Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The consequences of "Evolution is false"
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 166 of 210 (360087)
10-31-2006 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Rob
10-31-2006 9:53 AM


Re: To answer some of your other questions
You're going further and further off topic, Rob. First you confused evolution with abiogenesis and now you are attacking atheism, which is a philosophical rather than scientific proposition.
Please refer again to the OP. What do you believe about the specialists (of any faith) who do the research?
.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Rob, posted 10-31-2006 9:53 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Rob, posted 10-31-2006 10:59 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 167 of 210 (360094)
10-31-2006 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Rob
10-31-2006 9:53 AM


Re: To answer some of your other questions
Rob writes:
On what basis do you assert that there is none? Affirming a negative is pretty basic philosophical incompetance. We have no choice but to infer purpose.
This is not about philosophy. It's about whether or not evolutionary biologists are liars or incompetent. Why do you keep insisting on turning this into some sort of philosophical gobbledygook thread?
Rob writes:
But do not be offended by any of this, because if there is no purpose, then I cannot be wrong because there is no offense as my perceptions are simply the result of DNA and environment. And in that case, there is no point in considering ourselves reasonable, sense reason is really nothing more than pure subjective drivle.
You know, it seems that you want to conflate the idea of a philosophical purpose with concept of a biological purpose. When I say "we are here for no purpose" I simply mean the humans are not the result of some grand, Devine plan...that we are the goal of evolution and that we therefore exist for some yet unknown or undetermined purpose. We just are Rob, the same as every other living thing on this planet. We exist because at some point in the past our forbearers got together and did the "mommy/daddy dance". That's it. Now, what we do with our time while we're here, how we behave, what we leave for our offspring...that's a whole new topic and has nothing to do with what we are discussing
You're trying to talk about "purpose" as a moral concept...as a right or a wrong...as a reason. I'm discussing "purpose" from and evolutionary standpoint. Two different concepts, Rob
Rob writes:
If you think I am wrong, then you are imposing your morality onto me.
Really, how so? How does me disagreeing with you, in any way impose my morals onto you? This is just more higgly-piggly nonsense on your part in an attempt to appear deeply philosophical.
Do you want to discuss the OP as set forth by Schrafinator, or do you want to continue with your oh so impressive philosophical twaddle?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Rob, posted 10-31-2006 9:53 AM Rob has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 168 of 210 (360097)
10-31-2006 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Hyroglyphx
10-29-2006 11:24 AM


Calling nemesis_juggernaut!
Can you comment on my suggestion for a new thread about your claims?
Message 14

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-29-2006 11:24 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-31-2006 2:24 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 169 of 210 (360154)
10-31-2006 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Jazzns
10-31-2006 11:04 AM


Re: Calling nemesis_juggernaut!
Can you comment on my suggestion for a new thread about your claims?
Calling nemesis_juggernaut! (Message 14 of Thread Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics)
Yeah sure, set it up in Great Debate. I see that you have some very broad questions that spans across many different disciplines. I've never debated GD before and I'm unclear on the rules of that forum. Are we allowed to argue about many different topics without being Off Topic?
Anyhow, just post it again in Great Debate at your earliest convenience and we can start a dialogue.

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Jazzns, posted 10-31-2006 11:04 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Jazzns, posted 10-31-2006 6:16 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 175 by Jazzns, posted 11-01-2006 9:50 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 170 of 210 (360221)
10-31-2006 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Hyroglyphx
10-31-2006 2:24 PM


Re: Calling nemesis_juggernaut!
We can talk about the parameters of the debate once the thread opens.
Thanks for responding. I only mentioned a GD because it seemed like you were getting pounded on here and didn't have a chance to reply to all the points raised.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-31-2006 2:24 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-01-2006 10:24 AM Jazzns has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 171 of 210 (360293)
10-31-2006 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Archer Opteryx
10-31-2006 10:13 AM


Re: To answer some of your other questions
What do you believe about the specialists (of any faith) who do the research?
I believe that their personal philosophy (worldview) is made of three fundamental components.
1. Existential
2. Emperical
3. Rational
Most people like to think of philosophy as only the third component. That way they can have a rational belief system that is incompatable with their emperical beliefs, irrespective of the existential consequences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-31-2006 10:13 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by kuresu, posted 10-31-2006 11:28 PM Rob has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 172 of 210 (360303)
10-31-2006 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Rob
10-31-2006 10:59 PM


