Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Teaching the Truth in Schools
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 169 (72355)
12-11-2003 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by MrHambre
12-08-2003 6:11 AM


Re: King of the Nats
MrHambre writes:
Martin,
Your lack of a realistic basis in the history of science is appalling. If you expect people here to nod in agreement when you produce a howler like We also know that belief in metaphysical naturalistic philosophy is an individual position, but that it has never aided science, you're absolutely deluded.
So, then, you’re NOT a creationist, MrHambre? People who have a natsian perspective have developed knowledges that have been beneficial to science. But it isn’t because they are natsian that those knowledges came into being. People who invest great time and effort into developing some field of knowledge, will, oftentimes, produce some net result of practical benefit regardless of their philosophical slant that relates to their view of the world. The natsian philosophy itself, though, has not aided science, except perhaps, there have been off-shute aspects of such work that has produced some types of benefits. The same phenomenon would, of course, hold true for creation scientiststhe ones you feel do not exist. Yes, more people have been influenced to accept the idea that macro evolution occurred, and because of these numbers that are put to work in that industry, there is a greater number of items produced across that field that could be categorized as being beneficial in some way. But much time and energy is wasted also. Someone once opined about the irony of brilliant scientists who spend the bulk of their lives trying to create life in order to prove that no intelligence was needed to cause life.
MrHambre writes:
Who's 'we,' Martin?
When you use it, it’s the nats. Guess who it is when I use it.
Martin J. Koszegi writes:
think of all of the advances that could've been made over histoy if we were to seriously consider Biblical supernaturalism as a possibility, instead of wasting all of that time with naturalism in a rather blind walk through the centuries
MrHambre writes:
This is absolutely priceless. Evidently you expect us to forget that for literally millennia, all knowledge was the domain of supernaturalists and religious orders. The only knowledge that is still relevant from these Dark Ages is that which wasn't transformed by Biblical literalism into pure garbage.
That priceless lift out came from a context that discussed an example of anachronous medical knowledge compared to the Egyptians. I’m still waiting for someone to falsify the bit about the Egyptians using dung medically. If they really did, despite their other abilities, then, hypothetically, ancient scientists (and then beyond) could have started the investigations as to why such practices tended to protect people, which could have led to a much earlier understanding of microscopic organisms, an understanding that came into being only relatively recently.
MrHambre writes:
You also expect us to forget that the revolutionary scientific programs that brought the world out of this ignorance were formulated by believers who nonetheless adhered to the naturalistic assumption: Newton's physics and Pasteur's biology. Maybe you should take a look at an introductory primer to the history of science so you can put these things into context.
Advances occurred by creationists and evolutionists. Nature and its laws were studied by both types of people and both groups produced beneficial results. Certain things gain virtually universal acceptance due to their very limited (if any) distance from empirical verification. Advances in other fields are more theoretical and controversial (for example, explanations about coal formation, the formation of mountains, etc.), but don’t necessarily tie into the competing philosophies that separate nats and yecs. And, yes, there are those, in every time period (sometimes influential, sometimes not), who are responsible to one degree or another, for the types of scientific horseplay that you made mention of when you were erroneously linking that behavior exclusively to those who believe that God created rather than some such idea like the universe came into being due to a quantum fluctuation of a pre-existing true vacuum (Edward P. Tryon), as if believing that way, somehow produces a buffer for the affected individual to not be a legitimate subject for all the lambasting that you direct at creationists.
MrHambre writes:
If you'd like to persist in your ignorance, please don't pretend we're all doing the same.
Back atcha.
MrHambre writes:
Again, your insistence that naturalism constitutes bias is groundless. You want us to believe that supernaturalism is on equal footing with the naturalistic methodology that has given us all the significant knowledge we currently possess concerning natural phenomena. But we know better.
You are probably quite beyond the hope of rehabilitation. Naturalism does constitute a bias. (And you are the one who is woefully erroneous if you think that all the significant scientific advances came only from naturalists.) You can get an idea of just how much it represents a bias by thinking of how it would be if the pendulum of scientific propaganda and influence that exists, was swaying into the creationism region at this point in history, instead of the natsian region it now occupies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by MrHambre, posted 12-08-2003 6:11 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by MrHambre, posted 12-11-2003 8:03 PM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 169 (72363)
12-11-2003 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by PaulK
12-09-2003 3:32 PM


Re: King of the Nats
Re: King of the Nats
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PaulK writes:
Well if you're so familir with Leviticus so as not to need to read it again you know that 6:28 is a ritual observance and not a hygiene rule.
If the Egyptians were genuinely inferior to the Hebrews medically then you need to deal with their achieveemnts - not their mistakes.
OK, a ritual observance that had hygienic benefits. But, let me get this straight. Despite the fact that I’m making a point about details that relate to certain practices of the Hebrews that were anachronously beneficial to them, you’re saying that if the Egyptians were genuinely inferior to the Hebrews in a particular area of knowledge or practice that had medical implications, then that area of inferiority of the Egyptians should be deleted from the whole equation because the Egyptians had other areas of development? As a sort of brain-teaser, I’m trying to think of a way that would reasonably allow one to not see that as pure evasion.
PaulK writes:
Remember that Galen and Hippocrates were not even born. Medicine had a LONG way to go.
Surely, you see how this fact could be used to bolster my position as well.
PaulK writes:
And the fact is that many of the rituals do not have hygiene benefits.
All Levitical law need not have medical benefits in order for my point to be valid.
PaulK writes:
If some of the rituals happen to have bnnefits it does not mena that the creators of those rituals had knowledge of the health benefits.
The rituals were given in light of the promise that if the Hebrews were careful to follow the instructions, they would not experience the degree of diseases that the Egyptian culture experienced. The context necessitates, not that the rituals might happen to have benefits, but that the benefits would be guaranteed if they practice them. Yes?
PaulK writes:
If the rule of 6:28 existed for the health benefits - as Grant Jeffrey says - then why was it not a general rule so that those benefits could be realised ? Obviously it did not.
Why do you assume that such instructions were not applied in general, just because the recording of the promise was offered through the context of Moses (the leader of the people) and the priesthood? By, it did not, do you mean that it’s obvious that it wasn’t applied in general, or that following the instructions really could not have prevented disease among the Hebrews who practiced them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by PaulK, posted 12-09-2003 3:32 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by PaulK, posted 12-14-2003 9:04 AM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 169 (72411)
12-11-2003 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by nator
12-07-2003 4:26 PM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If by "the fact of evolution is true" you mean that sociologiical (and other like) forces have established the belief in peoples' minds to the point that such affected people actually accept evolution as the accurate assessment of WHAT IS, then I would agree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schrafinator writes:
Gee, and here I thought that the evidence from many life science disciplines and the Biology courses I took at University had convinced me!
They did convince you. Those things are part of the whole phenomenon.
schrafinator writes:
Thanks for letting me know that I didn't actually think or analyse anything at all during my college years but had been brainwashed instead.
