|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5688 days) Posts: 23 From: Richardson, TX Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationists Should Learn to Play the Game Called Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Welcome aboard.
But you won't get far if all you have to contribute is oft-refuted creationist falsehoods.
The layers of the earth could just as easily prove a world wide flood. This is one good example of a creationist falsehood. It is wrong for many reasons. My own research has shown that there was no flood in the western US at the appointed time, about 4350 years ago. I would be happy to share it with you if you like. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Organicmachination Member (Idle past 5737 days) Posts: 105 From: Pullman, WA, USA Joined: |
Evolution isn't science either. Things proven by science are observable, testable and able to be repeated. Evolution is observable. Evolution is testable. Evolution is repeatable. E. Coli and the T4 phage co-evolving is an observable, testable, and repeatable experiment that can be done by anyone with the proper materials.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Radiometric dating cannot be proven to be reliable. What's unreliable about radiometric dating?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5617 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
It's kind of worrying for a judge to deny mystical explanations, because judges should make mystical explanations for natural phenomena all the time in doing their job. Justice is not measurable, it comes from the heart, and mercy stands above law. We can be quite sure that this particular judge is a stickler for rules, and strives for conformity, not justice.
In any case if mystical explanations are not allowed in science, is freedom then allowed to be acknowledged as real in science? In below theory by wellknown, awardwinning professor Dubois it is a total mystery which of the potentials will collapse into an actual state and why. This is not a case of lack of knowledge about initial conditions, but it is an essential part of this theory that such things are unmeasurable. (Dubois, Review of hyperincursive anticipatory systems)"6.1 Free Will as Unpredictable Hyperincursive Anticipation Karl Pribram asked me (by email, after the CASYS'99 conference): "How can an anticipatory hyperincursive system be modeled without a future defined goal?". My answer was: an hyperincursive anticipatory system generates multiple potential states at each time step and corresponds to one-to- many relations. A selection parameter must be defined to select a particular state amongst these multiple potential states. These multiple potential states collapse to one state (amongst these states,) which becomes the actual state. This reminds me the following comment an auditor made after a conference on anticipatory hyperincursion I made: "You have found the basic theory of free will".Indeed, the brain may be considered as an anticipatory hyperincursive neural net which generates multiple potential future states which collapse to actual states by learning: the selection process of states to be actualized amongst the multiple potential states is independent of the fundamental dynamics of the brain, independent of initial conditions and so completely unpredictable (and computable). The selection by learning deals with inputs from the brain itself (via the genetic code and selfreflection). These inputs are final causes at each time step.This creates a memory and at the same time a program, which give rise to the mind, what I called a computing memory. Each mind is unique in the sense that this is the subjective experience of each brain that actualized potential states. The free will means that we can choose a state amongst the multiple potential states emerging from the preceding already actualized states. The free will depends strongly on the history of all the past memorized events and is not identical for each mind. The free will does not means that the mind can make what he wants but that he can choose amongst multiple possible choices. For a human being, this is not possible to fly by itself, like a bird, but man invented airplanes to actualize that." It seems that such as above is not allowed as science, making the judge's view of science rather pointless. What caused the succes of the scientific revolution was not the adherence to factual evidence or natural explanations, it was the separation of fact from value. What caused the failure of the scientific revolution was the incorporation of value, the spiritual domain, into the sphere of facts, as by scientific racism, Darwinism, humanism, atheism, communism, nazism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
it was the separation of fact from value. I think it was more the separation of fact from fantasy, and in particular, religious fantasy. 'Value' is a very subjective term though isn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Science can only deal with naturalistic conclusions because only naturalistic conclusions are physically testable.
The foundation of science is the testing of tentative conclusions. In other words hypotheses. If your hypothesis is physically untestable (e.g. "God did it") then how can it be scientifically tested and thus rendered reliable?It cannot. Thus mystical conclusions ca by definition never be considered scientific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Evolution isn't science either. Things proven by science are observable, testable and able to be repeated. Really? Would you acknowledge that Saturn has rings, and that this has been proven by science? Splendid. Now please "repeat" Saturn's rings. Or acknowledge that you are reciting creationist rubbish without having spent a moment thinking about whether it's true or makes sense. --- The rest of your post is mere assertion, so I shall answer it in the same way.
Radiometric dating cannot be proven to be reliable. Yes it can, which is why you supply no evidence for this statement.
The fossil record as evidence is a joke. No it isn't, which is why you supply no evidence for this statement.
The layers of the earth could just as easily prove a world wide flood. No they couldn't, which is why you supply no evidence for this statement.
Evolutionists just assume all these things are in spport of evolution. No they don't, which is why you supply no evidence for this statement.