Re: To answer some of your other questions
this is the first I've heard of "emperical beliefs". It's a contradiction in terms. why? empirical stuff is evidence. you do not "belief" in something you can back up with evidence. Otherwise, you undermine the very concept of faith and belief.
philosophy is nothing more than logic. existentialism is rooted in logic. empiricism is rooted in logic. being rational is being logical.
(oh, by the way, philosophy's root is "love of knowledge"*)
*don't quote me on that, but . . .

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Rob, posted 10-31-2006 10:59 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Rob, posted 11-01-2006 12:51 AM kuresu has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 173 of 210 (360314)
11-01-2006 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by kuresu
10-31-2006 11:28 PM


Re: To answer some of your other questions
OFF TOPIC - DO NOT RESPOND

Kerusu, it is nice to at least sense (whether valid or not) that there are people capable of intelligent and respectful disagreement and debate. Now, enough of the love fest, let's get down to business!
You said:
this is the first I've heard of "emperical beliefs". It's a contradiction in terms. why? empirical stuff is evidence. you do not "belief" in something you can back up with evidence. Otherwise, you undermine the very concept of faith and belief.
Well, if you call evidence emperical, I say fine... But if it does not cohere (logically) with the other aspects of life (like the existential need for morality) then what do you do? Something is amiss in my opinion. Either the morality is errant, or the interpretation of the evidence is errant.
If the interpretation of the evidence is errant, then we must ask, Is interpretation of evidence then really just subjective philosophy and worldview?' The answer must be yes. That is where I am coming from but I do not presume to persuade. It is not my idea and I claim no brilliance for adopting it (or did it adopt me?).
If morality is errant, and the evidence is correctly interpreted (philosophically), then in the case of naturalism, there is no morality other than survival. In that case, bigoted absolutists like myself who will sacrifice this life for a belief in the next, must be eliminated for the sake of the survival of the race who is operating on the philosophy of this life being the only life.
Furthermore, it is my understanding that the whole purpose of philosophy is to find unity in diversity. That is where the term University comes from. The Greeks talked of the four essences, water, earth, wind, and fire (a simplistic approach I know, but it gets the idea accross). Then someone asked, what is the 'fifth essence'; the quintessence.
What is the unifying essence that brings all of these disciplines into a coherent framework? I'm not asking you, I am only stating the purpose of philosophy as I understand it.
If that is true (and I believe so), then we cannot seperate our emperical interpretation from the rational and existential arenas. They must all cohere if we are to have an objective and systematized understanding of reality.
And in the case of naturalism, once again we have a problem. The naturalist presupposes that there is no meaning, because he must infer that it is an accident, and that there is no 'external' meaning to make 'this' right and 'that' wrong. This gives man the power to design his own destiny.
But there is a problem with believing that the universe has no meaning.
I think C.S. Lewis explains this better than I could (which is to be expected):
quote:
"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."
Light and meaning are synonymous. That is why Jesus said,'I am the light of the world'.
You may not agree, but I hope that my position is clear. But for it to be clear, 'reason' must be a real thing that sheds light on reality, or assumed reality.
If you do not, then don't you have to use 'reason'(which is meaning) in order to tell me that there is no meaning?
For the record, a favorite philosopher of mine has made the comment:
"We seek unity,in the diversity of life. But to have unity in diverstity in the effect (creation), we must have unity in diversity in the first cause (creator). And the only place we find unity in diversity in the first cause is in Christianity; where there is unity and diversity and community in the Trinity." -Ravi Zacharius-
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminNWR, : topic

"As long as this deliberate refusal to understand things from above, even where such understanding is possible, continues, it is idle to talk of any final victory over materialism."
(C.S. Lewis - The Weight of Glory)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by kuresu, posted 10-31-2006 11:28 PM kuresu has not replied

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 210 (360317)
11-01-2006 1:16 AM


Topic alert
Let's try to stay on topic here.
The topic is the consequences of evolution being false. This is not the place for a generic discussion of philosophy.