I'm sure you thought and analyzed, but if much of what goes on in such classes these days is itself colored with a not-so-indirect bias favoring the natsian framework, then the thinking and analyzing is about "how did evolution occur," and not at all about "did evolution occur"?
schrafinator writes:
However, how do you explain predictions that the Theory of Evolution has made which have subsequently been borne out?
Evolutionism is so broadly perceived (even in the context of the "science" that it claims to believe in) that virtually any blank check imagination would be hard pressed to come up with any sort of scenario that would disprove the theory, and when something is that wide open and shape-shifting, it certainly wouldn't surprise me that its subscribers would claim fulfilled "predictions." And here's what I mean about its capacity to shape-shift to any circumstance that may arise, which would prevent the philosophy from ever getting outside of its own box (so that it could recognize something contrary to their fundamental philosophy if, humor me for a moment: IF, the universe was actually created):
Imagine that there has been a recent discovery of a fossilized dinosaur which contained in its huge clamped shut mouth, a like-fossilized modern-type man who was wearing a jewel-embedded ceremonial robe of sophisticated design. Imagine further that the fossilized man was curled up around and clutching an intricately etched tablet of the ten commandments, and that an ensuing investigation concluded that the like-fossilized vines that were twisted and tangled tightly around the dinosaurs jaws and other parts of its body, were discovered to be some type of extinct fruit-bearing vines, the fossilized fruit remnants of which were also discovered in the dinosaur's belly.
Could this scenario undermine the theory of evolution? The truth: not in the least bit--not even if multitudes of such magnitude were discovered. No evidence could ever be concieved of that could overcome the real die-hards who represent the power structure of this thing. Of course, the pat solution to the scenario is that a then "living fossil" (dinosaur) was feeding on the said man and fruit when some kind of catastrophic condition occurred that preserved them thusly.
You spoke of predictions that evolutionism fulfills. One of its primary predictions is improbability itself: in like manner (alluding to the above scenario), the most unbelievable and improbable combinations of perfectly harmonized processes that evolution requires are regarded, rather, as promotion evidence (rather than negative evidence, as any real-world evaluation would seem to necessitate), as Julian Huxley explained: "Improbability is to be expected as a result of natural selection; and we have the paradox that an exceedingly high apparent improbability in its products can be taken as evidence for the high degree of its efficacy." I think I'll close this thought with another valid point that can be summed up in a phrase I picked up from Phillip Johnson,"On that basis the theory has nothing to fear from the evidence."
schrafinator writes:
I know.
"Godidit", right?
No. Surely either physical matter existed from eternity past without origin and somehow orchestrated itself into infinite order, or somehow nothing became everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by nator, posted 12-07-2003 4:26 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Rrhain, posted 12-12-2003 1:25 AM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied
 Message 132 by nator, posted 12-14-2003 9:54 AM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 169 (72419)
12-11-2003 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by sidelined
12-07-2003 11:28 PM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin said:
If the textbooks didn't depend upon the validity of a metaphysical philosophy that is unprovable, I'd be more inclined to see your point.
sidelined writes:
Could you please explain which metaphysical philosophy you are speaking of?
I speak of that which is to the "left" of science. Yes, science must study nature--both creation scientists (they're to the "right" of science) and evolution scientists--but science neither assumes the nonexistence of God, nor affirms the existence of God. As a test to the validity of this belief, I challenge you to tell me about something that is genuinely empirical in nature that creation scientists and evolution scientists disagree about (that necessarily implicates their opposing positions about ultimate origins). They disagree about how to interpret and evaluate empirical findings; the empirical findings themselves do not actually validate evolutionism, i.e., metaphysical philosophy. The left, so questionable scientifically, so questionable politically. (But, of course, the same people who compose the left in one group, are not necessarily members of the other leftist group.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by sidelined, posted 12-07-2003 11:28 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by sidelined, posted 12-11-2003 11:58 PM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied
 Message 125 by Rrhain, posted 12-12-2003 1:39 AM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied
 Message 128 by Loudmouth, posted 12-12-2003 12:42 PM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 169 (72432)
12-11-2003 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by NosyNed
12-07-2003 5:26 PM


Re: Agreement by Creationists and Biologists
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreement by Creationists and Biologists
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Creation scientists and Evolution scientists agree on vast amounts of things. These things, at least generally speaking, are science. Those groups part company on the unprovable things that tie into the philosophy that governs each group's belief.
NosyNed writes:
Could you list those things?
First, list the VAST amount of things creation scientists and evolution scientists agree about? Well, perhaps I'll just mention a few examples, and then I'm sure you'll get the picture.
They agree about the physical reasons why laser technology works, about the nuclear processes that occur in the unseen center of the Sun, electronics, gravity . . . I mean, I'm sure you get the idea; the list goes on and on in this vein, wouldn't you agree?
NosyNed writes:
And perhaps to make your position clear you could list some of the most important things that they disagree on? (Sorry, about asking for the extra work, but so far it seems that no two creationists agree as to what has and has not happened).
What an amazing coincidence--I have similar experiences with regard to the various evolutionary perspectives and with those who hold them. But one of the most important things that I see evidence of (concerning what creation scientists and evolution scientists disagree on), is the united effort of nats, in textbooks expecially, to convey the idea that, regardless of the incomprehensibley improbable requirements of cosmic and macro evolution with regard to their appeal to time and chance alone, somehow, life must have come into existence on its own. Creation scientists disagree with the evolution scientists' rhetoric that indicates that because we must limit our studies to nature, nature is all there is (enter the "somehow, life must have come into existence on its own" textbook typicality).
NosyNed writes:
Could you also specify the "unprovable" things? Perhaps you need to review some of the threads that discuss the concept of "proof" as well.
The final two sentences of my latter paragraph should give you a good idea of where I'm coming from for this. If not, there are other things that are unprovable, or at least unproven. Definitions of proof are great. But if "proof" is something to the effect that a bunch of people who agree on an interpretation (and thus deem it as proven) regarding what is rightfully categorized as an elaborate idea (that may or may not actually be correct), then I take exception to such a definition--it's one of the earmarks of an unscientific organization; that is, unless that organization also controls what the definitions are . . . how convenient for them.
The provable stuff is just as consistent with creationism.
NosyNed writes:
Hmmmmm, from this one might guess you disagree with most creationists.
How so?
NosyNed writes:
Certainly, you can't be a young earther.
Do you mean that if God really did create the universe and everything in it, he certainly wouldn't have done it in a relatively quick fashion as opposed to the methodology that might appease the nats to a degree? If for the moment, and for the sake of argument, you're considering the idea of a Creator, why would it seem so odd if he was to create a la yec-ish?
NosyNed writes:
Again, this would be clearer if you listed some very specific examples.
I'm sorry. I'm not sure what you're asking for here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by NosyNed, posted 12-07-2003 5:26 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Rei, posted 12-12-2003 12:00 AM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied
 Message 124 by NosyNed, posted 12-12-2003 1:25 AM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 169 (72951)
12-15-2003 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by sidelined
12-07-2003 7:12 PM


Martin
You have not answered the question here.
