Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-29-2017 3:06 PM
447 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,182 Year: 6,788/21,208 Month: 2,549/2,634 Week: 212/525 Day: 45/82 Hour: 1/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
78Next
Author Topic:   No evolution/creation debate in Europe
Straggler
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 10188
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 76 of 107 (479184)
08-25-2008 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Beretta
08-25-2008 8:40 AM


Evidence, Interpretation and Prediction
No, one stems from revealed knowledge and the other stems from human efforts to do away with the need for revealed knowledge. Man's opinions versus the truth.

No. Tested conclusions versus faith based ideology.

not all interpretations are of equal explanatory value

You're right -intelligent design fits the equation while evolution is force fitted against all the odds. If it was such a sure thing, they'd stop coming with absolute final confirmation that Darwin was right but they are always desperate to justify what is unjustifiable and far from evidential.

Again you miss the point. Tested conclusions. Predicted results.
If science were simply interpretation of evidence alone it would indeed be prone to placing the conclusion before the evidence and the other methods of ideological abuse that faith based interpretations inevitably result in with regard to methods of investigation.
The thing that makes science different, reliable as a means of investigation and ultimately superior in terms of advancing our understanding and knowledge is the testing of hypotheses.

The 'All interpretations are valid' argument is wishful thinking and a complete misapprehension of what science actually is on the part of IDists. Including, it seems, you.

No it is a grand attempt to make the facts (which are the same for both sides) fit the theory.

Are the facts the same for both sides? Would the facts, such as the discovery of the existence of Tiktaalik, even have been discovered if left to the methods and devices of ID? No. Not at all. Because ID makes no predictions and as a consequence results in no new discoveries and thus finds no new evidence.

Has ID ever resulted in the discovery of anything? If not why do you think this might be?

How do you think palaeontologists go about the business of fossil discovery? Do you think they just stick pins in a globe, fly off to random locations around the world and then dig about aimlessly?

THE PROCESS OF PALEONTOLOGY
No. Of course not. Palaeontologists have some knowledge of the earlier form of life in the sequence they are studying and some knowledge of the later forms of life. They know the time period where the predicted transitional fossils should exist between these forms of life (if evolutionary theory is indeed true) and the geological conditions that relate to this time period.
They then determine the areas on the Earth where suitably fossilising rocks from the required time period might be accessible and begin the painstaking process of fossil discovery. In many cases taking years of concerted effort in often hostile conditions (deserts, Polar Regions etc.)
Lo and behold transitional forms have been discovered. Exactly as predicted. Exactly where predicted. Relating to exactly when predicted.
So using knowledge of geology and the predictions of evolutionary theory we keep finding the fossilised remains of new species. Transitional species.

Given IDs complete inability to discover anything at all and the success of evolutionary theory in predicting and discovering new species that have all the transitional qualities expected of evolutionary theory, how can you claim the following -

intelligent design fits the equation while evolution is force fitted against all the odds

It is man's attempt, via naturalistic philosophy, to remove himself from what really happened. It's called self delusion.

The only delusion going on here is your delusion that faith based interpretations of evidence are even in the same ballpark in terms of reliability and ojectivity as the predicted and tested results of truly scientific theories.

You hit the nail on the head there. Natural selection and mutation doesn't make complex biological systems except in some people's wishful imaginings. Only intelligence can produce the genetic information for life.

According to you but not according to the objective methods of prediction, testing of theories, verification and refutation.
Tested conclusions and predicted discoveries Vs faith based assertions derived from arguments of incomprehension.
No contest.

PS – Do you know if you spell check IDists it returns “idiots” :laugh:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Beretta, posted 08-25-2008 8:40 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Beretta, posted 08-26-2008 8:32 AM Straggler has responded

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 77 of 107 (479185)
08-25-2008 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by NosyNed
08-25-2008 10:36 AM


Re: Repetition
Beretta writes:

Well they do appear to be constant now but something's amiss with the helium quantities and the C14 that should be long gone.We can't just ignore the inconvenient anomalies, you know.

Since you've been around awhile you know that the above is utterly wrong. Continuing to repeat yourself after you have had things explained makes you look like you are stubborn, deaf or stupid. Which is it?

Deaf? Blind? Didn't see any explanation for it so perhaps I never got one?

NosyNed writes:

Beretta writes:

All you really need to do is show us how new and complex genetic information is generated by random mistakes converting bacteria into nuclear scientists and we can all go home -it's that simple.

