Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
ikester7579

A Challenge To Evolutionists.

Recommended Posts

I'm sure there are body parts that have had earlier different function to that today.  If you really want me to I could dig some out.  My point was to dispute the implied premise that parts necessarily always had the same function they do today.

68672[/snapback]

Even if it may seem possible, or you're sure that body parts have had different functions to that of today, unless you back it up with evidence, it remains nothing more than speculation/guess work. Despite how much you may believe in it.

 

I'd be interested to see you back up this certainty with certain evidence, so please feel free to give us some examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure there are body parts that have had earlier different function to that today.  If you really want me to I could dig some out.  My point was to dispute the implied premise that parts necessarily always had the same function they do today.

68672[/snapback]

Even if it may seem possible, or you're sure that body parts have had different functions to that of today, unless you back it up with evidence, it remains nothing more than speculation/guess work. Despite how much you may believe in it.

 

I'd be interested to see you back up this certainty with certain evidence, so please feel free to give us some examples.

68766[/snapback]

Bex, his entire premise here is a faith statement based upon his “a priori†needs for his world view. He says “I’m sureâ€ÂÂ… (etc…etc…), but he provides absolutely no facts for his assertions. He then claims he can “dig some up†if you “really want†him to. But the fact is; he has absolutely no credible evidence for such (just more persuppositions). What he will attempt to use as evidence is actually laden with innuendo, presupposed opinion, supposition and hand waving/pixie-dust tossing over unrelated fossils used to prop up the evolutionist’s tree of lineage that, in reality, has no roots or branches.

 

But, the most important thing to remember here, is that LongHotFebruary is actually diverting from your original refutation (see post# 74) which was his totally “a priory†presupposed claim for previous function of the eye’s external parts. And, these parts are “soft†tissue (where is he going to get extant soft tissue evidences for the eyes past uses?). What you have to watch out for is his further prevarications, to escape your request for evidence; or his attempt to provide more totally “a priory†presupposed claims as actual evidence.

 

To which I say “don’t hold your breathâ€ÂÂ.

 

Further, when he claims:

  My point was to dispute the implied premise that parts necessarily always had the same function they do today.

68672[/snapback]

He is simply using another hedging ploy, and will attempt to use more suppositions to support this claim. But, he can provide absolutely NO evidence that these functions aren’t as they have always been. If fact ALL of the real evidence adduced, shows absolutely NO substantial differences in the human eye… Ever!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have two major issues with evolution and one of them is the "current animal"

 

Do we happen to be on earth at just the right time to observe these animals in their evolution cycle where all looks just right. Why don't we find viper snakes with some sort fang structure that is between the current complete animal and the more primitive fixed fang snakes.

 

68594[/snapback]

The idea behind evolution is there was a period of time on earth (a short duration of the right conditions) that sparked the evolutionary changes in humans. That period of time has long since gone (and has not come again), and that's why we don't see chimps in various stages of change today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea behind evolution is there was a period of time on earth (a short duration of the right conditions) that sparked the evolutionary changes in humans. That period of time has long since gone (and has not come again), and that's why we don't see chimps in various stages of change today.

68775[/snapback]

1- The above comment is purely speculation based,and has absolutely no evidential based foundation.

 

2- If it happened once via randomness, it should happen over and over; there is absolutely no reason to believe otherwise. But, since we have absolutely no evidence for it even happening in the first place (other than speculation and "a priori" opining), there is no reason to believe it would reoccur.

 

3- Time, it seems, is the evolutionist friend, unless it works against him. Then it is discarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2- If it happened once via randomness, it should happen over and over.

 

If that were true, dinosaurs would still be around.

 

Conditions on earth at a certain period of time encouraged the growth of unusually large animals but that time has long since passed and, lucky for us, not returned.

 

Climate conditions, food availability and other factors influence which direction nature takes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that were true, dinosaurs would still be around.

 

Conditions on earth at a certain period of time encouraged the growth of unusually large animals but that time has long since passed and, lucky for us, not returned.

 

Climate conditions, food availability and other factors influence which direction nature takes.