Why (you asked) do I believe the Bible? Well, for the same reason that x-athiests, x-nats, etc. (who considered the product of the Bible, honestly, sincerely) have believed. It's not because I was raised that way. I'm aware of the rationalizations that people use to discount apologetical research, but, at the end of the day, I find that Biblical faith wins out by a long shot over all other options that are out there. While I'm not "searching" (because once one finds THE answer there's no need), I do gladly continue to learn. When pressed, nats too have an opportunity to be honest about their own supernatural beliefs:
sidelined writes:
You have only answered that you do believe in the bible and that you do so for the same reason as x-atheists and x-nats. You say that the bible wins out by a long shot but not why.
You’re right about that. My answer was vague. By mentioning apologetical research, though, I had hoped to convey the idea that that offered a basis for my faith. There’s a lot of historical information that is accepted by scholars as being dependable, yet there’s some biblical historical information that is not regarded as dependable even though some of that information scores better on tests of historicity. I can be called a conspiracy monger . . . OK . . . but in my assessment of everything I looked at, I do notice such inconsistencies that I believe supports this position.
Perhaps I’ll add that there is a greater reason for my faith than that, though . . . albeit, it’s not what we’d call a rational one. There’s a way of perceiving things (Biblically) whereby one has no real choice about things, including about whether or not one believes (or will believe) the Bible. If one is targeted by the work of God’s Holy Spirit and thus receives a seed of faith quite unaware, that seed will grow into an influence that is irresistible until such time that that faith is consummated by that individual’s acceptance of God’s only provision for salvation (through Jesus Christ). If you are interested in reading my more indepth response to this, see my message 6 in response to physicspete on the Welcome Visitors forum in the Does Christianity allow for a free will? section.
sidelined writes:
We obviously have a paradox presented here in which you say you believe in God because the bible says so but if the book is wrong then so is the christian concept of God. No problem,you say, since to believe one looks to the bible for confirmation.
(unless the natural beings are empowered for a time in order to perceive such things, as the Bible teaches).
So the bible teaches you how to percieve God in order for the God of the bible to exist.Do you not see the circular reasoning here?
I’ll certainly admit that reality involves some circularity. Biblical faith is not confined to the dimension of rationality. Yes, Biblical faith transcends the scientific perspective, but that’s not to say that the God of the Bible did not call the universe into being, equipping it with all the laws of nature that scientists study. If my take on what the Bible teaches is at least somewhat accurate, empiricists might not be able to independently accept these ideas as being worth serious consideration, regardless of how much nature itself offers the lesson that time and chance alone do not qualify as candidates for universal existence. While limiting oneself to the empirical may earn one some debate points in some peoples’ minds, it won’t do a whole lot for the condition of one’s eternal soul.
s: On another note you have this statement.
m: Those groups part company on the unprovable things that tie into the philosophy that governs each group's belief.
I'm talking about such things or processes that nats-ic scientists believe in that they can't see or experiment on in the direct sense. Why do they believe in such processes? Because the postulation of such processes provide what they call the best theoretical explanation for large bodies of data, as you alluded to. But in my view, the naturalist dilemma exists in the fact that nats are unable or unwilling to distinguish between unseen processes that can be uncontroversially extrapolated from empirical realities, and unseen processes that are inherently metaphysical in nature.
sidelined writes:
You mention the reason for believing in processes that we cannot directly experience is that they provide the best theoretical explanation.This is not the only reason, they also allow us to predict phenomena that we have not yet found.This happens over and over again which is how a theory gains a greater certainty.The machines we are using here are a result of making assumptions and test them against the real world
I’m sure that each of us can present some basic (or specific) aspects of our favored models along with their correlating predictions’ success stories. Perspective is such an interesting phenomenon, don’t you think?
sidelined writes:
Check out this sight and tell me what you think of the way it challenges your thinking. It is a fun sight that makes some twists that are quite unexpected.
http://www.explorepdx.com/feynman.html
Let me know what you think. But only after you have spent some time traversing the mazes it presents.
Some of this was interesting. And I’ll have to admit that some of it was also beyond my present ability to appreciate on the intellectual level. (I did get the impression that the valid information and challenges it offered, though, could be harmonized into either the natsian or the yecsian framework.)
[This message has been edited by sidelined, 12-07-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by sidelined, posted 12-07-2003 7:12 PM sidelined has not replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 169 (72962)
12-15-2003 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by sfs
12-07-2003 11:13 PM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The large body of "evidence" that is intended to bolster the idea of evolutionism is itself largely theoretical. The provable stuff is just as consistent with creationism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sfs writes:
You might have a point here if your statement were true. From everything I have observed, it's not. That is, the "provable stuff", the basic data, in my field is not consistent with creationism.
I'd be interested in being given an example of something that is inconsistent with the laws of nature that exist, the laws that creationists credit to the Creator. Are you going to cite some Biblical incidences when God exercised His soveriegnty over those laws He created, that represent an exception? OK, you got me. But
those exceptions that occured do not interfere with the orderly universe that was created to operate according to the "laws of nature" that we may study.
sfs writes:
Or at least I've never found a creationist who made even a half-hearted attempt to explain it.
Perhaps you're refering to some technical questions that require a high level of expertise, that the laymen creationists you've encountered, didn't feel at all qualified to respond to. But if it's acceptable to you, I wouldn't mind mediating to a degree, any challenge to some folks I have in mind who I think would be capable of providing adequate responses, that is, just as adequate responses as you (and yours) could provide to such interactive possibilities.
sfs writes:
So on the one hand I have a scientific theory, evolution, that explains and predicts lots of data that I work with every day, and on the other hand I have cretaionism, that talks a lot about presuppositions but never actually explains a damn thing.
Land o' Goshen! There's so much wrong here that I find it difficult to choose a starting place for reply. I'll simplify it by reemphasizing that one's perspective, one's (yes) presuppositions are all important.
sfs writes:
It seems like a no-brainer which one I should choose.
If, at present, you're unable to leave your perception of the empirical perspective regardless of its limitations (its weaknesses), you may very well, eventually, be able to transend that perspective eventually (in order to see something that is even more consistent with empirical data than macro evolution).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by sfs, posted 12-07-2003 11:13 PM sfs has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by sfs, posted 12-15-2003 12:25 PM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 169 (76544)
01-04-2004 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by nator
12-08-2003 12:19 AM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose I assign a level of certainty to this at least as high as the level of certainty that died-in-the-wool nats assign by faith to their belief that nothing caused everything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schrafinator writes:
Excuse me?
I don't know a single naturalist that would say that "nothing caused everything."
Perhaps there is some room for you to make a legitimate quibble about this. But I was thinking about those naturalists who, in principle, are not far off from the perspective of Edward P. Tryon: Our universe had its physical origin as a quantum fluctuation of some pre-existing true vacuum, or state of nothingness. From the creationist perspective, these types of assertions made by naturalists are like the empty rhetoric aspects of creationists’ perspectives (so say the naturalists) which discuss things that are required by the favored model, but yet are empirically unsubstantiated.
schrafinator writes:
First of all, what does the above have to do with the change in allele frequencies in a population over time?