This can be taken to another thread. It's been covered but perhaps not to you.

Definitely not to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by NosyNed, posted 08-25-2008 10:36 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5541
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 78 of 107 (479188)
08-25-2008 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Beretta
08-25-2008 10:05 AM


Re: Nonsense
...and the C14 that should be long gone.We can't just ignore the inconvenient anomalies, you know.

Have you actually studied this, or did you get it from some creationist website?

It sounds like you are referring to a study that radiocarbon dated diamonds, and which found residual C14? Is this the study you are referring to?

I'd be happy to explain it to you if that is the case, because you are dead wrong in your claim.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Beretta, posted 08-25-2008 10:05 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 53 days)
Posts: 2157
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 79 of 107 (479286)
08-26-2008 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Beretta
08-22-2008 7:39 AM


Europe Rocks! (and so does Canada)
quote:
How could you teach children something that's based COMPLETELY and ENTIRELY on belief?

Beretta writes:

You mean like evolution?
The question is not whether or not an explanation is based on a personal belief, but is it true? An explanation may be both based on a personal belief and true. Personal beliefs are rarely based on nothing.Facts don't speak for themselves, they are interpreted within a framework.

I don' see Europe trying to cram a specific cult fringe Christian belief system down everyone's throat in the school system as in the US.

The simple fact is, the denial of reality in favor of the 'ignorance is bliss' interpretation of the Bible common with homegrown US cults such as Seventh Day Adventists, Pentecosts, and other assorted forms of US fringe Christianity, is not shared by nearly all Europeans, Japanese most other educated people even in third world nations. A minority of religious fanatics in the US are simply attempting to overthrow the Constitution and establish a dictatorship of Megachurch Mullahs.

It will never work anyway.

How can a person who denies radiometric decay flatly state such a position does not conflict with chemistry and physics except out of total fanatical ignorance.

How can a person think the US can drill for more oil to solve the energy crisis without the use of basic geologic principles that include an old earth and the evolution of various indicative fossils as a guide of where to drill? Doodlebugs and water witches are a bit difficult to use under several thousand feet of ocean.

How can any progress be made against disease when the central theory of biology is denied due to a minority position of religious fanatics who prefer mullahs to presidents and have such a proven record of extremely loose morals.

Naturally the proposed rule by sufficiently 'Christian' mullahs would exterminate the economy first, then the military.

I guess that in order to escape that inevitable fact one could emulate Mao as a model. He forced the entire population of China to undergo the Cultural Revolution where blind faith in the supreme mullah overrode all other considerations. Of course he did not allow his little red minions to interfere with the military, the nascent space program, or the petroleum industry. Thats strange, he proved he was as much a hypocrite as our fundies are.

So after Mao's Cultural Revolution along with the Great Leap Forward managed to exterminate some 40 to 60 million Chinese in the space of 15 years, I wonder if the fundies in the US consider that a record to be broken. After all, one of your own exposed at Pharyngula has called for the imprisonment and, something to replace normal sex in the perverted, namely torture, of all biologists in CSA News.

CSA? isn't that acronym shared by pro-slavery traitors from US history?

Perhaps Europe has simply had enough of religious warfare and self-appointed authoritarians with a direct line to god, providence, or the supposedly inevitable Marxist revolution. It sure took long enough.

It would be nice if this nation could learn from them to fully see and reject exactly what the hate and fear cults promise, namely suffering and death in the here and now.

{ABE} Of course I am speaking as a US citizen. If you are an unrepentant Boer supporter of apartheid, which I suspect, anything I stated concerning the state of democracy in the US is likely completely beyond your comprehension.{/abe}

Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

Edited by anglagard, : clarity


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Beretta, posted 08-22-2008 7:39 AM Beretta has not yet responded

    
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 2968
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 80 of 107 (479288)
08-26-2008 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Beretta
08-25-2008 10:05 AM


Super-evolution
Beretta writes:

All you really need to do is show us how new and complex genetic information is generated by random mistakes converting bacteria into nuclear scientists and we can all go home -it's that simple.

Perhaps you disagree with prominent creationist Kurt Wise, here, that Homo Erectus can evolve into Homo Sapiens over a few centuries (meaning a rate of evolution that could turn "bacteria to nuclear scientists" in several hundred thousand years). Would you like to comment on Wise's (and AnswersInGenesis's) super speeded up evolution on that thread?