68779[/snapback]

And where is the empirical proof of said different conditions? Were you to confirm by empirical observation, the claims you are making. I mean other than your speculations, can you provide said evidence?

 

Also, if your hypothetical situation were the case, wouldn't those conditions have made the growth of humans unusually large as well? Further, wouldn't the "ape-like creatures", apes, gorillas, chimpanzees (etc...) all have been larger at the time?

 

Based upon your suppositions, the case would be made for all creatures!

 

It could be just as true that other than a world wide flood, dino/dragon/lizards could have been hunted to extinction by man, just like many other animals. I mean, since we're throwing hypothetical around willy-nilly, and pretending they were facts...

 

Then again, the point wasn't dinosaurs at all was it? We were talking about thoroughly hypothetical "evolutionary changes in humans" which, I might add, you still haven't provided any evidence for. Basically, all you have done is skirt the issue with further diversions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that were true, dinosaurs would still be around.

 

Conditions on earth at a certain period of time encouraged the growth of unusually large animals but that time has long since passed and, lucky for us, not returned.

 

Climate conditions, food availability and other factors influence which direction nature takes.

68779[/snapback]

 

I have heard there is the odd sighting of dinosaur like creatures in certain areas of the world (humid tropical places). I should hunt down the information about this and present it on here. Might be of interest to some people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bex, his entire premise here is a faith statement based upon his “a priori†needs for his world view. He says “I’m sureâ€ÂÂ… (etc…etc…), but he provides absolutely no facts for his assertions. He then claims he can “dig some up†if you “really want†him to. But the fact is; he has absolutely no credible evidence for such (just more persuppositions). What he will attempt to use as evidence is actually laden with innuendo, presupposed opinion, supposition and hand waving/pixie-dust tossing over unrelated fossils used to prop up the evolutionist’s tree of lineage that, in reality, has no roots or branches.

 

But, the most important thing to remember here, is that LongHotFebruary is actually diverting from your original refutation (see post# 74) which was his totally “a priory†presupposed claim for previous  function of the eye’s external parts. And, these parts are “soft†tissue (where is he going to get extant soft tissue evidences for the eyes past uses?). What you have to watch out for is his further prevarications, to escape your request for evidence; or his attempt to provide more totally “a priory†presupposed claims as actual evidence.

 

To which I say “don’t hold your breathâ€ÂÂ.

 

Further, when he claims:

He is simply using another hedging ploy, and will attempt to use more suppositions to support this claim. But, he can provide absolutely NO evidence that these functions aren’t as they have always been. If fact ALL of the real evidence adduced, shows absolutely NO substantial differences in the human eye… Ever

Hi Ron, yes, I saw that. I'm still interested to see if there is any substance behind such claims that the eyes external parts had any previous function. I can't personally imagine what or how, because it appears they are designed to perform this very function and that's just what they do.

 

If it has ever been any other way, then I'm curious to see it shown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bex, his entire premise here is a faith statement based upon his “a priori†needs for his world view. He says “I’m sureâ€ÂÂ… (etc…etc…), but he provides absolutely no facts for his assertions. He then claims he can “dig some up†if you “really want†him to. But the fact is; he has absolutely no credible evidence for such (just more persuppositions). What he will attempt to use as evidence is actually laden with innuendo, presupposed opinion, supposition and hand waving/pixie-dust tossing over unrelated fossils used to prop up the evolutionist’s tree of lineage that, in reality, has no roots or branches.

If you are already advising other posters that anything I produce will be "laden with innuendo, presupposed opinion, supposition etc." then I'm clearly not going to get a fair hearing. Strikes me as very biased to pass judgment prior to any action taking place.

 

He is simply using another hedging ploy, and will attempt to use more suppositions to support this claim. But, he can provide absolutely NO evidence that these functions aren’t as they have always been. If fact ALL of the real evidence adduced, shows absolutely NO substantial differences in the human eye… Ever!

