would mean you would be forced to agree that the logic of them is correct, since I have made sure the logic is correct.

 

I have actually tested you without you knowing. I will create an argument I know is identical to a neutral argument I know you would agree with, and you disagree with it because my argument favours theism/creation. This shows me that your biases won't let you make an objective call.

 

You don't qualify. I don't say that to insult you or try to wind you up, as you think you have been doing to me rather covertly, but in fact has been rather transparent to me since you began. I am simply telling you the truth, you wouldn't make the most objective referee unless all of the arguments for creation were replaced by transposing the creationist terminology so that you didn't know the argument was creationist.

 

If that happened, I could show a court of law that evolutionists agree with many things I say, if they don't know the things I am saying support creation.

 

:acigar:

 

(easily done, in a clever way I could think up)

 

...what, did you think I would go into court without a plan of securing victory? :P



#37 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,730 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 07 November 2016 - 06:50 AM

This is where you are slightly obtuse as to what is going on, such as in Dover trials, etc. Because evolution is thoroughly accepted and there is a natural bias towards thinking anything going against science is crackpottery, those who "decide" in such trials, that evolution is not refuted and the counter-arguments aren't valid or aren't science (yawn) and all the rest of it, is because they aren't able to understand a high level of reason, or think in strictly objective, logical terms.

Well, there are a number of other cases:

Epperson v. Arkansas decided by the Supreme Court 9-0

McLean v. Arkansas decided a Circuit court  (our second highest federal court).

Edwards v. Aguillard decided by the Supreme Court 7-2 (the two dissenting votes were on procedural grounds).

Kitzmiller v. Dover decided by a district court (our third highest and lowest federal court).

 

Not once in the US has the teaching of creationism been upheld in a court.

 

Believe it or not, thinking in strictly objective logical terms is not a common thing. It is very, very, very difficult to remove bias. It would actually be an intellectual project in itself, just to assure a neutral setting for such a trial.

Believe it or not, that is exactly what judges are supposed to do.  (While I do agree it is impossible to completely eliminate personal bias, even for Pi and Mike the wiz.)

 

...what, did you think I would go into court without a plan of securing victory?  :P

In the US, that plan will need to include a change to the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

 

That is a pretty difficult strategy.



#38 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 07 November 2016 - 07:38 AM

 

Piasan: Well, there are a number of other cases:

Epperson v. Arkansas decided by the Supreme Court 9-0

McLean v. Arkansas decided a Circuit court  (our second highest federal court).

Edwards v. Aguillard decided by the Supreme Court 7-2 (the two dissenting votes were on procedural grounds).

Kitzmiller v. Dover decided by a district court (our third highest and lowest federal court).

 

Not once in the US has the teaching of creationism been upheld in a court.

 

That's nothing to do with ascertaining the truth-value and logical merit of evolution theory though, Piasan but I can understand why you may have misunderstood what I meant by a great-debate style trial. Of that area, it is not an opinion when I tell you evolution as a case, cannot win against the wisdom that comes from God. Remember, Goku's claim is that evolution is so, "well supported", but his claim is only a bare assertion. What he sees as "well supported" I see as popularity. (neurotic agreement).

 

 

 

Piasan: Believe it or not, that is exactly what judges are supposed to do.  (While I do agree it is impossible to completely eliminate personal bias, even for Pi and Mike the wiz.)

 

I know but you have to remember there is a difference between arguing creation, and arguing, "not evolution". Of course, for all purposes they can be one and the same thing. For example if I were to ask you, "what would you expect a jellyfish to look like in an ancient rock if creation were true?" You would naturally say that you would expect to see no ancestry and that jellyfish has stayed relatively the same, for that is all you could expect of created kinds according to kind. So an absence of such evidence becomes evidence for creation. 

 

I don't believe the trials to do with EvC have had anything much to do with strictly evaluating claims, in a formal and strict manner, where each side must prove that their case holds up against the notation of logic. For example, I don't believe the judge would ask whether the theory of evolution is contradictory, if homology is evidence for evolution but homoplasy is not evidence against it, given that logically this is a contradiction, for if homology is evidence of evolution then, "not homology" must be evidence against it, if those shared features came about without any shared ancestors.

 

For example, if I were to say to you, "your similar dna will prove you are person X's son but if your dna is not a match you are still his biological son." that would break non-contradiction.

 

If we find the same 200 genes for echolocation in both whales and bats and they don't share a common ancestor, then logically this 100% deductively proves that "homology" does not = evolution.

 

Do I believe such specific details of evolution are scrutinised in such trials? I would bet my house that they are not. Do I believe that they have went into the detail of Bonediggers homoplasy posts where he counts the traits? I would bet my life they haven't.

 

All I'm saying is that there has never been a properly neutral contest of debate. You can't therefore only count trials, you must count the EvC debates there have been. A lot of people would say C won a lot of those debates, I have even watched videos of evolutionists saying they did not win the debate because creationists are simply better at arguing than they were. I remember that was one guy's excuse. 