It's one big assumption based on many smaller assumptions. No it isn't, which is why you supply no evidence for this statement.
Evolution is not scientific in the slightest Yes it is, which is why you supply no evidence for this statement. --- Now, do feel free to come back when you have some sort of argument, rather than just reciting the witless lies you've read in tatty little creationist pamphlets. We've heard 'em. They weren't convincing the first time. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5617 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
The statement "God did it", cannot be tested scientifically because God resides in the spiritual domain, where also the values of justice and mercy are. So we can discover those things subjectively, by decision, through faith.
But we can prove as a matter of scientific fact that decisions are made in the universe, and what the outcome of those decisions are. And from thereon by art of reasonable judgement we can decide the spirit of such decisions, be they of God or the devil. It is inevitable that those scientists who don't believe in a spiritual domain, will come to see god, justice, mercy and the like as measurable. And that more then anything, to relentlesly insist on everything being measurable to the inclusion of good and evil, tears science apart and totally destroys it. In any case, as mentioned before, we now have mystery incorporated into science, and it is perfectly legal here in Europe, and the main thrust of scientific progress.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
The statement "God did it", cannot be tested scientifically because God resides in the spiritual domain, Exactly. Thus spiritual conclusions cannot be scientific conclusions. we seem to agree.
where also the values of justice and mercy are. So we can discover those things subjectively, by decision, through faith. We can rationally decide a set of rules by which to live peacably and justly without faith.In fact faith is likely to lead to widespread disagreement as each faith will potentially provide a set of equally unarguable rules to which the only basis is "I have faith that I am right". Thus competing faiths with different ideas that are as uncomromisong as they are unprovable. A recipe for disaster if ever there was one. But we can prove as a matter of scientific fact that decisions are made in the universe, and what the outcome of those decisions are.
How can you prove these scientifically if, as already agreed, spiritual conclusions are untestable and thus unscientific?
And from thereon by art of reasonable judgement we can decide the spirit of such decisions, be they of God or the devil. Now you have lost the plot. You have extrapoloated your unscientfic conclusion, added on on some subjective reasoning and come up with a "proof" of your preconceived theistic conclusion.
It is inevitable that those scientists who don't believe in a spiritual domain, will come to see god, justice, mercy and the like as measurable. Really? Who says these things are measurable?I fundamentally disagree with the origins of justice, mercy and even belief as compared to you. However I make no claims that these things can be measured...... I have no idea what you mean. And that more then anything, to relentlesly insist on everything being measurable to the inclusion of good and evil, tears science apart and totally destroys it. Having built up your straw man you are now ranting incoherently against it.
In any case, as mentioned before, we now have mystery incorporated into science, and it is perfectly legal here in Europe Where? Example?
and the main thrust of scientific progress. The thrust of scientific progress is the testing of hypotheses.Creationism/IDism makes no testable hypotheses and is therefore unscientific. Until creationism/ID is able to be verified by means of hypothesis, prediction and verification it will always remain unscientific and will always be considered to be unscientific by all except a small band of believers who wish to give their beliefs the authority and validity that science has earned.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5617 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
You post too fast, not reading very well.
I said by art of reasonable judgement we can find the spirit. It is an art, not a science, I did not offer proof, I offered judgement. As a matter of scientific fact we can't discover justice without faith. Or so to say it is a matter of scientific fact that we can't look, nor could ever possibly look, inside decisions. It is proven that decisons come from nothing, and are nowhere, which in mathematical terms means that the quantity, and position of decisions revert to zero. So it is impossible for science to say anything about justice, or anything of that kind. I wonder what "rational rules" you had in mind. In this context it seems you derive those rational rules from science, the science of good and evil. Ofcourse you also state that you are against a science of good and evil, but on the other hand you deny a spiritual domain, and deny faith as the right way to justice. You see when you would admit a spiritual domain, I would be much more trusting that you don't surreptiously have some kind of science of good and evil. But when you talk about rules that are "rational", then it seems to me that you derive the rationality of the rules from the rationality of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I said by art of reasonable judgement we can find the spirit. It is an art, not a science, I did not offer proof, I offered judgement. Subjective, untestable and unreliable judgements from the sound of it.
As a matter of scientific fact we can't discover justice without faith. We may not discover it. It arguably does not exist external to us in such a way as to be discoverable. But we can rationally conclude what we mean by 'justice' and how best to implement methods of justice with no reference to faith whatsoever.