As for the topic, the title is obviously wrong, and there's certainly a creation/evolution debate in Europe, it's just much more toned down than in the U.S. because levels of superstition are measurably lower in Europe, weakening the creationist side considerably.

But the debate is still with us here, certainly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Beretta, posted 08-25-2008 10:05 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Beretta, posted 08-26-2008 9:47 AM bluegenes has responded

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 81 of 107 (479291)
08-26-2008 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Straggler
08-25-2008 10:42 AM


Re: Evidence, Interpretation and Prediction
Tested conclusions versus faith based ideology.

You are obviously thinking of the wrong sort of science – historical science is not the sort of thing you can do repeatable tests on. Evolution is a philosophical material worldview into which man attempts to fit the facts. So evolution is the faith based ideology.

Again you miss the point. Tested conclusions. Predicted results.

Again, you’re dreaming, that might be the ideal but that’s not actually how it works.

The thing that makes science different, reliable as a means of investigation and ultimately superior in terms of advancing our understanding and knowledge is the testing of hypotheses.

Except when the ideology clouds the results. The facts don’t fit the picture but ‘science’ has already decided the cause as random and undirected, natural processes only and come what may, evolutionists intend to keep it that way.
The fossil record is at best ambiguous and at worst contradictory with respect to the ‘fact of evolution’. Whatever it shows, however, is far from “plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life” as Darwin predicted and illustrated as a tree of life. The Cambrian explosion remains a paradox, totally inconsistent with Darwin’s tree of life.
Much has been written on the Cambrian explosion and its inconsistency with the Darwin’s theory. As evolutionary theorist Jeffrey Schwartz puts it, “the major animal groups appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus –fullblown and raring to go.So you see, it seems that evolution is the faith-based ideology if there ever was one.

The 'All interpretations are valid' argument is wishful thinking and a complete misapprehension of what science actually is on the part of IDists. Including, it seems, you.

Well that’s where you’re wrong again –Id’ists don’t say that all interpretations are valid. They say that people do try to fit the ‘facts’ into their big picture of what happened but quite clearly all interpretations are not valid. Something is true and all the rest are false. Whatever happened happened and any other story is false because it just did not happen.
What they are actually saying is that there are facts and there are interpretations of facts – ‘facts’ don’t speak for themselves.

Lo and behold transitional forms have been discovered. Exactly as predicted. Exactly where predicted. Relating to exactly when predicted.

You really make it sound good but you know as well as I do that the supposed transitionals are few and far between and questionable at best –subject to interpretation and asserted far more than actually produced. There is no record of gradualism in the fossil record, there’s only sudden appearance of fully formed creatures that exhibit stasis for the duration of their stay. You can imagine as many transitionals missing as you like but the fossil record for the most part lacks evidence of the required gradualism.

So using knowledge of geology and the predictions of evolutionary theory we keep finding the fossilised remains of new species. Transitional species.

The funny thing is that evolutionists for the most part insist that everything is a transitional form meaning that every fossil is a transitional fossil so why bother to get excited when a ‘transitional’ is found. It’s absurd.

The only delusion going on here is your delusion that faith based interpretations of evidence are even in the same ballpark in terms of reliability and ojectivity as the predicted and tested results of truly scientific theories.

Evolution is a faith-based interpretation of the evidence and it is a delusion. You believe therefore you find. Lets have some evidence that the sort of change you imagine has happened is actually capable of happening at all. How do we know that mutation and natural selection is capable of producing biological complexity? You can’t just assume, we need some proven positive beneficial genetic change producing morphological change – we can’t just assume it’s happened based on our philosophical premises.

PS – Do you know if you spell check IDists it returns “idiots”

Do you know that we also get to be called ‘cretinists’ and that’s also very funny but we still need some evidence for your assertions. :laugh::rolleyes:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Straggler, posted 08-25-2008 10:42 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Straggler, posted 08-26-2008 1:07 PM Beretta has not yet responded

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 82 of 107 (479296)
08-26-2008 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by bluegenes
08-26-2008 5:40 AM


Super-evolution
levels of superstition are measurably lower in Europe, weakening the creationist side considerably.

