Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-23-2017 5:59 AM
403 online now:
PaulK, Pressie (2 members, 401 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,874 Year: 27,480/21,208 Month: 1,393/1,714 Week: 236/365 Day: 5/73 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
17NextFF
Author Topic:   Micro v. Macro Creationist Challenge
ringo
Member
Posts: 13881
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 91 of 252 (814503)
07-10-2017 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
07-10-2017 4:10 AM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Faith writes:

If you absolutely know something is the truth revealed by God, it can't be anti-science to treat it as the known truth.


That's the definition of anti-science. Putting truth revealed by God ahead of science is anti-science. Pitting truth revealed by God against science is anti-science. Why can't you just be content with being anti-science?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 4:10 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1349
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 92 of 252 (814514)
07-10-2017 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by mike the wiz
07-03-2017 7:57 AM


yes I would categorise primates as mammals with a collar bone, and forward pointing eyes

This has been bothering me so I could not resist returning to it. From where did you get this odd diagnosis of Primates? If it's your own work I'd suggest some more comparative anatomy is needed.

I thought it was odd before since ignores most of the diagnostic features of primates, including the obvious, famous ones that non-anatomists (like me) can easily understand (like nails). It's bothering me now since when you think about it doesn't even distinguish primates from close relatives. 'Mammal with forward-facing eyes and a collarbone' would be an accurate description of a rat, wouldn't it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by mike the wiz, posted 07-03-2017 7:57 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3037
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 93 of 252 (814515)
07-10-2017 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
07-10-2017 4:10 AM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Faith writes:

If you absolutely know something is the truth revealed by God, it can't be anti-science to treat it as the known truth.

Science takes all the available information, and forms a theory that explains all of it.

On some level, your statement can be very-strangely sort-of similar, but not really.
That is, if you take what you 'absolutely know' and remove any other contradicting information... you can take that 'smaller pool' of information and form a theory that explains all of that 'smaller pool' of data.

The 'but not really' part is that science never does this.

1. Science never "absolutely knows" anything, and questions/tests everything. Constantly. There is no fear of being wrong and correcting previous mistakes within science. It's actually a big part of the self-correcting mechanism of honest progress.
2. Science always takes 'all the available information.' If you're knowingly ignoring certain information... especially information that would skew the results you're currently getting into something else if you included it... then you're definitely anti-science.

The scientific method is always followed where it's the only source of knowledge.

Science allows for all sources of knowledge. It looks at all information regardless of how it was understood to be knowledge.

The deniers are those who deny the Biblical revelation.

Biblical revelation was included in science until it was proven to be extremely unreliable. Often, the Biblical revelation did not align with reality. Therefore, the Biblical revelation was not factual... it wasn't an accurate description of real things... it wasn't knowledge. It was imagination.

You (or anyone else) are free and encouraged to test it again, though. If you can show that Biblical revelation is, indeed, knowledge... science will accept it again and correct all it's issues. That is the self-correcting nature of science.

If you cannot test it, though.
If you cannot show that it reliably describes reality... then science cannot use it.

Science only uses that information that reliably describes reality. Science only uses knowledge.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 4:10 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 5:02 PM Stile has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26611
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 94 of 252 (814529)
07-10-2017 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Stile
07-10-2017 2:18 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Science takes all the available information, and forms a theory that explains all of it.

On some level, your statement can be very-strangely sort-of similar, but not really.

The difference, of course, is that nothing discovered by fallen human intellect is absolutely true, while God's revelations are. And it is admitted too that it's all open to revision, as it should be. But God's revelations are not open to revision, because He's omniscient.

That is, if you take what you 'absolutely know' and remove any other contradicting information... you can take that 'smaller pool' of information and form a theory that explains all of that 'smaller pool' of data.

The 'but not really' part is that science never does this.

1. Science never "absolutely knows" anything, and questions/tests everything.

As it should and must because human intellect is not infallible. But if you have knowledge direct from God that knowledge IS infallible and everything else MUST yield to it. Creationists do of course try to prove what we can of the physical implications of God's rather scanty revelations on these subjects, but we also have to yield to the limitations of our human minds in the end and take God's side on any subject we don't fully understand. That's the only reasonable to thing to do with knowledge given by God. Those who allow themselves to be persuaded of the results of science against their own understanding of God's revelelation, and try to reconcile the two, may be sincere enough, but they underestimate the fallibility of their own judgment and of science itself. Better to be at odds with all the scientific world than deny or try to rationalize away what we truly believe to be what God has revealed.