There’s nothing about allele’s that is inconsistent with the Creator’s creation that was made to operate according to the laws of nature that exist.
schrafinator writes:
Second, I would hazard a guess that moth naturalists wuld say that they don't know what the cause of "everything" is, because the evidence of what "caused everything" is pretty thin.
Naturalists go to great lengths to avoid topics like this not only because there is scant (if any) evidence, but because acknowledging that their ideas must hearken back to their mere assumptions about what might have caused everything, betrays the face of surety that they put up that depends upon the validity of such thoughts that relate to origins.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't claim that I have a crowd pleasing answer to that--any more than nats have such for their unprovable philosophical assumptions that are inherent to their faith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schrafinator writes:
Tell me, does your faith in God change according to physical evidence discovered here on earth?
No.
schrafinator writes:
If you are attempting to equate your religious faith with the kind of faith that is based upon evidence and experience of nature (such as my faith that the Earth spins on it's axis and is in orbit around the Sun, for example), then you have a very strange kind of religion.
I am attempting to equate my religious faith (in a sense) with the kind of faith that is based upon the natsian TAKE on the evidence and experience of nature. Macro-evolutionary ideas are way, WAY out there compared to your parenthetical citations that creationists also acknowledge.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is that textbooks and other media should be based on science, and not upon one particular philosophical creed (such as evolutionism or creationism).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schrafinator writes:
Agreed.
Can you please, as requested, explain to me how it is that the predictions of Evolutionary Theory have so far been borne out if it is all simply philosophical and not evidenciary in basis?
Without scrolling back up to check (I’ve been coming back and forth to this reply for days on my disk because I’ve been busy), I think I might’ve mentioned that both models are broad enough so that each can accommodate a boast of fulfilled predictions.
But, for the record, Evolutionary Theory is not so great at making good on its predictions. To take an example, if evolution is true, then "simple" plants, like mosses, evolved slowly, and gradually changed into plants that have seeds, and the seed-bearing plants then evolved into plants and trees that have flowers. Paleontologists haven't discovered fossils of plants that were changing from seed-bearing plants into flowering plants. Just as we would expect on the basis of creation, however, these in-between kinds, or transitional forms do not exist. This is true of each one of the many different kinds of plants. Major university professors--the most honest ones--have acknowledged that to any fair-minded person, the fossil record of plants is in favor of creation--not evolution. The truth is that many scientists believe in evolution, not because the scientific evidence favors evolution instead of creation, but because they prefer to believe in evolution, no matter what the scientific evidence says. If one believes in creation, then one has to believe in a Creator, right? And that is simply unthinkable, so we (the evolutionists) simply must be right.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course an all powerful God can do inexplicable things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schrafinator writes:
The thing is, ever since science supplanted superstition as the main means of understanding nature, the "inexplicable" acts of God have become smaller and smaller.
In a sense, you’re right; there was a time in the past when people thought that the universal creation was infinite in size. The Tryonic superstition (that the universe popped into existence on its own, a belief that could represent the naturalistic delemma), is no more rational than creationism.
schrafinator writes:
All you have done is inserted God into the gaps of our understanding. What happens when something that you once considered "inexplicable" and evidence of the hand of God is explained by science? Does your faith die, or do you simply move it to another unexplained phenomena, as has been done by your predecessors for centuries?
That’s what you do with areas that haven’t been forged through in the empirical sense. What will you do when you find out that naturalistic tenets are destroyed by straight science (real science, unfettered by naturalistic assumptivism)? Move it to another back-up excuse, such as living fossils?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He transcends even the laws of nature he created. One of the differences between you and I is that I believe in a power that is capable of getting the job done.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schrafinator writes:
Another difference is that you simply believe, and we want to understand.
That’s not a difference at all. I don’t know any creationists who don’t want to understand as much as we can about the laws of nature God created.
schrafinator writes:
By saying that God is the answer to every question, you actually answer no questions at all.
In the ultimate sense, God is the answer. But that doesn’t stop us from studying the works of God in the scientific senseit amounts to studying God’s thoughts after Him . . . the difference is our under-girding philosophical assumptions about how to view these findings that we disagree on.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's plenty of non-science things that are a part of the belief in evolutionism also,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schrafinator writes:
...such as what? Please be specific.
Such as the belief that chemicals have an observable tendency or ability to form living cells, and single-celled organisms have an observable tendency or ability to form complex plants and animals; reproduction can produce radically new organs or organisms one tiny step at a time or all at once; simple life forms can be transformed into the highly complex organisms that inhabit the planet todaynatural selection in combination with random mutation, has the kind of creative power needed to make complex plants and animals out of much simpler predecessors; etc.
Various admissions that are made by the more honest evolutionists demonstrate the fact that evolutionism is not based on logic or evidence, but on faith. As one example, Dr. Harold Urey, a Nobel Prize winner for his research in chemistry, wrote about the impossibility of evolution, but still admitted he believed in the theory. All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more that we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. And then Dr. Urey added these words that represent some facts of the case, We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did. At the Alpach Symposium conference, which dealt with the growing problems of the theory of evolution, one of the speakers (whose name I don’t have now, but who nevertheless had some good insight regardless of who he is) admitted that the reason evolution was still supported by intellectuals, the education establishment, and the media had nothing to do with whether it was true or false. While reading about the conference, I copied down this tell-tale line, I think that the fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in ‘hard’ science has become a dogma can be explained only on sociological grounds.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evolutionism is an undergirding philosophy that colors the affected peoples' thinking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schrafinator writes:
Um, whatever you say.
I was talking about the Theory of Evolution and the evidence behind it, which you have, as yet, failed to address.
There’s nothing in the Theory of Evolution that is empirical that is not consistent with the creationist model. What is it exactly, that you want me to address?
schrafinator writes:
You have simply engaged in a bunch of handwaving instead of getting into specifics.
In an un-handwaving manner, please explain how universal physical existence came into being.
schrafinator writes:
I suspect you don't actually know much about the specifics of Evolutionary theory, but here's your chance to show that I'm wrong.
Please provide a brief explanation of how Biologists define evolution.
I never claimed to know this in any official or definitive sense, although I am aware of some of their beliefs that I have been exposed to over the years from textbooks and tv documentary interviews of biologists. I mean, I could look it up, but I’m quite sure that nothing I’d find would come as a surprise to me. In the interest of this interaction, I’ll do that if you come back with any type of insistence, but if you know the definition of evolution as per the perspective of biologists, I’d be happy to read it and think about it.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Creation scientists and Evolution scientists agree on vast amounts of things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schrafinator writes:
There's no such thing as Creation scientists. That is, they aren't actually playing by the rules of science, so they aren't doing science.