68770[/snapback]

Even if there is nothig that will convince you of the function of a part having changed it does not necessarily follow that the function of a part necessarily cannot have had an earlier different function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are already advising other posters that anything I produce will be "laden with innuendo, presupposed opinion, supposition etc." then I'm clearly not going to get a fair hearing.  Strikes me as very biased to pass judgment prior to any action taking place.

Even if there is nothig that will convince you of the function of a part having changed it does not necessarily follow that the function of a part necessarily cannot have had an earlier different function.

68796[/snapback]

Pointing out your fallacious posts, is not keeping you from getting a “fair hearingâ€ÂÂ, nor is it “biased†or “pre-judgingâ€ÂÂ. It is “POINTING OUT†your fallacious statements that YOU are attempting to posit as factual (you may want to look at the “forum rules†under “unsubstantiated hearsayâ€ÂÂ). When you make statements like “I’m sure†this, or “I’m sure†that, on subjects that are clearly “opinion biased†(as in presupposed with absolutely NO evidence as a foundation), it will be exposed for what it is; because you are making the baseless statement on “faithâ€ÂÂ, not fact. If you merely want to say “this is what I believeâ€ÂÂ, that is a totally different story and will be treated as such.

 

As to “what convinces meâ€ÂÂ, you’ll find the answer to be; “actual evidence†presented to support “assertions madeâ€ÂÂ. Otherwise your assertion is mere opinion, and will be treated as such. Again, if you want to discuss hypothetical functions, YOU need to approach it, and present it as hypothetical, and not attempt to posit it as factual or substantial.

 

Further, I was responding to another member’s assessment of your fallacious post. And I got my answer back from them.

 

Conclusion; If you do not wish to have your misrepresentations exposed, follow the advice given above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason78 and Scanman came out with intelligent point after intelligent point but apparently got banned for disagreeing with a creationist.

 

On page 2 of this post (on page 4 of the creation v evolution forum) someone does seem to get banned for equating adaptation with small-scale evolution:  http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...opic=3724&st=20

68735[/snapback]

Do you actually think you are the first evo to use other members for their excuse for their own actions? Do you think that you actually make us feel guilty for modding the way we do? Do you think making false accusations about things you know nothing about will change things? And do you think all of these things will add up to an excuse for you wasting our time with lame indirect answers that are more opinion than fact?

 

If you want to go away just like your friends, which seems to be what you want, just let us know.

 

And this will be your only warning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pointing out your fallacious posts, is not keeping you from getting a “fair hearingâ€ÂÂ, nor is it “biased†or “pre-judgingâ€ÂÂ. It is “POINTING OUT†your fallacious statements that YOU are attempting to posit as factual (you may want to look at the “forum rules†under “unsubstantiated hearsayâ€ÂÂ). When you make statements like “I’m sure†this, or “I’m sure†that, on subjects that are clearly “opinion biased†(as in presupposed with absolutely NO evidence as a foundation), it will be exposed for what it is; because you are making the baseless statement on “faithâ€ÂÂ, not fact. If you merely want to say “this is what I believeâ€ÂÂ, that is a totally different story and will be treated as such.

 

As to “what convinces meâ€ÂÂ, you’ll find the answer to be; “actual evidence†presented to support “assertions madeâ€ÂÂ. Otherwise your assertion is mere opinion, and will be treated as such. Again, if you want to discuss hypothetical functions, YOU need to approach it, and present it as hypothetical, and not attempt to posit it as factual or substantial.

68797[/snapback]

Fred’s challenge to P Z Myers asks how the apparatus of the eye could have evolved if is an interdependent irreducibly complex system. This is based upon the premise that none of the parts can have had an earlier different function (as otherwise the possibility of the system having evolved remains). I see no reason to assume this premise. Who says a part cannot have had an earlier different function and where is the evidence that this is necessarily the case? (It is after all proponents of irreducible complexity who are implying this premise - I initially asked why the premise should necessarily be so).

 

If you do not accept any observations falsifying the underlined premise (and you have already dismissed any evidence I can provide prior to seeing it) it still does NOT necessarily follow that a part necessarily CANNOT have had a previous different function.