1. Science never "absolutely knows" anything, and questions/tests everything. Constantly. There is no fear of being wrong and correcting previous mistakes within science. It's actually a big part of the self-correcting mechanism of honest progress.

This is true for the hard sciences, and none of them that I know of contradict the Bible at all. But the sciences of the prehistoric past are the problem since none of the past can be subjected to testing, being all one-time events that can only be interpreted. The radiometric dating systems seem to be able to reach into the past but since they contradict the Bible, as I say above, the Bible must be taken as the truth over them.

2. Science always takes 'all the available information.' If you're knowingly ignoring certain information... especially information that would skew the results you're currently getting into something else if you included it... then you're definitely anti-science.

But science dismisses the testimony of thousands of honest people to supernatural events, to demons, to miracles, so how can it be taken as "honest?" This shows it to be nothing but a prejudice. If the Bible is God's word then it tells the truth about all those things, and if it tells the truth about those things it ALSO tells the truth about the physical world. Sorry, but you cannot say there wasn't a worldwide Flood as described in Genesis and call it "science" when God has said otherwise. It's not science, it's a lie and it's science itself that is "knowingly ignoring certain information... especially information that would skew the results you're currently getting into something else if you included it... then you're definitely anti-science." Since the Biblical revelation would certainly "skew the results you're currently getting into something else if you included it..." then it's you who are anti-science. If God's word is God's word you are the one who is anti-science.

The scientific method is always followed where it's the only source of knowledge.

Science allows for all sources of knowledge. It looks at all information regardless of how it was understood to be knowledge.

It certainly should if it pretends to be science at all. But since it denies the testimony of the Bible this is unfortunately not true.

The deniers are those who deny the Biblical revelation.

Biblical revelation was included in science until it was proven to be extremely unreliable.

The fact is that it wasn't. The unreliability exists only in the fallen human mind, which trusted in its own fallen judgments over God's. It's the curse of the Fall to put your own mind above God's and that's why science has gone on without God and obeyed the devil instead.

Often, the Biblical revelation did not align with reality. Therefore, the Biblical revelation was not factual... it wasn't an accurate description of real things... it wasn't knowledge. It was imagination.

Nope, that's all the failure of human ability to think things through, giving up too soon, accepting inferior ideas for evidence and so on. Holding on to the Biblical revelation would have been difficult in the face of the arrogant certainties pronounced by science about the past (not the hard sciences, just the sciences of the past), but it's always difficult to uphold God's truth against "the world, the flesh and the devil," it takes guts to do that in the teeth of "scientific certainty." I'm not only subjected to "scientific" denunciations and ridicule as stupid for putting the Bible above science, I'm even subjected to that from such Christians who've given in to their own fallible minds and the scientific establishment. Again, I'm ONLY talking about the sciences of the past. Not physics, not chemistry, not medicine, not astronomy, etc.

You (or anyone else) are free and encouraged to test it again, though. If you can show that Biblical revelation is, indeed, knowledge... science will accept it again and correct all it's issues. That is the self-correcting nature of science.

I've seen Old Earth Geology and Evolutionary Biology overturned time and time again by creationist arguments including my own, but because there is no way to test the sciences of the past it's the biases of the status quo that prevail no matter what. The idealistic vision of science that you are touting here, that others also keep holding up as the model, does NOT apply to the sciences of the past which is all conjecture, guesswork, imaginative reconstruction, leaps in the dark and castles in the air, because it CANNOT be proved. The Bible gives us enough facts for a start: the human race began with one couple created directly by God with no human precursors for starters, there was no death before the Fall, and there WAS a worldwide Flood about 2500 years ago. If you deny those facts you are just floating in mental goo. It's really amazing how much seeming Fact can be conjured up out of mere mental goo.

If you cannot test it, though.
If you cannot show that it reliably describes reality... then science cannot use it.
Science only uses that information that reliably describes reality. Science only uses knowledge.

You've spun a lot of talk here with the apparent intention of circumventing the claim that the Bible IS knowledge. You might as well just deny it outright as most here do. But the fact is that if it's God's word it IS knowledge, incontrovertible knowledge, and God's omniscience trumps fallible human science. God's word is meant to be believed spiritually, it can't be tested by physical scientific means, though it certainly speaks on physical realities. You either recognize it or you don't. Since science doesn't recognize it -- which is sad considering that there are Christians who do science too -- science has to be false when it claims to know things that contradict God.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Stile, posted 07-10-2017 2:18 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by JonF, posted 07-10-2017 5:35 PM Faith has responded
 Message 136 by Stile, posted 07-11-2017 8:56 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 95 of 252 (814530)
07-10-2017 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by CRR
07-09-2017 7:59 PM


CRR writes:

Microevolutionary events could have produced those two base differences.