Or perhaps it means that their level of 'superstition' (an irrational but usually deep-seated belief), the belief that we descended from the apes, is measurably higher than in the USA?;)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by bluegenes, posted 08-26-2008 5:40 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Coyote, posted 08-26-2008 10:22 AM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 85 by bluegenes, posted 08-26-2008 2:21 PM Beretta has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5541
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 83 of 107 (479301)
08-26-2008 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Beretta
08-26-2008 9:47 AM


Creation "science" again
levels of superstition are measurably lower in Europe, weakening the creationist side considerably.

Or perhaps it means that their level of 'superstition' (an irrational but usually deep-seated belief), the belief that we descended from the apes, is measurably higher than in the USA?;)

There is a lot of evidence for descent from ape-like creatures. The fossils made a good enough case in the early parts of the last century, but genetics sealed the deal.

There is no scientific case to be made for any other alternative. The only argument against this is religious.

And the form of religion known as creation "science" is dedicated to twisting and misrepresenting the facts until they can squeeze them into the required mold of superstition.

This super-evolution nonsense is a part of that. Creationists deny that level of evolution when scientists propose it, but to make the silly flood story come our right creation "science" proposes evolution several times faster than what scientists propose, and in one case -- in reverse!

But then creation "science" doesn't have to be consistent, as its audience wants to believe, and will accept anything that has the desired outcome. Real scientists, on the other hand, are a bunch of skeptics. Most would like nothing better than to make a name for themselves by overturning some cherished theory.

------------

And by the way, you still haven't responded to my challenge on Carbon 14 dating in post #78. You said that "...the C14 that should be long gone. We can't just ignore the inconvenient anomalies, you know."

Is this the study where diamonds were dated and minimal amounts of C14 were detected?

You can't just throw out those one-liners and expect no challenges. Lets see some support for your statement. Because, as above, I think you are following creation "science" instead of real science.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Beretta, posted 08-26-2008 9:47 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 10188
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 84 of 107 (479323)
08-26-2008 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Beretta
08-26-2008 8:32 AM


Re: Evidence, Interpretation and Prediction
You are obviously thinking of the wrong sort of science – historical science is not the sort of thing you can do repeatable tests on.

But you can make predictions and you can repeatedly verify them. As has been demonstrated by evolutionary theory and as is notably lacking from ID.

The scientific method is about testing hypotheses. The precise methods of doing this will depend on the nature of the investigation and the evidence available.
However predicted results are key to this as they ensure a level of objectivity that interpretation alone just cannot match.

Evolution is a philosophical material worldview into which man attempts to fit the facts. So evolution is the faith based ideology.

You again fail to appreciate or explain why it is that the methods of science as applied to evolution (when combined with a knowledge of geology) result in ongoing discovery?
Meanwhile ID remains a philosophy of ignorance that has a long and undistinguished history of discovering nothing whatsoever.

Why is that?

Again you miss the point. Tested conclusions. Predicted results.

Again, you’re dreaming, that might be the ideal but that’s not actually how it works.


Then how do scientists keep discovering new fossils, new transitional forms and new evidence entirely consistent with that predicted by the theory of evolution?
Why do IDists continue to discover nothing new?
What is the worth in a form of investigation that purports to call itself scientific but which results in no discoveries or new evidence?

Except when the ideology clouds the results.

If evolutionary theory is the ideology why is it that the methods of science in the form of predicted results and discovery continue to reveal new evidence?
If ID is true why is it that no predictions are ever made and no discoveries have ever resulted?

It is a question of faith based ideological desire to find a role for God/gods Vs the results of the scientific method.

Much has been written on the Cambrian explosion and its inconsistency with the Darwin’s theory.

Could you be more specific?
To use the Cambrian explosion as some sort of evidence against evolutionary theory you must first accept geological dating methods. Do you accept these methods or not?
Secondly the Cambrian explosion hardly gives rise to "the major animal groups" as we know them now. Mammals, reptiles, amphibeans, insects etc. etc. etc. all came later.
If ID is true and all animal forms exploded onto the scene simultaneaously the very obvious prediction would be that mammals, fish, reptiles, trilobytes, humans etc. etc. would be found throughout geological time? This is patently not the case.

Something is true and all the rest are false. Whatever happened happened and any other story is false because it just did not happen.
What they are actually saying is that there are facts and there are interpretations of facts – ‘facts’ don’t speak for themselves.