You know something, you’re right in a sense. The definition of science is, in an all too true sense, controlled by naturalists, who operate to the left of science, and so skew the definition accordingly. Straight science, in the ideal and more accurate sense, bisects the philosophies of creationism and evolutionism.
As for following the rules, you provide a great laugh for me. My favorite dodge of the rules by evolutionists is the notion of "living fossils," those creatures that should not be here if evolution were true. Nothing could be concieved of that evolutionists wouldn't invent a way around in order to protect the status of their faith. So, if following the rules of straight science is the criteria, then there is no such thing as evolution scientists either. I happen to think, though, that there are some scientists whose undergirding philosophical positions about origins differ, and so color their approaches to assessing the evidences.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These things, at least generally speaking, are science. Those groups part company on the unprovable things that tie into the philosophy that governs each group's belief.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schrafinator writes:
Sorry, nothing is actually "proven" in science. There is either support of evidence or their isn't.
I was wondering if you were going to provide any actual evidence, borne-out predictions, or anything at all in scientific support of Creation 'science' any time soon?
I’m sorry too; I’m also a victim of textbook and tv documentary misuse of terminology. (And perhaps my above point about plant-life qualifies as evidence--borne-out predictions in support of Creation 'science' as opposed to Evolution 'science.')
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm talking about such things or processes that nats-ic scientists believe in that they can't see or experiment on in the direct sense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schrafinator writes:
OK, you must not believe that electrons exist, then, correct?
Nobody has ever directly observed an electron, so according to you, they don't exist.
I’ll expand the statement so that you’ll understand the point I was trying to make: I’m talking about such things or processes that are exclusive to the nats-ic scientific perspective that creation scientists disagree with them about.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do they believe in such processes? Because the postulation of such processes provide what they call the best theoretical explanation for large bodies of data, as you alluded to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schrafinator writes:
And this is how ALL science is done.
Yes. But when only one sector of (yes, unprovableright?) scientific perspective determines which postulations can qualify as legitimate theories, and then so-constructs the definition of science in order to rule out any such other conceivable competing postulations, it leaves straight science and enters into a more rhetorical endeavor.
schrafinator writes:
Tell me, do you object to the inferences made in particle physics? Why or why not?
I have at least tentative objection only to those inferences of particle physics that would seemingly have to be valid in order for the natsian framework (which, of course, includes macro evolution) to be legitimate, but which are not yet verified in the empirical sense.
Why? Because I’m persuaded that the naturalistic framework is merely an erroneous take on the empirical data. If I believed otherwise, if indeed I thought that naturalists were fundamentally correct, I’d invite as many of ‘em as I could to the nearest happy hour and the drinks would be on me.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But in my view, the naturalist dilemma exists in the fact that nats are unable or unwilling to distinguish between unseen processes that can be uncontroversially extrapolated from empirical realities, and unseen processes that are inherently metaphysical in nature.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schrafinator writes:
It's not a dilemma.
Science ignores the supernatural.
Science can never validate your faith because science is emperical.
Get over it.
Straight science also ignores assumptivist philosophy that, by definition, prevents the work of the Creator (if one exists) from being detected or recognized as suchHe’s outside the loop of possibilities even if He existseven if He created a la yec-ish and left implications of such type of work.
And science can never validate your faith that the philosophy of naturalism is a superior perspective.
As for Get over it, although the laws and manifestations of nature are consistent with my faith, I don’t look to science to validate my faith. You (and yours), however, seem to be suffering from something deeper than looking to science to validate your faith (as I delineated above); you seem to think that your faith in the philosophy of naturalism is synonymous with the different position of having faith that the findings of straight science are valid, which, to me, seems a quite lamentable state to occupy.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The large body of "evidence" that is intended to bolster the idea of evolutionism is itself largely theoretical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schrafinator writes:
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
It is nonsensical to cal evidence "thoretical".
But when the "evidence" (of microevolution) is used in a bait-and-switch manner (i.e., "macroevolution is true and here's the evidence:"--and then enter all manner of microevolutionary findings that are also totally consistent with creationism), the "evidence" becomes suspect, and therefore "theoretical" in a real sense.
schrafinator writes:
Evidence is a bone of hundreds of species of dinosaur in certain layers of rock that have never, ever been found in any other layer around the world, evidence is a species of bacteria which becomes resistant to penicillin, evidence is the fact that descendents from certain survivors of the Black Plague in medieval Europe have partial to total immunity to HIV because thety share a mutation that conferred a survival advantage.
There are millions and millions of individual pieces of evidence which all point to the fact of evolution ocurring.
All of the things you alluded to are at least as consistent with creationism.
schrafinator writes:
It is simply a very sad thing that your religion forces you to choose between your faith and your intellect.
Actually, my intellectual life harmonizes with my faith. I suppose that you make the same claim about what your article of faith demands, that life evolved from
dead matter on this planet (even though there's not a shred of evidence to suggest that it did). And I find that to be very sad.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The provable stuff is just as consistent with creationism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schrafinator writes:
I think you are quite unaware of the staggering, overwhelming amount of evidence for Evolution.
I think you may be quite unaware of the necessity to distinguish between microevolutionary evidence (which is indeed widespread), and hard macroevolutionary evidence, which is nonexistent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by nator, posted 12-08-2003 12:19 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by MrHambre, posted 01-04-2004 11:24 PM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied
 Message 147 by nator, posted 01-05-2004 10:14 AM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 169 (76545)
01-04-2004 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Loudmouth
12-09-2003 7:40 PM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it scientific to leave the conceivability open that nature itself could yield evidence that could suggest a supernatural origin (complexity, order, etc., seemingly beyond statistical explanation for the time alotted), or more scientific to, at the onset, predetermine that the vehicle we must use to establish our ideas, i.e., nature, is all there is?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rei writes:
Science does leave open this possibility.
At best, only in lip service. The textbooks, the "instructional" media, virtually everything that has any real influence, insists (perhaps implicitly) that life came into being by random chance, without any guidance at all. But you're right. Science does leave open this possibility. Evolution "science," however, does not.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, as Phillip Johnson asked (in Darwin on Trial), "Does non-science necessarily mean nonsense?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rei writes:
To a layperson who has not taken the time to understand it? Probably.
Now, if I'm understanding you correctly here, you're saying that to a layperson who has not taken time to understand science, things that are non-science are necessarily nonsense. I'm not following you.
Rei writes:
To anyone willing to invest a few years of their life into an in-depth education in the particular science, taught by people knowlegable about the subject? Never.
And then you seem to be saying that anyone who really studies science in an in-depth way, would never think that non-science things are necessarily nonsense. OK, I can agree with that.
Rei writes:
If you go to college and major in something - and put forth the effort needed to succeed - you'll understand the What, Why, and How, regardless of the subject. If you don't? Don't expect to just be able to listen in and follow what took people years of school and often decades of experience in the field, analyzing millions of discoveries and experiments (past and present), to learn.