 

So if we are going to look at the full history of EvC, I think only looking at famous trials would be silly since really we are talking about a great debate with a referee, and those trials weren't really great debates. Perhaps it is my own fault to use the term, "trial" as it seems to have led to the evolutionists using famous trials as an appeal to the judgements made, as some sort of proof of evolution.

 

Piasan, as an intelligent guy surely you must NOTICE that evolution is always proven by appeals to authority but never proven by argument. Never are the details of evolution, enough, the only sword evolution has, the only weapon, is the great tide of people that believe in it. But of argument, of scrutiny, of logic, evolution never wins, because the Lord your God made the heavens and the earth. 



#39 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 07 November 2016 - 08:53 PM

This is where you are slightly obtuse as to what is going on, such as in Dover trials, etc. Because evolution is thoroughly accepted and there is a natural bias towards thinking anything going against science is crackpottery, those who "decide" in such trials, that evolution is not refuted and the counter-arguments aren't valid or aren't science (yawn) and all the rest of it, is because they aren't able to understand a high level of reason, or think in strictly objective, logical terms.

 

Evolution is thoroughly accepted because it has shown to be highly useful as a scientific theory. I know you didn't mean a legal trial in the sense of we should dig up old trials and see what happened, but I do think those trials have useful insights. In a court of law it has been found that creationism is religion and not science. In addition it has been found that ID is creationism re-branded, and that ID refuses to engage the scientific community, and that central arguments of ID have been addressed and dismissed by the scientific community.

 

I need something more than 'if you disagree with me you don't understand logic'.

 

Believe it or not, thinking in strictly objective logical terms is not a common thing. It is very, very, very difficult to remove bias. It would actually be an intellectual project in itself, just to assure a neutral setting for such a trial.

 

For example here, you say, "I've seen most of your arguments and they simply don't have the muster you project" but I have seen no abilities from you, that would make me think your opinion was qualified.

 

Obviously if I am able to figure out a maths sum and you only ever state my maths is wrong despite the fact I have studied a course and my teacher says I am often correct, then wouldn't that prove you are not able to understand the maths?

 

If you have the ability to understand my arguments that would mean you would be forced to agree that the logic of them is correct, since I have made sure the logic is correct.

 

I am well aware people are usually illogical, and I would go so far as to say no one can be fully objective and logical in a consistent way. This is partially why the scientific process attempts to mitigate bias as much as possible by focusing on empirical evidence, the concordance of that evidence, predictive power of theories, the testability of those theories, avoiding ad hoc and non-parsimonious explanations, and peer review by qualified experts from around the world with different backgrounds, cultures, and beliefs. This is why I see an overwhelming consensus by the scientific community as something to pay attention to; not only is it a collection of relevant experts, but the overall process is set up to mitigate bias and cultivate objective thinking.

 

Meanwhile creationism and ID has a clear bias. It is obviously based on a religious belief which has great emotional significance to its adherents. Even some of these organizations blatantly say that by definition any evidence which goes against their a priori belief is wrong. For any problems with the scientific community not being completely objective, that is a speck in the eye compared to the beam in creationism's eye.

 

If you took a math course and got everything right, and then someone comes along and says you did a problem wrong, that doesn't prove the other person doesn't understand the maths. Maybe he is simply pulling your leg. Maybe you genuinely made a mistake, even if it is your first mistake. Perhaps your teacher told you something wrong. Maybe the problem you are doing is just different enough that it requires a different technique than the one you used. I remember first semester calculus and we learned that the derivative of e^x is itself, e^x. Simple enough. Then the teacher asks what is the derivative of e^5x. Well of course the answer is e^5x, which I confidently espoused, but that is incorrect. The slight change in the problem requires a new rule or method to evaluate, and the answer becomes 5e^5x. The point is that there could be many different reasons for why you are told you are wrong apart from the other guy being incompetent. Of course depending on what the problem is, how thoroughly you checked your work, and how qualified you are to evaluate it, the other guy saying that you are wrong could be used as strong evidence that he doesn't know what he is talking about, but that alone cannot be used as "proof" as for proof you need to get into the substance of the problem/argumentation itself and cannot solely rely on hearsay.

 

I have actually tested you without you knowing. I will create an argument I know is identical to a neutral argument I know you would agree with, and you disagree with it because my argument favours theism/creation. This shows me that your biases won't let you make an objective call.

 

You don't qualify. I don't say that to insult you or try to wind you up, as you think you have been doing to me rather covertly, but in fact has been rather transparent to me since you began. I am simply telling you the truth, you wouldn't make the most objective referee unless all of the arguments for creation were replaced by transposing the creationist terminology so that you didn't know the argument was creationist.

 

If that happened, I could show a court of law that evolutionists agree with many things I say, if they don't know the things I am saying support creation.

 

:acigar:

 

(easily done, in a clever way I could think up)

 

...what, did you think I would go into court without a plan of securing victory? :P

 

I'm not insulted, just confused. If you "will create an argument", future tense, how do you know I disagree with it showing my bias? If you just misspoke and meant to use a past tense, I don't recall such a neutral argument and your mere assertion that this happened is insufficient for me.