So it is impossible for science to say anything about justice, or anything of that kind. Well...... evolutionary psychology and anthropology arguably suggest otherwise.Certainly other cultures with no concept of the Christian God (for example) have derived forms of justice many aspects of which we would agree with and some of which we would probably not. If faith is our guiding light in tersm of justice and morality which faith are we to adhere to and why? I wonder what "rational rules" you had in mind. In this context it seems you derive those rational rules from science, the science of good and evil. No not good and evil. Not natural and unnatural. In many cases quite common sense rules regarding respecting others as you would wish to be respected. Rules which if followed by everyone obviously benefit everyone.You can scientifically formalise these into things such as zero sum games etc. etc. and this can be worthwhile for understanding the psychology of such things but I don't think you need this sort of scientific analysis in order to conclude that such rules are beneficial to all concerned. Ofcourse you also state that you are against a science of good and evil, but on the other hand you deny a spiritual domain, and deny faith as the right way to justice Thinking in terms of good and evil has no real relation to any science I am aware of.
You see when you would admit a spiritual domain, I would be much more trusting that you don't surreptiously have some kind of science of good and evil. But when you talk about rules that are "rational", then it seems to me that you derive the rationality of the rules from the rationality of science. Are you seriously suggestin that without faiith (and which faith specifically are we talking about here?) you cannot derive a founding set of principles and rules by which a community of people will be more likely to benefit and thrive. Obviously a community of pathalogical murderers will be a short lived community. It does not take faith or formalised science to realise that!! Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5617 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Without faith justice would be fully rational, and totally explainable by science, but then that wouldn't be justice but just a measure of conformity to specified rules and goals. You are playing wordgames with the definition of justice, because you refuse to define justice as spiritual, so you leave it in the middle whether or not you have a science of good and evil.
A system of justice must always allow freedom for the judge, because without decision we can't get to the spiritual realm where justice is. This freedom is best transferred to a jury, so the emotional burden doesn't get too heavy on the judge. What you are talkig about as justice, zero sum games, in this context it is basically a science of good and evil, how could I conclude differently? Faith implies a set of beliefs about the spiritual, and a commitment to those beliefs. Right you can't have any society without that, I don't think so, I've never seen it, but what you can do, is to leave those beliefs free eventhough they are neccessary for society.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Without faith justice would be fully rational, and totally explainable by science, but then that wouldn't be justice but just a measure of conformity to specified rules and goals. You are playing wordgames with the definition of justice, because you refuse to define justice as spiritual, so you leave it in the middle whether or not you have a science of good and evil. A system of justice must always allow freedom for the judge, because without decision we can't get to the spiritual realm where justice is. This freedom is best transferred to a jury, so the emotional burden doesn't get too heavy on the judge. What you are talkig about as justice, zero sum games, in this context it is basically a science of good and evil, how could I conclude differently? Faith implies a set of beliefs about the spiritual, and a commitment to those beliefs. Right you can't have any society without that, I don't think so, I've never seen it, but what you can do, is to leave those beliefs free eventhough they are neccessary for society. You continue to be odd.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Without faith justice would be fully rational, and totally explainable by science, but then that wouldn't be justice but just a measure of conformity to specified rules and goals Yes. Rationally devised rules and goals. That would be justice as we decide to define it. Your point is what...?
You are playing wordgames with the definition of justice, because you refuse to define justice as spiritual, so you leave it in the middle whether or not you have a science of good and evil. I am not playing word games. I honestly and genuinely do not see faith as having any necessary bearing on the concept of justice whatsoever.How can it when different faiths and even those of the same faith conclude different forms of justice? A system of justice must always allow freedom for the judge, because without decision we can't get to the spiritual realm where justice is. This freedom is best transferred to a jury, so the emotional burden doesn't get too heavy on the judge. The spiritual realm has nothing to do with the very rational and pragmatic concept of being judged by ones peers.
What you are talkig about as justice, zero sum games, in this context it is basically a science of good and evil, how could I conclude differently? Do you know what zero sum games and non-zero sum games are? What action is evil in such a game? What action is good? The whole point of such analysis is to demonstrate that co-operation is actually the best means of ensuring long term self ineterest. Is that good? Or bad? I don't see how you can frame the conclusions of non-zero sum games in terms of good and evil given that co-operation and altruism are deemed to be consequences of long term self interest. in these terms you might as well claim that an Earthquake is evil.
Faith implies a set of beliefs about the spiritual, and a commitment to those beliefs. Right you can't have any society without that, I don't think so, I've never seen it, but what you can do, is to leave those beliefs free eventhough they are neccessary for society. And where do you derive these beliefs from?The actions of God in the OT? The teachings of Christ in the NT? The Koran? The founding book of Scientology? Where? BTW - As interesting as all of this is, what does it have to do with the fact that Creationist methodologies make no predictions, test no conclusions and are thus inherently unscientific?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But we can prove as a matter of scientific fact that decisions are made in the universe ... Look, you have just acquired one very very stupid opinion. Please start one thread about it, rather than spamming every thread about it. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024