OK again. I don't have a problem with this as it stands here. But I'd have to wonder if, in a basket-weaving course, the teacher presented a basket and told the students that it just appeared out of nowhere. All the years of experience and all the teacher's rationalizations about why he's right would do little to convince me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Loudmouth, posted 12-09-2003 7:40 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 169 (76556)
01-04-2004 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Rrhain
12-09-2003 9:00 PM


Martin J. Koszegi responds to me:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If everything came into existence on its own and somehow developed into the universal
product that is before us, then the biggest beef I have with nats (i.e., that if existence is beholden to a Creator, their definition of science would never be able to
recognize evidence of his work) is irrelevance personified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rrhain writes:
This sentence makes no sense.
Are you saying that there needs to be a "purpose" to something in order for it to exist? If so, why?
Read the sentence without the parenthetical insert. In other words, if there really is no Creator, then my problems with nats are totally irrelevant. I think "purpose" is kin to "cause." Do you believe everything has a cause?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Creationists study things that happen all on their own.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rrhain writes:
How can they when they are studying god, who does not act on his own but on his whim? Didn't you read my post?
Of course I did. So, do you think that a belief in the Creator necessitates a belief that God could not have created the laws of the universe that scientists study, and that even though he transcends creation itself, he cannot allow it to operate consistently in the way that it does (which would allow for scientific study of his universe)?
Rrhain writes:
Not only does science ignore supernatural entities, it ignores natural ones, too, when they act in capricious ways.
Oh, then you might agree that the capricious creative acts may be isolated from the creationist framework overall, so that scientists could study the remainder from a creationist perspective (in keeping with the spirit of my latter question)?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the creationist perspective, God made physical matter to operate according to the laws that science studies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rrhain writes:
But that's irrelevant. Are those laws maintained by god or do they function all on their own?
If I toss a handful of coins on the ground, do they land in their final position all on their own does god come down and personally, deliberately, and consciously make them land that way?
My computer needs me to turn it on, but I become irrelevant to its boot process after that. I'm not the one making electrons move through the wires, powering up the hard drive, sending signals through the cables. It's doing that all on its own completely independent of me. That doesn't mean I don't exist and it doesn't mean I can't interfere with it. But it does mean that it does what it does all on its own.
It's not irrelevant at all. I don't have a problem with straight science, nor do I have a problem with teaching facts and evidence, but when "science" begins to become synonymous with concluding that the coin tosser or the computer operator doesn't exist, I have a problem with that. Fine, don't acknowledge the Creator in science. But don't, by the rhetoric of natsian "science," create a scenario that couldn't ever discover God's work because he's out of the loop due to those in the power structure who are in charge of defining what "science" really is.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitions of science that favor one such supernaturalist (creationism) or metaphysical philosophy (naturalism) over another represents an irrational bias.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rrhain writes:
Incorrect. Definitions of science that rely upon outside conscious forces deliberately and personally intefering with process are necessarily not science. Science studies things that happen on their own without the interference of conscious entities.
Straight science doesn't demand (either implicitly or explicitly) that nature is all there is. It points out the evidences of nature, and it shouldn't be biased toward the ideas that are posited in order to harmonize the data. And it's OK with me and other creationists if no mention is made of the Creator creating. Just don't force-feed one narrow perspective upon students (that makes it virtually impossible for one to accept the possibility of creation) and call it "science."
Rrhain writes:
Besides, you have made a logical error of equivocation. You have confused the methodology called "naturalism" with the metaphysics called "naturalism." There is a difference between saying, "There are things that happen on their own," and saying, "Everything happens on its own."
But the equivocation is implicit to the problem I'm addressing regarding all the popular confusion about how science is percieved.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I’m reading you correctly, you’re suggesting that even if God exists (just as you exist), He didn’t have anything to do with the universe coming into existence (just as you have nothing to do with what I have for breakfast).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rrhain writes:
No.
What I am saying is that the existence of beings that are capable of making things happen does not mean they are omnipresent and acting in every single instance.
God might have had something to do with the creation of the universe, but that doesn't mean god had anything to do with anything else. That doesn't mean god doesn't exist. It simply means that god is only involved in some things but not others...other things that happen all on their own without god.
And science seeks to understand those things that happen without god.
Let me try this again; are you saying that although God (may have) created, it is scientifically irrelevant to consider him as the Creator because he made the creation in such a way that it functions on its own? If the creation being purposely made to function on its own, is what you mean by "things that happen without god," then we might be getting somewhere.
Just don't define away his possible existence with natsian rhetoric, and we'll keep the Goddidits out of the texts.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, to answer your latter question, God sustains all things, but he made dependable, predictable laws of nature that allows us to study how He made things to be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rrhain writes:
That doesn't answer the question.
If I take a handful of coins and toss them on the ground, do they land in their final position all on their own, or does god come down and personally, deliberately, and consciously make them land the way they do?
They fall in a manner consistent with the laws of nature that God created. He doesn't actually manipulate the coins in the sort of "hands on" manner you're suggesting.
Rrhain writes:
You keep talking about how "dependable" the universe is...that implies that god has no choice in those things. Even if god wanted to, he couldn't change the nature of the universe because those things are "dependable." Is that what you're implying?
Of course not. As I've indicated so many times before, although God created the universe according to all the laws of nature that scientists study, it's not beyond his ability to step in on occasion and circumvent those laws, something he has done rarely I might add (to invoke the Biblical record). This seems really bizarre to you?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that He’s free to step in on occasion and interrupt those laws (to do a miracle, such as make a shadow caused by the sun to go in an unnatural direction for a time), doesn’t throw science into an exercise of capriciousness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rrhain writes:
But it does mean science has to ignore it just as it ignores you.
So the question is: Is there anything at all that isn't being deliberately, personally, and consciously made to happen by god? Because if it is, then it is a capricious whim of god and doesn't help us to know what things are like when they behave all on their own.
You just don't seem to be absorbing the points that God could've created the universe to operate according to natural laws that can be studied by scientists, and that his rare occasion side-stepping of those laws doesn't qualify as a necessary hinderence to continue in such study.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation: you don't agree with me
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rrhain writes:
Ah, but the difference is that I actually give you a reason why. You simply assert that I'm wrong without justification.
Please provide an example of this claim.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please verify the following, thus alienating the following from the realm of mere belief (or faith):
--chemicals have an observable tendency or ability to form living cells, and single-celled organisms have an observable tendency or ability to form complex plants and animals;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rrhain writes:
Define "living."
When I refer to living things, I'm thinking of organisms or beings that are self-replicating, due to whatever internal programming that is unique to the creature.
Rrhain writes:
You seem to be heading down the path of claiming that evolution requires abiogenesis and that abiogenesis is something more than an hypothesis.
As for the second part, all one needs to do is watch sexually-reproducing species reproduce. You, for example, started from a single cell and progressed through purely chemical means to become a complex, multi-cellular animal.
"Ah," but that has nothing at all to do with evolution. The internal pre-programming was already present.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--reproduction can produce radically new organs or organisms one tiny step at a time or all at once;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rrhain writes:
That's been observed over and over again:
Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events
Ishikawa M, Ishizaki S, Yamamoto Y, Yamasato K.