  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 175 of 210 (360376)
11-01-2006 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Hyroglyphx
10-31-2006 2:24 PM


Re: Calling nemesis_juggernaut!
The topic is open. Evolution vs. Creation Interpretations (Jazzns, nemesis_juggernaut) (NOW OPEN TO ALL)

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-31-2006 2:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 210 (360392)
11-01-2006 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Jazzns
10-31-2006 6:16 PM


Re: Calling nemesis_juggernaut!
We can talk about the parameters of the debate once the thread opens.
Thanks for responding. I only mentioned a GD because it seemed like you were getting pounded on here and didn't have a chance to reply to all the points raised.
Yes, sometimes the IDist members become inundated by replies and its difficult to keep up. I generally try to answer all the questions directed towards me for a couple of reasons. But mostly its just a common courtesy to address somebody that has taken the time to write to you.
That doesn't always happen that way. Sometimes for every post I write, I have 6 or 7 replies. I'm still on, you know, page 3 or 4 answering questions while everyone else is on page 10 or 11. When I get that far behind, I usually have to not answer questions that seem redundant. Sometimes I get into another debate and forget about a previous one. Then I stumbled back into it. And then other times I become disinterested in the topic and become engaged in another debate(s).
Great Debate will be fine. Just let me know when its up. I'll check back in here periodically to see if its open for service.

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Jazzns, posted 10-31-2006 6:16 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 177 of 210 (360991)
11-02-2006 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Rob
10-30-2006 8:31 PM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
quote:
No, it is my position regarding the competency and integrity of mankind!
So, is it your contention that scientists, as a specific part of mankind, are either liars, knowingly perpetuating a falsehood, or utterly incompetent at doing science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Rob, posted 10-30-2006 8:31 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 2:02 AM nator has replied
 Message 181 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 12:26 PM nator has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 178 of 210 (361029)
11-03-2006 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by nator
11-02-2006 9:57 PM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
So, is it your contention that scientists, as a specific part of mankind, are either liars, knowingly perpetuating a falsehood, or utterly incompetent at doing science?
Lol... How could you possibly miss the point? Is my language that foreign to you? (please don't answer that... all in jest).
To answer your question... Not necessarily.
My point is that they are not exempt from such sins. Scientists are not Christs; ie. they are not sinless. They are not immune from, nor are they above, the pressures of the unruly crowd (think Politics and Pontius Pilot).
I know what it is like to face the mob, and it ain't pretty!

"If naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes...it cuts its own throat."
(C.S. Lewis / A Christian Reply to Professor Price)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by nator, posted 11-02-2006 9:57 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by FliesOnly, posted 11-03-2006 8:21 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 180 by subbie, posted 11-03-2006 11:14 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 188 by nator, posted 11-03-2006 5:19 PM Rob has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 179 of 210 (361066)
11-03-2006 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Rob
11-03-2006 2:02 AM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
Rob writes:
My point is that they are not exempt from such sins. Scientists are not Christs; ie. they are not sinless. They are not immune from, nor are they above, the pressures of the unruly crowd (think Politics and Pontius Pilot).
Are you a Politician or something? Because you have an uncanny knack to spout a bunch of BS but never really come out and answer the question.
Rob writes:
To answer your question... Not necessarily.
and no, Rob, this is not an answer.
Edited by FliesOnly, : ummmm...just checking

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 2:02 AM Rob has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 180 of 210 (361097)
11-03-2006 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Rob
11-03-2006 2:02 AM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
My point is that they are not exempt from such sins. Scientists are not Christs; ie. they are not sinless. They are not immune from, nor are they above, the pressures of the unruly crowd (think Politics and Pontius Pilot).
Certainly scientists individually are not immune to such things. They are, after all, just like normal people. Examples of fruad, duplicity, lying, honest mistakes and bias are well-known.
But the question is not are individual scientists lying or incompetent when it comes to evolution, but is science as a whole? Science has developed a number of methods to weed out inaccuracies, whether they be honest or dishonest. Peer-review and replicability are two of the most important ones.
Thus, when discussing the question raised in the OP, don't read it as asking about individual scientists, read it as asking about ALL scientists, as a body.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 2:02 AM Rob 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