Yes. But predicted facts, facts discovered as a result of theory, speak with a lot more objectivity and authority regarding the veracity of the theory in question (i.e. evolutionary theory). Equally the complete inability of ID to predict or discover tells us everything we need to know about the reliability of that theory.

Evolution is a faith-based interpretation of the evidence and it is a delusion. You believe therefore you find. Lets have some evidence that the sort of change you imagine has happened is actually capable of happening at all. How do we know that mutation and natural selection is capable of producing biological complexity? You can’t just assume, we need some proven positive beneficial genetic change producing morphological change – we can’t just assume it’s happened based on our philosophical premises.

It's called tested evidence.
Evolution has fossil evidence of change with geological time that is completely in line with genetic predictions of relationships between species. Predictions that have led and will continue to lead to new discoveries and new evidence (both genetic and fossil).
Predictions and tested results. The basis of any valid scientific theory.
ID makes no predictions, tests no theories and makes no discoveries. That surely is as weak a position as it is possible for a supposedly scientific theory to have. Would you not agree?

If there is any truth to ID whatsoever IDists have done a piss poor job of demonsterating it. This at least you must admit.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Beretta, posted 08-26-2008 8:32 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 2968
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 85 of 107 (479331)
08-26-2008 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Beretta
08-26-2008 9:47 AM


Re: Super-evolution
Beretta writes:

blugenius writes:

levels of superstition are measurably lower in Europe, weakening the creationist side considerably.

Or perhaps it means that their level of 'superstition' (an irrational but usually deep-seated belief), the belief that we descended from the apes, is measurably higher than in the USA?;)

If a belief is based on observation and reasoning, it is never a superstition, whether it is right or wrong. A classic example is when our ancestors believed that the sun went around the earth. This was in no way a superstition as it was a view based on observation, even though it was wrong. However, a culture that believed that the sun was a god in his chariot of fire driving fiery horses around the earth would be indulging in superstition, as the neither the god, the chariot, nor the horses were based on observation.

The hypothesis that the great apes are our closest living relatives was originally built on observations of their physical similarities to us, so even in its early days, right or wrong, it was never a superstition. Then, of course, their behavioural similarities could be observed, then fossils with ape/human characteristics could be observed, then confirming molecular evidence could be observed.

So, in relation to the Europeans and the prevailing view of human origins amongst us, there's no superstition involved, just physical processes, like lots of micro-evolution to separate us from our dear cousins, the chimps. ;)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Beretta, posted 08-26-2008 9:47 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
Otto Tellick
Member
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 86 of 107 (479418)
08-27-2008 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Beretta
08-24-2008 5:38 AM


Re: the evolution indoctrination
Beretta, you have been making a lot of claims in this thread that would need to be backed up with evidence in order to be sustainable, but you never provide any evidence -- you just stand by your claims as if they justify themselves. For the most part, your arguments here are based on a notion that evolutionary explanations are founded on a "faith" or "belief" in a particular "world view", rather than observable supporting evidence. But you systematically dismiss and ignore all the evidence without taking any time to understand what it is. And you do this because you believe that the world view underlying evolutionary explanations is antithetical to your own personal world view.

So let's clarify this difference in world views. I think the following statements of yours will provide a good starting point:

Beretta writes:

Evolution is historical science as opposed to experimental observational science. Evolution is also a philosophical worldview based on the belief that matter is all there is. It provides a framework for materialists to insert their observations into. Creationists and ID’ers insert the very same facts into their respective worldviews and try to make sense of them in that way. They say that matter is not all there is and that intelligence was required to bring about life and all of its complexity, rather than just chance mutations and natural selection.

Your distinction between "historical" and "experimental" science is a false one. Both are based on observation, both involve positing hypotheses that lead to specific predictions about what further observations can be expected to show, and in both cases, those further observations are doable and will either support or falsify the hypotheses in question. But that's not the main point here. Let's follow your argument a little further:

Beretta writes:

If my doctor tells me I have a disease and need this or that treatment, evolution never played a part. If my dentist tells me that my wisdom teeth are impacted, is it important to know his evolutionary view about my apparently vestigial teeth or should he know how to extract them? ... Do we need to know how our hearts adapted from ape hearts to be able to do heart transplants for example?

Saying that "evolution never played a part" in these matters is one of those claims that actually would need to be proven. How do you know that evolutionary explanations and research have played no part in helping to develop recent advances in medicine? How can you determine (let alone assert as fact) that doctors and dentists are not aided by an understanding of the commonalities among different species, together with a purely physical explanatory model of how the differences and commonalities came to be as they are? Still that's not the main point here, but we're getting closer.