Paraliobacillus ryukyuensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a new Gram-positive, slightly halophilic, extremely halotolerant, facultative anaerobe isolated from a decomposing marine alga.
J Gen Appl Microbiol. 2002 Oct;48(5):269-79.
PMID: 12501437 [PubMed - in process]
Kanamori T, Rashid N, Morikawa M, Atomi H, Imanaka T.
Oleomonas sagaranensis gen. nov., sp. nov., represents a novel genus in the alpha-Proteobacteria.
FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2002 Dec 17;217(2):255-261.
PMID: 12480113 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
Fudou R, Jojima Y, Iizuka T, Yamanaka S.
Haliangium ochraceum gen. nov., sp. nov. and Haliangium tepidum sp. nov.: Novel moderately halophilic myxobacteria isolated from coastal saline environments.
J Gen Appl Microbiol. 2002 Apr;48(2):109-16.
PMID: 12469307 [PubMed - in process]
Golyshin PN, Chernikova TN, Abraham WR, Lunsdorf H, Timmis KN, Yakimov MM.
Oleiphilaceae fam. nov., to include Oleiphilus messinensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a novel marine bacterium that obligately utilizes hydrocarbons.
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2002 May;52(Pt 3):901-11.
PMID: 12054256 [PubMed - in process]
Ivanova EP, Mikhailov VV.
[A new family of Alteromonadaceae fam. nov., including the marine proteobacteria species Alteromonas, Pseudoalteromonas, Idiomarina i Colwellia.]
Mikrobiologiia. 2001 Jan-Feb;70(1):15-23. Review. Russian.
PMID: 11338830 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Stackebrandt E, Schumann P.
Description of Bogoriellaceae fam. nov., Dermacoccaceae fam. nov., Rarobacteraceae fam. nov. and Sanguibacteraceae fam. nov. and emendation of some families of the suborder Micrococcineae.
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2000 May;50 Pt 3:1279-85.
PMID: 10843073 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
But these are all in reference to what would be rightly categorized as microevolutionary developments (and thus totally consistent with creationism), not really a legitimate response to what I had in mind. Let's see some evidence of major change, of one kind of animal turning into something fundamentally different, not just modified in some way that would please any creationist as well.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--"simple" life forms can be transformed into the highly complex organisms that inhabit the planet today; natural selection in combination with random mutations, has the kind of creative power needed to make complex plants and animals out of much simpler predecessors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rrhain writes:
Again, observed all the time. Here's a page from a professor of biology:
Can new genetic information and complexity evolve by known biological mechanisms? Yes.
Well, it appears that an editor made it to your page before I got here. But I'd venture to say that nothing of fact that was shared would have been inconsistent with the creationist model.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science doesn't "say" (imply, or support the seeming absolutes) that I listed above that belong to the metaphysical creed of naturalists who excommunicate those heretics from their abbeys who don't fit into their box.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rrhain writes:
This sentence no verb.
Could you rephrase, please?
Of course; sorry. Mentally, please move the ending parenthetical symbol back to the "after the word 'support'" position, and I believe that may alleviate the problem.
Rrhain writes:
Your argument is akin to saying that because you believe the earth is flat by fiat of god, then having a textbook that says the earth is round is tantamount to saying that god does not exist.
That comeback analogy of yours has its amusing aspects, I suppose, but it's not at all accurate. If the primordial soup must have produced life, that means no other options are to be considered. Period. Bias.
Rrhain writes:
The evidence points to a conclusion that DNA and RNA evolved. There's still more work to do, yes, but that doesn't mean we ignore the data that we have.
And here's a hint: The general consensus in science these days is that the first life wasn't based upon DNA or RNA. So even if god created life, that doesn't mean god created DNA. You still have a gap to put your god in.
This substantiates the bias. You have as many gaps to fill with your articles of faith as I do with mine.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, I'll bite. What does --RTFM stand for?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rrhain writes:
You don't know?
RTFM is a common acronym used by tech support types to refer to what they want to say to those who ask questions that are easily answered if only the person had bothered to consult the documentation:
Actually, I didn't know. Although I've visited evc forum a number of times, I have to confess some ignorance regarding "tech support" information.
Rrhain writes:
Read The Fucking Manual
As I feared, this was linked to the WWJD abbreviation, something that would obviously be very offensive to Christians. You don't care about presenting this level of offense, even if the targets are "just those Christians"? You might want to read the "manual," or the forum rules, something that I did do and try to abide by.
Rrhain writes:
Some other utterances of frustration are the "I-D-ten-T" problem (which, when written out, spells "id10t" which looks an awful lot like "idiot," don't you think?) and "PEBKAC": Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair (which is where the user typically exists).
Thanks for the information, but although I'm not beyond using some light sarcasm and such, I'd rather not use any of these.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really hope, though, that you aren't going to get blasphemous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rrhain writes:
I've got an idea: Why don't you let me worry about my relationship with god.
I wasn't endeavoring to instruct you in the way of the Lord. I just didn't want to read the blasphemy. (Of course, we can all see that my instincts were correct.)
Rrhain writes:
You won't be able to help.
You know, I quite agree.
Rrhain writes:
If god thinks I'm being blasphemous, I'm sure god will let me know.
Indeed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Rrhain, posted 12-09-2003 9:00 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 169 (76559)
01-04-2004 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Rei
12-01-2003 3:33 PM


Message 61 of 136 12-01-2003 03:33 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it scientific to leave the conceivability open that nature itself could yield evidence that could suggest a supernatural origin (complexity, order, etc., seemingly beyond statistical explanation for the time alotted), or more scientific to, at the onset, predetermine that the vehicle we must use to establish our ideas, i.e., nature, is all there is?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rei writes:
Science does leave open this possibility.
At best, only in lip service. The textbooks, the "instructional" media, virtually everything that has any real influence, insists (perhaps implicitly) that life came into being by random chance, without any guidance at all. But you're right. Science does leave open this possibility. Evolution "science," however, does not.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, as Phillip Johnson asked (in Darwin on Trial), "Does non-science necessarily mean nonsense?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rei writes:
To a layperson who has not taken the time to understand it? Probably.
Now, if I'm understanding you correctly here, you're saying that to a layperson who has not taken time to understand science, things that are non-science are necessarily nonsense. I'm not following you.
Rei writes:
To anyone willing to invest a few years of their life into an in-depth education in the particular science, taught by people knowlegable about the subject? Never.
And then you seem to be saying that anyone who really studies science in an in-depth way, would never think that non-science things are necessarily nonsense. OK, I can agree with that.
Rei writes:
If you go to college and major in something - and put forth the effort needed to succeed - you'll understand the What, Why, and How, regardless of the subject. If you don't? Don't expect to just be able to listen in and follow what took people years of school and often decades of experience in the field, analyzing millions of discoveries and experiments (past and present), to learn.