I haven't been trying to wind you up or anything. I'm just replying to your comments as truthfully as I can while also respecting you, and since we disagree on a very big subject of course both of us are going to think the other person royally screwed up somewhere in their thinking.

 

Well suppose we were in court deciding the validity of ToE and ID, and I brought up the fused ape chromosome in our DNA that I brought up last time, what would be your response?



#40 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 946 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 08 November 2016 - 02:36 AM

Scientists may not be professional logicians, but they do have to know the basics. How do you think scientists set up scientific tests and evaluate competing theories? Scientists must use sound logic and reasoning daily at their jobs. Honestly your point about scientists not understanding logic and reason well enough to evaluate scientific theories at a basic level is laughable.

 

Evolution is more than viable, it is the best scientific explanation we have of the evidence. Of course science doesn't deal in proof, I've been saying that from day 1, but it does deal in levels of confidence based on evidence, logic, and reason.

 

 

Evolutionary stasis is not a contradiction; you simply ignore certain aspects of the theory, and apparently equivocate the process of biological evolution with a general dictionary definition of evolution. That is not good or sound logic.

 

I don't accept most of your arguments because they are not good arguments despite your assertions that they are foolproof. In the case of soft dinosaur tissue creationists over exaggerate what they found. Sure it is preserved much better than what is anticipated, but there are a dozen factors involved in the preservation of such material, and scientists have looked into it and the last I heard the leading idea has to do with high levels of iron in dinosaur blood which acts similar to formaldehyde which is a strong biological preservative. They didn't ignore it like you imagine. Given how solid radiometric dating techniques are, within a few percent, it is much more logical and reasonable to think that there is something going on with the dozen plus factors involved in such preservation than dating techniques that we know to be fairly accurate are off by a factor of 40 or more, never mind all the other evidence we have that the world is older than a few thousand years. One of the hallmarks of fringe scientific ideas is that while they may be able to explain one or two odd occurrences better than the leading paradigm, they contradict many other things we know to be true.

 

 

I think you overestimate your abilities to demolish ToE. This isn't due to some refusal to rigorously evaluate ToE, but I think I've seen most of your arguments and they simply don't have the muster you project. I don't think that is a failing on your part per se; ToE is so well supported I don't think anyone could refute it in a formal peer review setting.

 

I don't have an expert on call to ask them the best argument they have for macro evolution, but one argument that I think will carry historical significance would be that we have one less chromosomal pair than the (rest of the) great apes, and we then learned that one of our chromosomes is the fusion of two ape chromosomes. Sure it isn't "proof", but then again science doesn't deal in proof. Sure you have heard this many times, but I'm positive you can name the fallacy of dismissing an argument because it is old. ToE simply provides the best scientific explanation for why we have a fused ape chromosome and one less chromosomal pair than the apes; we are recent evolutionary cousins to the (rest of the) apes.

 

 

Lol, ever heard of the Dover Trial?

 

"but (Science) does deal in levels of confidence based on evidence, logic, and reason.

 

Of course claiming that "In the Beginning either "Nothing" or a "Miniscule Singularity" Mindlessly Expanded very quickly and somehow all of the matter in the universe coming into existence and organizing itself with all of the order and complexity that is FINELY TUNED TO PRECISION is a "Reasonable" Scientific Explanation.. (based on Evidence Logic and Reason of course )..  :think:   Read more: http://www.reasonabl...t#ixzz4MecRW5Oj

 

 
THEN, self replicating DNA molecules, encoded with millions of lines of specified / irreducible complexity were able to mindlessly create themselves out of Dirt, Air, Heat and Water... when Man, with all of his knowledge, technology, resources, and the ability to artificially control atmospheric and chemical conditions CANT EVEN BEGIN TO IMAGINE how to create DNA,!!!!    How did that happen? (based on Evidence Logic and Reason of course )..  :think:   
 
Or the fact that Mans 10 Vital interdependent organs and their support systems have to ALL be working together in tandem or we DIE and GO EXTINCT..   Which was the "Order" for their "Evolution"? Stomach first? Brain second? Lungs third?  Or did they all "Evolve" TOGETHER?? (based on Evidence, Logic, and Reason of course )..  :think:   
 
Or.. How about the chicken or Egg,?? Which came first? Oh, The Egg?? OK, Just how did all of those genetic blueprints / Specified DNA for that "Proto" Chicken GET INSIDE THAT EGG?? WHO OR WHAT PUT IT THERE????    (based on Evidence, Logic ,and Reason of course )..  :think:   
 
How about 100 MYO Dinosaur Red Blood Cells, Soft Tissue, and DNA fragments being able to last 100,000,000 Years WITHOUT BIODEGRADING COMPLETELY IN 40,000 YEARS!!!!  ... (based on Evidence, Logic, and Reason of course )..  :think:  


  • mike the wiz likes this





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: religion, atheism, christianity, secular

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users