My intention here is not "quote mining" -- I'm just trying to get my head around your point of view. So here's a piece that looks like a basis of common understanding that we can work from:

Beretta writes:

Genetics works perfectly well apart from evolution. All we need to know is how mutation and natural selection works which we all agree works.

Again, there's a problem in what you've said: for those who understand the evidence, it makes no sense to say "genetics works perfectly well apart from evolution". Genetics is the very basis for evolution -- it is the thing that inescapably entails evolution as a process intrinsic to life. If you "agree" that genetics, mutation and natural selection "works", then you cannot deny that evolution is a natural result of that, unless you simply want to violate the common definitions for these various terms.

But let's get to the main point, about the difference in "world views". To do this right, some basic questions need to be answered, to clarify our respective views. The first three questions focus on the theistic world view, and the rest focus on the materialistic:


  1. Do you believe that God is actively intervening in events in the physical world today?

  2. Do you believe that prayer can change things, in the sense that it can influence God to bring about particular results?

  3. Suppose that you or someone you know should suffer some illness or medical problem, you pray to God for healing, and the problem is subsequently overcome. Do you believe that God was responding to your prayer?

  4. Let's suppose that in addition to praying for healing, you also went to a qualified doctor, and received medicine and surgery in accordance with evidence-based treatment. Do you believe that this treatment worked only because you had been praying?

  5. Now suppose that an atheist, Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic or Aboriginal Animist were to be afflicted with the same problem, and happened to go to the same doctor. Assuming that this patient does not convert to Christianity (accept Christ as their savior and all that) and does not pray to God for healing, should it be the case that the treatment must fail?

  6. Should the discovery, testing and refinement of new medical treatments take into account anything beyond what the "materialist framework" provides? If the "intelligence" that underlies your worldview should be taken into account when developing new treatments, can you describe a possible protocol for doing so? Can you point to any cases where such a protocol has been applied with measurable success? Would such a protocol be limited in its success, in the sense that the patient must accept/believe in the same world view in order for the treatment to work?

I know there are those who believe that healing is something that can result from belief in and practice of one or another particular religious faith. I don't know whether you are one of those people, but based on your statements that I've quoted above, I gather that you would accept evidence-based procedures as being effective, and you might not expect a patient's religious beliefs to have any direct effect on the success of those procedures. (But I'm not sure...)

Also, you should not expect that the discovery, testing and refinement of new procedures needs to depend in any way on the religious beliefs of the people developing those procedures. That is the value of accepting the "materialist framework": it doesn't matter whether the person doing the development is atheist, Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic or anything else, just as it shouldn't matter for the beneficiaries of the procedures. It only matters that the developers get a scientifically valid education and that they work with scientific discipline -- i.e. using the "materialist framework".

Now, the main point: Why insist on creating a schism, an impassable divide, between our understanding of the modern world and our understanding of how this world came about? Why impose a set of false dichotomies and spurious "controversies" on science education when it comes to discussing questions that can span the full duration of astrophysical, geological and biological development?

Trying to "balance" evidence-based explanations with Bible-based explanations in a science class can only lead to a failure to educate students in the scientific method, and a failure to give them a coherent basis for understanding and exploring the physical world.

If you want to declare something in a science class like "the evidence can be interpreted to show that chimps and humans cannot have developed from a common ancestor that lived about 3 million years ago" (* see footnote), you have to pick at least a few discrete branches of relevant evidence and start doing distortions of observation and contortions of logic, like: "the shared DNA sequences do not entail genetic relatedness, even though equivalent commonalities do entail relatedness when observed within the same species"; and/or "dates older than 8000 years are wrong because rates of radioactive decay must have changed drastically, even though this would have had dire consequences for life on earth".

That is the sort of arena where creationism/ID shows no shortage of "innovation." {ABE: Well, considering how often creos/IDists keep repeating the same set of stale misconceptions as "controversy", it seems that real innovation is actually a rare thing for them.} And what good does that do, other than to allow a minority of stubbornly dogmatic Christians to use public schools in propagating a particular interpretation of Biblical text as if it were somehow factual?

(In case there's any doubt, my own personal answers to all 6 questions above are consistently "NO", but that's not the main point here. :) )

(*) Reference for the "3 MYr" estimate: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#timeline -- the image is at the bottom of a long page describing the major points in the fossil record.