OK again. I don't have a problem with this as it stands here. But I'd have to wonder if, in a basket-weaving course, the teacher presented a basket and told the students that it just appeared out of nowhere. All the years of experience and all the teachers rationalizations about why he's right would do little to convince me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Rei, posted 12-01-2003 3:33 PM Rei has not replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 169 (76562)
01-04-2004 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Rei
12-01-2003 3:57 PM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for something being categorized as theory and fact and existing only in peoples' minds, I'm sure you can think of examples of this from your own knowledge of history, right(?): erroneous ideas that became established beliefs (theory/fact), but that were later found to be erroneous (existing only in peoples' minds from the earlier time). That was all I meant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rei writes:
And they were found out as such by scientists, through the scientific method. Take the phlogiston theory (disproven by mass measurements of burning objects), or the theory that the sun's energy was from gravitational collapse (contradictory evidence was given by radioisotope dating and abnormal measurements, and finally a method that works (fusion) was discovered).
Here, you're arguing against something that is not at the forefront of a new science; it is virtually universally accepted, apart from a few hundred people (if you assume that there are 10 times as many who remain silent as the ones who are vocal, a few thousand), among the world's millions of biologists, archaeologists, paleontologists, etc. While refinements to theories that have lasted for a long time do occur (for example, Newtonian phyiscs to relativistic physics), to survive to the present day requires that an incredibly huge amount of evidence need to be better reconciled by an alternativee theory.
That "how could so many people be so wrong" argument is sort of like adopting a statistical morality. If enough people believe that a certain behavior is OK (say, like rape, for instance), then it must be, regardless of how wrong others may believe the behavior is. That brings new meaning to the phrase "popular science." Show me clear evidence of macroevolution. Don't tell me to trust people's judgement about evolutionary philosophy when the only thing they have to show for is stuff that is perfectly consistent with creationism.
Rei writes:
Such a replacement theory for evolution has not been postulated.
Like there's another theory that is fundamentally different than natsian evolution, other than creationism. Yes, I know about the lists of imaginative options that people can cite, but one either believes in a Creator (creationism) or one doesn't (evolutionism).
Rei writes:
Not only have most creationist publications been based on bad (often deliberately bad) and outdated information (check the dates on papers referenced by, say, the ICR), but their reports often contradict each other. For example, for years creationists pushed that the world is young because there is too little helium in zircons. Now they've been circulating a paper postulating that the world is young because there is too much helium in zircons. There is no theory, just a mishmash of bad information that not only contradicts itself, but the very book it is supposed to be defending. They typically do it by abusing areas of research that haven't received much study (or hadn't at the date of publication) or are problems that have huge, complex calculations behind them (such as helium retention rates in zircon crystals at different temperatures and pressures, the propagation of oscillations through the sun, Earth's dynamo, etc). At the same time, they ignore the copious amounts of data gathered in the past several hundreds of years by millions of people, instead looking for their god in the next gap.
This brings to mind a possibility for a new topic, under which creationists and evolutionists can cite some ridiculous things that either side has done, and about which everybody from both sides now agree are ridiculous. Remember the Piltdown man, was it?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think that mutations are very good vehicles to look to in order to explain the development of life. Is the net result of mutations, improvement and expansion of genetic possibilities?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rei writes:
No. The net result of mutations *and* selection (and often other factors) is "improvement" (which is only relative in a given context, and contexts change across this planet and through time) of genetic possibilities.
Read, for example, about Galapagos. Mutation alone would not have created the artwork. Mutation *and* selection created it.
If macroevolution actually occured, then that's true. If macroevolution never occured, then it's false. So far, there is no corroboration for the belief in macroevolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Rei, posted 12-01-2003 3:57 PM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by nator, posted 01-05-2004 11:20 AM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 169 (76563)
01-04-2004 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Coragyps
12-09-2003 9:50 PM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both of the texts were published by Prentice Hall, the first one I cite, in '91, and the second one in '98. Men named Miller and Levine are credited with being the primary writers for each.
Coragyp writes:
Unless I'm even more confused than my usual, this Dr Miller is a rather vocal theist who has also written a popular book explaining how his beliefs allow for both the Christian God and modern biology.
That's interesting, but irrelevant to my point and to what is actually stated in the textbook

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Coragyps, posted 12-09-2003 9:50 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 169 (76564)
01-04-2004 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by MrHambre
12-10-2003 6:00 AM


Re: The Nats Strike Back
The Nats Strike Back
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MrHambre writes:
Martin,
As others have pointed out, Kenneth Miller is a Brown University researcher who exemplifies a not-so-rare phenomenon in the scientific community: a devout believer who has a realistic outlook on what science is and isn't. I highly recommend Finding Darwin's God if you're interested in understanding evolutionary biology from the standpoint of a Christian.
People who believe that the Creator used evolution to create, accept evolution for the same reasons why anyone else does: they've been influenced to believe it (despite an absence of evidence for actual macroevolution). Now, if one believes in the Creator, and also has been influenced to believe that macroevolution is as substantiated as the fact of the Earth's orbit around the Sun (which isn't a rare error to become victim to, given the powerful vortex of societal pressures that exist in and out of educational settings), then it's no wonder that such as those would be able to work side by side with evangelical evolutionists.
MrHambre writes:
What will it take to convince you that mature faith doesn't demand that believers rant against a crude caricature of scientific researchers like your 'nats?'
It depends on what you mean by "mature." If you mean biblical faith, then I don't think we'll be able to agree. There's no way to make the Bible speak with an evolutionary lisp, as some author somewhere put it. And what's more, there's nothing in nature that is inconsistent with the Biblical teaching of creation. Also, I don't consider it spiritually mature to scew what is found in nature in order for it to align with evolutionary philosophy. (And I'd like to add, "Will evolutionary Christians be saved?" Of course.)
MrHambre writes:
The fact that Miller (and countless other believers who have no problem reconciling their belief and their scientific understanding) . . .
There you go again, equating macroevolutionary philosophy with "scientific" understanding.
MrHambre writes:
. . . can do successful research alongside nonbelievers is a sign that your accusations of naturalistic brainwashing are completely false.
As you have probably already read above, what you say here is not a sign of what you claim.
MrHambre writes:
Certainly creationism can't claim to be as objective a template for scientific research if it demands that everyone subscribe to the tenets of fundamentalist Christianity.
Creationism, when taken to mean that the universe (and life, etc.) was created, is at least "as objective a template for scientific research" as whatever form of the Tryonic mythos that appeals to the faithful. Fundamentalist (believing the bible) Christianity is not part of the "scientific template" of creationism.
MrHambre writes:
Contrary to your claim, naturalism most certainly is synonymous with science. It is the foundation of scientific methodology, merely because nothing else works. Scientists understand this, whether they are believers or not.
Yes, according to the definitions that are doled out by the currently seated power structure of the scientific community, naturalism is most certainly synonymous with science. You've restated the crux of our debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by MrHambre, posted 12-10-2003 6:00 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by MrHambre, posted 01-05-2004 12:08 AM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied
 Message 146 by Quetzal, posted 01-05-2004 10:04 AM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024