 

I think the following demonstrates a part having a previous different function using irreducible complexity’s most iconic alleged system: http://health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgra...ys/flagella.htm - the filament in a bacterial flagellum was once a secretory system. “Thus, if the flagella is a secretory system that has been co-opted for a motile function (while still retaining some of it's secretory function), then the ICness of the system is in the mind of the beholder, and a clear path for it's evolution is opened up.â€ÂÂ

 

 

You have already dismissed the validity of this as evidence falsifying the premise underpinning irreducible complexity prior to your seeing it. Someone reading this will thus not know how much of your objection is a frank assessment and how much is based on an a priori rejection of what you don’t want to be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re wings: don't some animals have the ability to glide using basic flaps under the arms?  The first step of a proto-wing could plausibly have been a parachute-like protection for a tree-dweller.

68684[/snapback]

This would confer an advantage.

 

1) But once that trait gives protection, what kind of environmental change now drives the changing of the front limbs into wings? Did all the trees disappear? If so, now the gliding is of little use. The glider engineering lends nothing to the change in the limbs. So now a new evolution begins--so the change in environment in that case does not aid any step by step evolution--as Darwin and Dawkins both purport.

 

2) Having said that, we infer that the front limbs (as in the case of dino/bird or mammal/bat) must have changed. This is evident because birds have no front limbs, but dinosaurs did. And same case with mammals and bats. Now this is where there is no fesible pathway that I can find, nor have I seen a working model of how the front limbs changed one step at a time to wings. It seems to me that disadvantage would have been confferred to a given generational stage, by the loss of advantage in the front limbs.

 

 

 

 

The TOE is a tested theory, more than a hypothesis.  It is tested by observation every time a genome is sequenced and every time a specemin is found in a specific geological layer.

First of all, DNA sequences protein. Proteins are chemical in that they fold and bond together. Therefore they are subject to the laws of chemistry, and the last time I checked there wasn't 10 different laws of chemistry. So why would a template (DNA) that codes complex biological molecules have 10 or 100 different sequences throughout species.

 

The macromolecules work a certain way. Just like sodium and chlorine have chemical behaviors, and work a certain way in a given medium, different protiens are going to behave a certain way in a given medium.

 

So why would a similar sequence be grounds for a deduction for evoluiton? It can be interpreted in a design paradigm also--as similar design based on the laws of chemistry? So it is circumstancial evidence at best, because it can be interpreted more than one way. It is unjustly propagated as forensic evidence.

 

As for geology, we constantly hear about the order in the fossil record. The fossil record is overwhelmingly marine fossils. It would seem that true order would have more of a distribution numerically. The fact is that marine fossils are found many times with whatever else is found, be it reptile, mammal, etc.

 

Over 98% of documented species are now extinct[citation needed], but extinction occurs at an uneven rate. Based on the fossil record, the background rate of extinctions on Earth is about two to five taxonomic families of marine invertebrates and vertebrates every million years. Marine fossils are mostly used to measure extinction rates because of their superior fossil record and stratigraphic range compared to land organisms.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction

 

Then you have a tremendous gap problem, which would seem to confirm what I talked about above--that there is a foundational problem with major transitions of phenotype--like wings or new organs. The fossils seem to confirm that--we don't find half wings.

 

Though some of the "higher" organisms are different species than today, like fish--they are fully formed fish, you don't find sponges that were mobile, had fins and a mouth with teeth, and one half an eye. What we find can easily be interpreted as extinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fred’s challenge to P Z Myers asks how the apparatus of the eye could have evolved if is an interdependent irreducibly complex system.  This is based upon the premise that none of the parts can have had an earlier different function (as otherwise the possibility of the system having evolved remains).  I see no reason to assume this premise.  Who says a part cannot have had an earlier different function and where is the evidence that this is necessarily the case?  (It is after all proponents of irreducible complexity who are implying this premise - I initially asked why the premise should necessarily be so).

 

If you do not accept any observations falsifying the underlined premise (and you have already dismissed any evidence I can provide prior to seeing it) it still does NOT necessarily follow that a part necessarily CANNOT have had a previous different function.