Edited by Otto Tellick, : (added correction regarding creo/ID "innovation")


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Beretta, posted 08-24-2008 5:38 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Beretta, posted 08-31-2008 8:31 AM Otto Tellick has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 645 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 87 of 107 (479849)
08-30-2008 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Beretta
08-25-2008 8:23 AM


Re: Communism Europe and the evolution indoctrination
Beretta writes:

Thanks for your opinion Taz but I just have to say that your argument makes no sense.


Let's look at another example if this concept is too hard for you to understand.

A few months ago, as an effort to argue against global warming, Buzsaw made a pathetic attempt at ridiculing global warming by saying that us liberals are hypocrites for arguing against making too much carbon dioxide emission into the atmosphere. At the time, I scratched my head and then continued reading. He went on to explain why we were hypocrits. Apparently, us liberals were suppose to be tree huggers, and since plants use carbon dioxide, he reasoned that us liberals were suppose to want as much carbon dioxide as possible in our atmosphere.

Of course this reveals Buzsaw's extreme ignorance on this front. But more importantly, it reveals that he's really got no real argument against global warming and therefore proceeded with a bullshit argument.

Here is a much more obvious example. We all need water to live, right? After all, it makes up over 70% of our body composition. If I were crazy enough to want to argue against the importance of water, I could say to you "hey, if you think water is that important why don't you live in the bottom of a lake?" The obvious answer is you'd drown, just like the obvious answer to Buzsaw's position about carbon emission is that the plants would literally drown in carbon dioxide if given too much of it.

Beretta, again, making an argument against something is one thing. Trying to warp the situation to a level of absurdity is simply bullshit at best. Let's go back to the comment that you made that made me answer.

Beretta writes:

Communists made non-religion mandatory and took all the Bibles away. Everyone should be free to choose...


You were using the communists as an argument against seperation of church and state. You used an extreme example for your argument, which should be clear by now is bullshit. Us wanting the freedom for everyone to worship or not to worship whatever god(s) they want has absolutely nothing to do with communism. Stop with the bullshit argument and actually come up with something good for me to read. Nobody is suggesting we try to force everyone into an atheist. And certainly nobody is suggesting we take away everyone's bible.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Beretta, posted 08-25-2008 8:23 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by bluescat48, posted 08-30-2008 10:32 PM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 89 by bluescat48, posted 08-30-2008 10:33 PM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 90 by Beretta, posted 08-31-2008 5:51 AM Taz has responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1543 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 88 of 107 (479909)
08-30-2008 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Taz
08-30-2008 3:28 PM


Re: Communism Europe and the evolution indoctrination
{Duplicate message. Please use you "edit" button and not your browser's "back" button, to do edits. - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Taz, posted 08-30-2008 3:28 PM Taz has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1543 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 89 of 107 (479910)
08-30-2008 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Taz
08-30-2008 3:28 PM


Re: Communism Europe and the evolution indoctrination
And certainly nobody is suggesting we take away everyone's bible.

I am an atheist and I would be extremely angry if anyone atheist or otherwise tried to take my Bible away.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Taz, posted 08-30-2008 3:28 PM Taz has not yet responded

    
Beretta
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 90 of 107 (479933)
08-31-2008 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Taz
08-30-2008 3:28 PM


Evolution as dogma
Nobody is suggesting we try to force everyone into an atheist. And certainly nobody is suggesting we take away everyone's bible.

Well the problem is evolutionists are indoctrinating little children into their religious dogma by forcefeeding evolution as fact down their gullible little throats. Admittedly some (maybe most) evolutionists are already the victims of the same agenda but this is the thing - we are trying to wake you up to the consequences of your religion by first showing you that evolution is faith-based not factual, before getting to consequences of a worldview that is not open to competing hypotheses and is thus dogma. Hopefully, should you wake up in time, you will be in a position to fix some of the damage done.
Sometimes you don't have to take the Bibles away -you just need to convert them to your religion and the Bible will be relinquished in time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Taz, posted 08-30-2008 3:28 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 08-31-2008 6:13 AM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 93 by bluegenes, posted 08-31-2008 6:51 AM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 101 by Taz, posted 08-31-2008 4:34 PM Beretta has not yet responded

  
Prev12345
6
78Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017