If microevolutionary events can produce the differences seen between two kinds, then why do creationists insist that microevolution and macroevolution are different things?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by CRR, posted 07-09-2017 7:59 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 96 of 252 (814532)
07-10-2017 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by CRR
07-09-2017 8:11 PM


CRR writes:

No, that's not what we should see. Even in the scenario you propose it's quite unlikely that humans are genetically equidistant from the other ape species. Starting from the initial separation the different apes should have drifted closer to or further away as they evolved within the kind.

The probability that an ape species would gain the same mutation that occurs in the human lineage is very, very small. There is a much, much higher probability that they will gain a mutation that humans don't have. Therefore, none of the ape species should be drifting closer to humans. They should all be drifting away from humans at about the same rate since genetic drift is a function of the mutation rate.

When we compare the human genome to any two other species it is almost certain that one of those will be genetically closer to humans than the other. E.g. Human vs dog vs banana. I bet the dog is closer genetically.

That's because dogs and humans share a more recent common ancestor than humans and bananas. This is also why chimps have more DNA in common with humans than orangutans do.

Chickens share the same common ancestor with mice and humans. Guess what? Chickens are equidistant from humans and mice.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by CRR, posted 07-09-2017 8:11 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 97 of 252 (814533)
07-10-2017 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by CRR
07-09-2017 8:42 PM


Re: No Contest
CRR writes:

With a wave of the evolutionary wand everything is explained.

Since when are the observed mechanisms of mutagenesis a "magic wand"? Aren't you the one who believes in magic?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by CRR, posted 07-09-2017 8:42 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 98 of 252 (814534)
07-10-2017 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
07-10-2017 4:10 AM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Faith writes:

If you absolutely know something is the truth revealed by God, it can't be anti-science to treat it as the known truth.

Believing in something really, really hard does not make it known truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 4:10 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 5:32 PM Taq has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26611
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 99 of 252 (814539)
07-10-2017 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Taq
07-10-2017 5:23 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
That isn't what I said. I'm talking about KNOWING something is the absolute truth. Sorry you've never had the experience.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Taq, posted 07-10-2017 5:23 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Taq, posted 07-10-2017 5:39 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 104 by Tangle, posted 07-10-2017 5:43 PM Faith has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3993
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 100 of 252 (814540)
07-10-2017 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Faith
07-10-2017 5:02 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
The difference, of course, is that nothing discovered by fallen human intellect is absolutely true

Including your discoveries of your God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 5:02 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 5:37 PM JonF has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26611
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 101 of 252 (814543)
07-10-2017 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by JonF
07-10-2017 5:35 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Oh dear, another tedious fallacy. Everything I've said is about GOD's own revelation, and all of it is true as stated.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by JonF, posted 07-10-2017 5:35 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Taq, posted 07-10-2017 5:40 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 107 by JonF, posted 07-10-2017 6:23 PM Faith has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 102 of 252 (814544)
07-10-2017 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Faith
07-10-2017 5:32 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Faith writes:

That isn't what I said. I'm talking about KNOWING something is the absolute truth. Sorry you've never had the experience.

You believe through faith that the Bible is God's word. Believing something really, really hard does not make it true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 5:32 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 103 of 252 (814545)
07-10-2017 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Faith
07-10-2017 5:37 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Faith writes:

Oh dear, another tedious fallacy. Everything I've said is about GOD's own revelation, and all of it is true as stated.

So claims a fallen human.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 5:37 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5163
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 104 of 252 (814546)
07-10-2017 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Faith
07-10-2017 5:32 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Faith writes:

That isn't what I said. I'm talking about KNOWING something is the absolute truth. Sorry you've never had the experience.

I worked in a mental hospital and met hundreds of people who knew things to be absolutely true. I met several Jesus's, a Napoleon and a Churchill - amongst others.

The mind is an amazing thing, given the right circumstances anybody can believe anything and if you look over history you can see that anybody can and does.

That's why the scientific method was developed, to provide a reliable and objective method of finding how things actually are rather than how any individual perceives it to be.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 5:32 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 6:21 PM Tangle has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26611
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 105 of 252 (814555)
07-10-2017 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Tangle
07-10-2017 5:43 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Only a leftist wouldn't know the difference between the delusions of mental patients and the truth of God's word.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Tangle, posted 07-10-2017 5:43 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Taq, posted 07-10-2017 6:22 PM Faith has responded
 Message 117 by Tangle, posted 07-11-2017 2:32 AM Faith has responded

    
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
17NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017