 

I think the following demonstrates a part having a previous different function using irreducible complexity’s most iconic alleged system: http://health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgra...ys/flagella.htm - the filament in a bacterial flagellum was once a secretory system.  “Thus, if the flagella is a secretory system that has been co-opted for a motile function (while still retaining some of it's secretory function), then the ICness of the system is in the mind of the beholder, and a clear path for it's evolution is opened up.â€ÂÂ

You have already dismissed the validity of this as evidence falsifying the premise underpinning irreducible complexity prior to your seeing it.  Someone reading this will thus not know how much of your objection is a frank assessment and how much is based on an a priori rejection of what you don’t want to be true.

68809[/snapback]

Obviously you are reading into my post what you want to. As I said: "As to “what convinces meâ€ÂÂ, you’ll find the answer to be; “actual evidence†presented to support “assertions madeâ€ÂÂ. Otherwise your assertion is mere opinion, and will be treated as such. Again, if you want to discuss hypothetical functions, YOU need to approach it, and present it as hypothetical, and not attempt to posit it as factual or substantial."

 

Therefore, you are either not reading what I said (purposefully or not), or purposefully attempting to mislead/misrepresent what I said with your statements such as "You have already dismissed the validity" or "you have already dismissed any evidence". I do not dismiss "evidence", I dismiss opinions that you attempt to pass-off as "evidence"!

 

So, in this thread alone you have:

 

1- Made numerous complaints about forum moderation.

 

2- Misrepresented what others have said (which IS a type of "ad hominem abusive").

 

3- Attempted to argue the speciation to micro to macro innuendos via the "The Evolution Definition Shell Game".

 

You were also directed to review the forum rules and FAQ's on numerous occasions in this thread and others, in order to curb your infractions. But you continued to boldly do whatever you wished. And then you feigned innocence "where did I break the rules?" even though it was pointed out again-and-again.

 

Further, whenever a new member signs up this forum, they agree to adhere to the forum rules. And, as it states, those rules are "Strictly Enforced". But, we will always leave you enough rope for you to climb out of the hole you dig; or to provide the means for your own demise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall folk being banned for pointing out that your mods' use of "adaptation" equates to small-scale evolutionary change.  Change in allele frequency due to natural selection acting upon new genetic material is the mechanism that biologists propose allows change to happen at all over generations and it is informative to read where it has been observed.  No one would claim the processes of long-term change can be observed because they are long-term; however, the observable traces of such change are well documented.

 

***MOD HAT***

A cursory reading of the forum rules at: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/forum_rules.htm

Paying special attention to "Complaining about board moderation" especially with no evidence to support your fallacious assertions.

68671[/snapback]

I read this post and immediately thought to reply, "If I was a mod, you would be banned." I did not, because I didn't know if that would be disrespectful to the mods. Then I went to take care of my family, came back and viola! :P

I am leaving the post above up because I think every so often the members of this forum need to see what we put up with. We usually delete such posts and the person gets banned. And the members never see what was said.

 

So here it is in full color for all to see.

68657[/snapback]

Good call. I would like to see more of this, instead of seeing continued baseless accusations of unfair banning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LongHotFebruary, you are coming off as more of an atheist on me in light of these discussions.

 

Let me break it down for you:

 

1. No novel information arises on the genome, this is a huge problem for atheistic evolution. There was a paper that was published in December 22, 2010 that demonstrates this. The paper in the scientific journal is titled "Complexity." Division happens and mutations can happen on the copy, but mutations stem from rearranging DNA or losing genes. It begs the question, how did the information get there in the first place?

68732[/snapback]

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/biologic_highlights_new_peer-r041951.html Is this what you are speaking of?

 

Mamaelephant,

 

I believe that the E. Coli experiment where E. Coli was shown to be able to feed off of lactose in certain environments was actually due to a loss of two genes. This actually isn't good for those who believe in the full extent of Evolution.

68732[/snapback]

Here is the paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.abstract

 

They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions.

The bacteria evolved the ability to utilize citrate as a source of energy. Wild type E. coli cannot transport citrate across the cell membrane to the cell interior (where it could be incorporated into the citric acid cycle) when oxygen is present. The consequent lack of growth on citrate under oxic conditions is considered a defining characteristic of the species that has been a valuable means of differentiating E. coli from pathogenic Salmonella.

Here is a conversation I had with an evolutionist:

 

Let's summarize: E. Coli could already utilize citrate if deprived of oxygen. After 25 years and 2 mutations E. Coli can now utilize citrate even if not deprived of oxygen.

 

So from a genetic standpoint, the directions were already there, they just needed to be switched on during an aerobic state.

 

Actually here's what happened. I've listened to Lenski speak specifically about this. The evolution we're talking about was the result of two pieces of junk DNA being switched on by random mutation. They didn't switch on at the same time. Individually the mutations have no effect but when they are both present, the evolution occurred.

 

At say, generation 22,000 a bit of junk DNA switched on. The mutation was not harmful to that species. It had no effect. At generation ~33,000 another bit of junk DNA switched on. The combo of the two is what made the change.

 

So actually this did exactly what you're saying things cannot do.

Actually here's what happened. I've listened to Lenski speak specifically about this. The evolution we're talking about was the result of two pieces of DNA that already existed being switched on by random mutation. They didn't switch on at the same time. Individually the mutations have no effect but when they are both present, the evolution occurred.

 

Yes, it seems we are in agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many evolutionists here have ever made the statement: Science is not about proving the supernatural, only the natural?

 

What do you think that means when there are restrictions like that making boundaries on what science will and will not do? What science will and will not even consider as evidence?

 

The proof also of this is the objective of 99% of the evolutionists who join this forum. Do you want creationist to conform, or find truth? If it's truth you want us to find, then you would have to weigh our evidence on the same level playing field as your own. But that's not going to happen, now is it?

 

I'll tackle this one. I don't agree with the naive reading of these words. I think it's a bad refrain that many scientists use. I have a favorite quote on this subject, itself a play on Clarke's third law: "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science." (Empirical science). In that sense, empirical science doesn't restrict its investigations to only the natural and not the supernatural.

 

Instead, I think this common refrain is an attempt to get at another requirement of empirical science, the need for models, supported by empirical evidence, which offer falsifiable novel predictions, which were subjugated to good attempts at falsification. The average person who says something like that, when they dismiss the supernatural, I think they are actually trying to dismiss all empirical claims made without supporting empirical evidence.

 

For example, if God or Jesus came down every Friday at some Church and smote a few unbelievers, then this would constitute a good start of empirical evidence for God. In the sense of those who say that refrain, it just became partly natural and not wholly supernatural. In the sense of those who say that refrain, the natural is the observable, and the supernatural is the unobservable.

 

So, I guess I'm actually agreeing with you in attacking that particular point, though I am trying to give what I think is their sensible intention when they say it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll tackle this one. I don't agree with the naive reading of these words. I think it's a bad refrain that many scientists use. I have a favorite quote on this subject, itself a play on Clarke's third law: "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science." (Empirical science). In that sense, empirical science doesn't restrict its investigations to only the natural and not the supernatural.

Does not empirical science required "physical" evidence? How does one get physical evidence for the supernatural that would meet empirical science requirement of physical (natural) evidence?

 

Instead, I think this common refrain is an attempt to get at another requirement of empirical science, the need for models, supported by empirical evidence, which offer falsifiable novel predictions, which were subjugated to good attempts at falsification. The average person who says something like that, when they dismiss the supernatural, I think they are actually trying to dismiss all empirical claims made without supporting empirical evidence.

 

People will object to what they cannot understand, or what may actually be scary to them.

 

For example, if God or Jesus came down every Friday at some Church and smote a few unbelievers, then this would constitute a good start of empirical evidence for God. In the sense of those who say that refrain, it just became partly natural and not wholly supernatural. In the sense of those who say that refrain, the natural is the observable, and the supernatural is the unobservable.

 

Absolute evidence requires absolute faith and actions concerning that faith. Example: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4723&view=findpost&p=76955

 

So, I guess I'm actually agreeing with you in attacking that particular point, though I am trying to give what I think is their sensible intention when they say it.

 

I understand your point. But when a organization is controlled by atheists (people against God), then how does anyone expect to find out if God actually exists? People often accuse me of being against evolution. I have actually pondered and considered it. Have come to a crossroads concerning it. But at least I did all these things before I made my decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does not empirical science required "physical" evidence? How does one get physical evidence for the supernatural that would meet empirical science requirement of physical (natural) evidence?

 

Now, I'm trying very hard not to get into a war over definitions - as in claiming this is the "right" definition, but I do need to explore definitions to correctly answer this question.

 

I think my argument was that empirical science does not care about the "artificial" distinctions of physical and non-physical, natural and supernatural, "real" and magic. All science cares about is models based on empirical evidence that offer falsifiable empirical predictions that are rigorously attempted to be falsified. Suppose that people tomorrow manifested some cheesy magic ala Harry Potter. Scientists would study this magic using the empirical scientific method. Perhaps they would need to invent a whole new "physics" to explain it, or perhaps it would be explainable in terms of the current standard model, quantum, relativity, and so on. However, the method of investigation would be the same. In other words, empirical science explores what is observable, directly or indirectly. That's just another way of saying empirical science studies claims which can be empirically falsified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, I'm trying very hard not to get into a war over definitions - as in claiming this is the "right" definition, but I do need to explore definitions to correctly answer this question.

 

I think my argument was that empirical science does not care about the "artificial" distinctions of physical and non-physical, natural and supernatural, "real" and magic. All science cares about is models based on empirical evidence that offer falsifiable empirical predictions that are rigorously attempted to be falsified. Suppose that people tomorrow manifested some cheesy magic ala Harry Potter. Scientists would study this magic using the empirical scientific method. Perhaps they would need to invent a whole new "physics" to explain it, or perhaps it would be explainable in terms of the current standard model, quantum, relativity, and so on. However, the method of investigation would be the same. In other words, empirical science explores what is observable, directly or indirectly. That's just another way of saying empirical science studies claims which can be empirically falsified.

 

Using psychology tactics (mind games) to make something look silly and say science would examine it and even make new laws to explain it is ironic in the sense that unexplainable things do exist and science has done neither concerning these things. Only to use psychology tactics and give them a name and category to stereotype then to make them sound stupid so they won;t have to explain it.

 

A perfect example of this is how YEC belief is categorized. Flat earthers, creatards, ignorant, uneducated, science haters, etc.... If the science can prove us wrong, the name calling and stereotyping (psychology tactics) would not be needed. And evolution would be able to stand up to our scrutiny and the evolutionist would only use evidence to prove their points. so the only reason the other is even needed is because evolutionists cannot meet the criteria in countering scrutiny that they claim that their theory does meet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using psychology tactics (mind games) to make something look silly and say science would examine it and even make new laws to explain it is ironic in the sense that unexplainable things do exist and science has done neither concerning these things. Only to use psychology tactics and give them a name and category to stereotype then to make them sound stupid so they won;t have to explain it.

 

A perfect example of this is how YEC belief is categorized. Flat earthers, creatards, ignorant, uneducated, science haters, etc.... If the science can prove us wrong, the name calling and stereotyping (psychology tactics) would not be needed. And evolution would be able to stand up to our scrutiny and the evolutionist would only use evidence to prove their points. so the only reason the other is even needed is because evolutionists cannot meet the criteria in countering scrutiny that they claim that their theory does meet.

 

I cannot respond to claims that I have not made, especially to claims that I would similarly condemn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot respond to claims that I have not made, especially to claims that I would similarly condemn.

 

Do you claim that your group does not do these things? Yes or no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you claim that your group does not do these things? Yes or no?

 

Of course they do. Both sides do, frequently, including experts and prominent people on both sides. I hope that in these forums we could ignore those real life flame wars and discuss the interesting intellectual issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms