Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8872 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-18-2018 12:14 PM
222 online now:
DWIII, edge, Percy (Admin), Stile, Tangle, Tanypteryx, vimesey (7 members, 215 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Son of Man
Post Volume:
Total: 842,232 Year: 17,055/29,783 Month: 1,043/1,956 Week: 40/506 Day: 40/89 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
9101112Next
Author Topic:   Teaching the Truth in Schools
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3825 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 106 of 169 (72048)
12-10-2003 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Martin J. Koszegi
12-09-2003 4:50 PM


Martin,

This is all very entertaining, I'm sure. However, once again you have made the claim that creationism - or at least the inclusion of the supernatural into scientific investigation and inquiry - provides a better paradigm for understanding than evolutionary biology. Please address the three examples of the success of evolutionary biology in solving real-world problems contained in this post.

If you are unable or unwilling to at least speculate on how creationism and the supernatural can be used to solve these problems, then your entire stance can be taken as simple empty rhetoric.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 12-09-2003 4:50 PM Martin J. Koszegi has not yet responded

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 169 (72322)
12-11-2003 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Quetzal
12-08-2003 9:06 AM


Re: King of the Nats
The "results," the amount of scientific understanding that has been generated by those who are basically accepting of the assumption of evolutionism (i.e., well-meaning products of our educational settings), is a result of the great numbers of people who are establishing and developing knowledge, and not due to the idea that evolutionism is actually true. People can learn factual things as they work, even though the general philosophy they ascribe to is far less than true. And, of course, even in science, people can emphasize things that tend to support a favored philosophy, and de-emphasize, or totally ignore, things that undermine such a philosophy.

Quetzal writes:

I take great exception to this bald assertion. However, in the interests of allowing you to present evidence in favor of your position, I hereby offer three challenges for you to address

At the onset, I'd like to say that I'll respond to your latter post to me with two replies: one, now, with regard to the aspects of your message that I feel confident about answering off the top of my head, and the second--in response to your challenge--later, after I seek out knowledge from some others I have in mind. Okee-dokee?

Quetzal writes:

using recourse to the supernatural, the Bible, God, or any miracle you'd care to reveal.

As I continually indicate, one can have an undergirding philosophy that is incorrect, and yet develop a knowledge base composed of some valid information that becomes a resource tool for problem solving in the real world. Consider, in this vein, the oil beneath the earth that is sought for; oil-drillers "A" believe the Earth is flat, oil-drillers "B" believe the Earth is spherical--that's not to say that oil drillers "A" will be unable to develop an ability to access the oil if they put their minds to it.

For the sake of my point here, just suppose (hypothetically) that the natsian perspective is fundamentally erroneous (and that a Creator actually did create this universe); don't tell me that the people who work in the natsian circles could not solve some real world problems that are science-based. If you insist that the answer to some problems that have been solved by the nats could only be solved because of their favored perspective, and if you insist that other scientists who study nature, who believe God created the universe to operate according to the same laws of science that nats believe in (except for any "law" that would rule out consideration of God's possible existence), I'd be interested in knowing how nature manifests distinctions that would exclude only creation scientists. This leads to my other point that you seem to think that scientists who study the same natural world (and its laws) that nats study, but whose undergirding philosophy is yec-ish, that their efforts can't actually lead to practical application knowledge, but to only ideas about "the Bible, God, or any miracle." That sort of thinking about creationists is incorrect.

Quetal writes:

These scientific challenges are real world examples. Two of them have been answered by evolutionary biology, and in the third case a serious and potentially dangerous error was averted by the same methods. If, as you say, evo biologists are simply ignorant, brain-washed automata who are unable to see the Truth (tm) because of their presuppositions, it should be fairly simple for you to provide a creationist response. OTOH, if you cannot, then your assertion of validity for this paradigm is falsified. Good luck.

Evo biologists are not ignorant, period; but I would say that many of them lack that aspect of knowledge that would enable them to admit the presumptive and philosophical roots of their belief system. What's "(tm)"? (And, like I said, I’ll get back with you about the three puzzles.)

Quetzal writes:

According to your own words, all that is needed is: "Exodus 15:26 says, 'If you diligently heed the voice of the Lord your God and do what is right in His sight, give ear to His commandments and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you which I have brought on the Egyptians . . .'" Fine. Explain how the Word of God does better at solving these problems.

Pardon? Did you think that I regarded this scripture as a panacea for all problems?

Quetzal writes:

Each problem does, in fact, need the conceptual framwork to valid before a solution can be attempted. IF evo bio is wrong, then your supernaturalism is correct. Solve the problems.

We disagree to some degree about that first sentence. I’ll get back with you.

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

Quetzal writes:

"It is as useless to argue with those that have renounced the use and authority of reason as to argue with the dead." -- Thomas Paine

Then you’re willing to admit this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Quetzal, posted 12-08-2003 9:06 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Quetzal, posted 12-12-2003 10:15 AM Martin J. Koszegi has not yet responded

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


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


Re: King of the Nats
MrHambre writes:

Martin,
Your lack of a realistic basis in the history of science is appalling. If you expect people here to nod in agreement when you produce a howler like We also know that belief in metaphysical naturalistic philosophy is an individual position, but that it has never aided science, you're absolutely deluded.

So, then, you’re NOT a creationist, MrHambre? People who have a natsian perspective have developed knowledges that have been beneficial to science. But it isn’t because they are natsian that those knowledges came into being. People who invest great time and effort into developing some field of knowledge, will, oftentimes, produce some net result of practical benefit regardless of their philosophical slant that relates to their view of the world. The natsian philosophy itself, though, has not aided science, except perhaps, there have been off-shute aspects of such work that has produced some types of benefits. The same phenomenon would, of course, hold true for creation scientists—the ones you feel do not exist. Yes, more people have been influenced to accept the idea that macro evolution occurred, and because of these numbers that are put to work in that industry, there is a greater number of items produced across that field that could be categorized as being beneficial in some way. But much time and energy is wasted also. Someone once opined about the irony of brilliant scientists who spend the bulk of their lives trying to create life in order to prove that no intelligence was needed to cause life.

MrHambre writes:

Who's 'we,' Martin?

When you use it, it’s the nats. Guess who it is when I use it.

Martin J. Koszegi writes:
think of all of the advances that could've been made over histoy if we were to seriously consider Biblical supernaturalism as a possibility, instead of wasting all of that time with naturalism in a rather blind walk through the centuries

MrHambre writes:

This is absolutely priceless. Evidently you expect us to forget that for literally millennia, all knowledge was the domain of supernaturalists and religious orders. The only knowledge that is still relevant from these Dark Ages is that which wasn't transformed by Biblical literalism into pure garbage.

That priceless “lift out” came from a context that discussed an example of anachronous medical knowledge compared to the Egyptians. I’m still waiting for someone to falsify the bit about the Egyptians using dung medically. If they really did, despite their other abilities, then, hypothetically, ancient scientists (and then beyond) could have started the investigations as to why such practices tended to protect people, which could have led to a much earlier understanding of microscopic organisms, an understanding that came into being only relatively recently.

MrHambre writes:

You also expect us to forget that the revolutionary scientific programs that brought the world out of this ignorance were formulated by believers who nonetheless adhered to the naturalistic assumption: Newton's physics and Pasteur's biology. Maybe you should take a look at an introductory primer to the history of science so you can put these things into context.

Advances occurred by creationists and evolutionists. Nature and its laws were studied by both types of people and both groups produced beneficial results. Certain things gain virtually universal acceptance due to their very limited (if any) distance from empirical verification. Advances in other fields are more theoretical and controversial (for example, explanations about coal formation, the formation of mountains, etc.), but don’t necessarily tie into the competing philosophies that separate nats and yecs. And, yes, there are those, in every time period (sometimes influential, sometimes not), who are responsible to one degree or another, for the types of “scientific” horseplay that you made mention of when you were erroneously linking that behavior exclusively to those who believe that God created rather than some such idea like “the universe came into being due to a quantum fluctuation of a pre-existing true vacuum” (Edward P. Tryon), as if believing that way, somehow produces a buffer for the affected individual to not be a legitimate subject for all the lambasting that you direct at creationists.

MrHambre writes:

If you'd like to persist in your ignorance, please don't pretend we're all doing the same.

Back atcha.

MrHambre writes:

Again, your insistence that naturalism constitutes bias is groundless. You want us to believe that supernaturalism is on equal footing with the naturalistic methodology that has given us all the significant knowledge we currently possess concerning natural phenomena. But we know better.

You are probably quite beyond the hope of rehabilitation. Naturalism does constitute a bias. (And you are the one who is woefully erroneous if you think that all the significant scientific advances came only from naturalists.) You can get an idea of just how much it represents a bias by thinking of how it would be if the pendulum of scientific propaganda and influence that exists, was swaying into the creationism region at this point in history, instead of the natsian region it now occupies.


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

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

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


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


Re: King of the Nats
Re: King of the Nats
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PaulK writes:

Well if you're so familir with Leviticus so as not to need to read it again you know that 6:28 is a ritual observance and not a hygiene rule.
If the Egyptians were genuinely inferior to the Hebrews medically then you need to deal with their achieveemnts - not their mistakes.

OK, a ritual observance that had hygienic benefits. But, let me get this straight. Despite the fact that I’m making a point about details that relate to certain practices of the Hebrews that were anachronously beneficial to them, you’re saying that if the Egyptians were genuinely inferior to the Hebrews in a particular area of knowledge or practice that had medical implications, then that area of inferiority of the Egyptians should be deleted from the whole equation because the Egyptians had other areas of development? As a sort of brain-teaser, I’m trying to think of a way that would reasonably allow one to not see that as pure evasion.

PaulK writes:

Remember that Galen and Hippocrates were not even born. Medicine had a LONG way to go.

Surely, you see how this fact could be used to bolster my position as well.

PaulK writes:

And the fact is that many of the rituals do not have hygiene benefits.

All Levitical law need not have medical benefits in order for my point to be valid.

PaulK writes:

If some of the rituals happen to have bnnefits it does not mena that the creators of those rituals had knowledge of the health benefits.

The rituals were given in light of the promise that if the Hebrews were careful to follow the instructions, they would not experience the degree of diseases that the Egyptian culture experienced. The context necessitates, not that the rituals might happen to have benefits, but that the benefits would be guaranteed if they practice them. Yes?

PaulK writes:

If the rule of 6:28 existed for the health benefits - as Grant Jeffrey says - then why was it not a general rule so that those benefits could be realised ? Obviously it did not.

Why do you assume that such instructions were not applied in general, just because the recording of the promise was offered through the context of Moses (the leader of the people) and the priesthood? By, “it did not,” do you mean that it’s obvious that it wasn’t applied in general, or that following the instructions really could not have prevented disease among the Hebrews who practiced them?


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

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

  
Matt Tucker
Inactive Junior Member


Message 110 of 169 (72364)
12-11-2003 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by gene90
11-21-2002 10:43 PM


Evolution is a theory yes, but truth no.
One cannot just pronounce that evoltion is true when Darwin himself acknowledged that his theory was false. Evolution is a theory. Everything in the science world is a theory until it can be proven without a doubt to everyone, except in the case of scientific laws.

Matt


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by gene90, posted 11-21-2002 10:43 PM gene90 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by roxrkool, posted 12-11-2003 6:56 PM Matt Tucker has not yet responded
 Message 112 by Loudmouth, posted 12-11-2003 6:56 PM Matt Tucker has not yet responded
 Message 113 by :ć:, posted 12-11-2003 7:11 PM Matt Tucker has not yet responded
 Message 115 by M82A1, posted 12-11-2003 7:22 PM Matt Tucker has not yet responded

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 849 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 111 of 169 (72368)
12-11-2003 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Matt Tucker
12-11-2003 6:37 PM


Re: Evolution is a theory yes, but truth no.
I'm sorry, but whether evolution is true or not has nothing to do with what you think Darwin said. Where does Darwin say that, by the way?

If Newton said that gravity was false, would you believe him? There is such a thing as the Theory of Gravity, did you know that? Would you say gravity is unproven?

Evolution, like gravity, is a fact. How they work, is the theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Matt Tucker, posted 12-11-2003 6:37 PM Matt Tucker has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by JonF, posted 12-11-2003 7:20 PM roxrkool has not yet responded

    
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 169 (72369)
12-11-2003 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Matt Tucker
12-11-2003 6:37 PM


Re: Evolution is a theory yes, but truth no.
One cannot just pronounce that evoltion is true when Darwin himself acknowledged that his theory was false. Evolution is a theory. Everything in the science world is a theory until it can be proven without a doubt to everyone, except in the case of scientific laws.

I'll see if I can get this in before anyone else. It doesn't matter what Darwin said or thought, he just discovered the theory. Would we still have gravity if Newton hadn't discovered the relationship between bodies of mass? If Newton said all of his laws were incorrect and should be shunned, would there still be gravity? I'm thinking we would still be footed firmly. Darwin was not the athiest messiah that you seem to think he is. What he wrote about in the Origin of Species has been judged mostly correct by subsequent experimentation and observation. If all we had was Darwin's insistance that he was right I wouldn't place any credence in the Theory of Evolution myself. However, the evidence overwhelms any type of hero worship.

Added in edit: I knew someone would beat me to the punch, even used Newton and gravity. I need to type faster I guess.

[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 12-11-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Matt Tucker, posted 12-11-2003 6:37 PM Matt Tucker has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by roxrkool, posted 12-11-2003 10:16 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

  
:ć: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5137 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 113 of 169 (72370)
12-11-2003 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Matt Tucker
12-11-2003 6:37 PM


Re: Evolution is a theory yes, but truth no.
Matt Tucker writes:

One cannot just pronounce that evoltion is true when Darwin himself acknowledged that his theory was false.


Please cite this statement of Darwin's which you claim exists and the internet source from whence you retrieved it. I'll give ya dollars to donuts that the quotation -- if it even exists -- is taken horribly out of context.

Regardless, even Darwin's own opinions on the matter are irrelevant to the validity of evolutionary theory. The evidence that has been collected since his time is undeniable.

Evolution is a theory.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory. "Theory" in this context does not mean "guess" as it commonly does in the vernacular. Evolutionary theory is what accounts for a wide array of evolutionary facts such as descent with modification, heritability, mutation, genetic drift, etc...

In very much the same way, musical theory is what accounts for a wide array of musical facts like consonance, dissonance, key, harmony, etc...

Surely you wouldn't claim that music is "just a theory," would you?

Everything in the science world is a theory until it can be proven without a doubt to everyone...

So then a round earth is "just a theory" until every last member of the Flat Earth Society is convinced of its factual basis? I think not.

...except in the case of scientific laws.

The Law of Gravity is an element of the Theory of Gravity, the Ideal Gas Law is an element of the Kinetic Molecular Theory, etc, etc...

As you should see by now, scientific theories incorporate scientific laws and actually have a higher status than the very laws that they integrate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Matt Tucker, posted 12-11-2003 6:37 PM Matt Tucker has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4266
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 114 of 169 (72372)
12-11-2003 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by roxrkool
12-11-2003 6:56 PM


A bet proposed ...
m sorry, but whether evolution is true or not has nothing to do with what you think Darwin said. Where does Darwin say that, by the way?

Dollars to doughnuts it's Lady Hope.

Did Darwin Recant? at Answers in Genesis.
Index to Creationist Claims: CG001: Darwin renounced evolution on his deathbed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by roxrkool, posted 12-11-2003 6:56 PM roxrkool has not yet responded

  
M82A1
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 169 (72373)
12-11-2003 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Matt Tucker
12-11-2003 6:37 PM


Re: Evolution is a theory yes, but truth no.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Tucker:
One cannot just pronounce that evoltion is true when Darwin himself acknowledged that his theory was false.
No, he never said that. You are thinking of the time in 1846 in where he turned away from evolution to do a 10 year study about Barnacles. He never said evolution was false.

quote:
Evolution is a theory.
So, does this mean that you also don't believe in the Special Theory of Relativity? The Theory of Continental Drift? etc. Evolution has already been proven via DNA testing. For instance; Common elephants evolved from a more primitive ancestor, like the Mammoth. DNA evidence prooves that. How much more do you need?

------------------
"The only thing necessary for the Triumph of Evil is for Good Men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Matt Tucker, posted 12-11-2003 6:37 PM Matt Tucker has not yet responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 65 days)
Posts: 1494
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 116 of 169 (72381)
12-11-2003 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Martin J. Koszegi
12-11-2003 5:44 PM


Re: King of the Nats
Martin,

All your nonsense merely constitutes a desperate attempt on your part to convince yourself that you're right. We see a lot of it around here. Words don't mean much, Martin, we need to see scientific results that support your point. If naturalism is not the only methodology that has been successful in the lab, you should be able to prove to us that supernaturalism has contributed to scientific progress. It's an empty claim indeed that we should 'think about all the progress that could have been made' with supernaturalism if you've never given us an example of supernatural science!

Your only stab at an explanation of your position only disproved your point: you made a claim that the ancient Hebrews knew about germs. Microorganisms aren't supernatural, Martin. Perhaps your scientific ignorance is influencing your opinions. In any case, I don't accept that the ancient Israelites were privy to any secret medical knowledge to which the more advanced Egyptians weren't. I haven't been able to locate any info on the Egyptians using dung for medicine. Perhaps you could post a link to this obviously pertinent information.

This is your problem, Martin: you assert that naturalism is bias simply because we need to give supernaturalism a shot. You need to give us examples of methodology that derives from your Magic Happy Love Science and tell us how we are supposed to work with it to produce concrete results. Naturalism has worked just fine, Martin, and through the research of believers and non-believers alike. You can't claim that it's all philosophical bias if everyone who uses the methodology doesn't subscribe to the same philosophy.

------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 12-11-2003 5:44 PM Martin J. Koszegi has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by nator, posted 12-14-2003 9:23 AM MrHambre has not yet responded

    
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 849 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 117 of 169 (72406)
12-11-2003 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Loudmouth
12-11-2003 6:56 PM


Re: Evolution is a theory yes, but truth no.
Nah, just less.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Loudmouth, posted 12-11-2003 6:56 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

    
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


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


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If by "the fact of evolution is true" you mean that sociologiical (and other like) forces have established the belief in peoples' minds to the point that such affected people actually accept evolution as the accurate assessment of WHAT IS, then I would agree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

schrafinator writes:

Gee, and here I thought that the evidence from many life science disciplines and the Biology courses I took at University had convinced me!

They did convince you. Those things are part of the whole phenomenon.

schrafinator writes:

Thanks for letting me know that I didn't actually think or analyse anything at all during my college years but had been brainwashed instead.

I'm sure you thought and analyzed, but if much of what goes on in such classes these days is itself colored with a not-so-indirect bias favoring the natsian framework, then the thinking and analyzing is about "how did evolution occur," and not at all about "did evolution occur"?

schrafinator writes:

However, how do you explain predictions that the Theory of Evolution has made which have subsequently been borne out?

Evolutionism is so broadly perceived (even in the context of the "science" that it claims to believe in) that virtually any blank check imagination would be hard pressed to come up with any sort of scenario that would disprove the theory, and when something is that wide open and shape-shifting, it certainly wouldn't surprise me that its subscribers would claim fulfilled "predictions." And here's what I mean about its capacity to shape-shift to any circumstance that may arise, which would prevent the philosophy from ever getting outside of its own box (so that it could recognize something contrary to their fundamental philosophy if, humor me for a moment: IF, the universe was actually created):

Imagine that there has been a recent discovery of a fossilized dinosaur which contained in its huge clamped shut mouth, a like-fossilized modern-type man who was wearing a jewel-embedded ceremonial robe of sophisticated design. Imagine further that the fossilized man was curled up around and clutching an intricately etched tablet of the ten commandments, and that an ensuing investigation concluded that the like-fossilized vines that were twisted and tangled tightly around the dinosaurs jaws and other parts of its body, were discovered to be some type of extinct fruit-bearing vines, the fossilized fruit remnants of which were also discovered in the dinosaur's belly.

Could this scenario undermine the theory of evolution? The truth: not in the least bit--not even if multitudes of such magnitude were discovered. No evidence could ever be concieved of that could overcome the real die-hards who represent the power structure of this thing. Of course, the pat solution to the scenario is that a then "living fossil" (dinosaur) was feeding on the said man and fruit when some kind of catastrophic condition occurred that preserved them thusly.

You spoke of predictions that evolutionism fulfills. One of its primary predictions is improbability itself: in like manner (alluding to the above scenario), the most unbelievable and improbable combinations of perfectly harmonized processes that evolution requires are regarded, rather, as promotion evidence (rather than negative evidence, as any real-world evaluation would seem to necessitate), as Julian Huxley explained: "Improbability is to be expected as a result of natural selection; and we have the paradox that an exceedingly high apparent improbability in its products can be taken as evidence for the high degree of its efficacy." I think I'll close this thought with another valid point that can be summed up in a phrase I picked up from Phillip Johnson,"On that basis the theory has nothing to fear from the evidence."

schrafinator writes:

I know.

"Godidit", right?

No. Surely either physical matter existed from eternity past without origin and somehow orchestrated itself into infinite order, or somehow nothing became everything.


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

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

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


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


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin said:
If the textbooks didn't depend upon the validity of a metaphysical philosophy that is unprovable, I'd be more inclined to see your point.

sidelined writes:

Could you please explain which metaphysical philosophy you are speaking of?

I speak of that which is to the "left" of science. Yes, science must study nature--both creation scientists (they're to the "right" of science) and evolution scientists--but science neither assumes the nonexistence of God, nor affirms the existence of God. As a test to the validity of this belief, I challenge you to tell me about something that is genuinely empirical in nature that creation scientists and evolution scientists disagree about (that necessarily implicates their opposing positions about ultimate origins). They disagree about how to interpret and evaluate empirical findings; the empirical findings themselves do not actually validate evolutionism, i.e., metaphysical philosophy. The left, so questionable scientifically, so questionable politically. (But, of course, the same people who compose the left in one group, are not necessarily members of the other leftist group.)


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

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

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


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


Re: Agreement by Creationists and Biologists
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreement by Creationists and Biologists
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Creation scientists and Evolution scientists agree on vast amounts of things. These things, at least generally speaking, are science. Those groups part company on the unprovable things that tie into the philosophy that governs each group's belief.

NosyNed writes:

Could you list those things?

First, list the VAST amount of things creation scientists and evolution scientists agree about? Well, perhaps I'll just mention a few examples, and then I'm sure you'll get the picture.

They agree about the physical reasons why laser technology works, about the nuclear processes that occur in the unseen center of the Sun, electronics, gravity . . . I mean, I'm sure you get the idea; the list goes on and on in this vein, wouldn't you agree?

NosyNed writes:

And perhaps to make your position clear you could list some of the most important things that they disagree on? (Sorry, about asking for the extra work, but so far it seems that no two creationists agree as to what has and has not happened).

What an amazing coincidence--I have similar experiences with regard to the various evolutionary perspectives and with those who hold them. But one of the most important things that I see evidence of (concerning what creation scientists and evolution scientists disagree on), is the united effort of nats, in textbooks expecially, to convey the idea that, regardless of the incomprehensibley improbable requirements of cosmic and macro evolution with regard to their appeal to time and chance alone, somehow, life must have come into existence on its own. Creation scientists disagree with the evolution scientists' rhetoric that indicates that because we must limit our studies to nature, nature is all there is (enter the "somehow, life must have come into existence on its own" textbook typicality).

NosyNed writes:

Could you also specify the "unprovable" things? Perhaps you need to review some of the threads that discuss the concept of "proof" as well.

The final two sentences of my latter paragraph should give you a good idea of where I'm coming from for this. If not, there are other things that are unprovable, or at least unproven. Definitions of proof are great. But if "proof" is something to the effect that a bunch of people who agree on an interpretation (and thus deem it as proven) regarding what is rightfully categorized as an elaborate idea (that may or may not actually be correct), then I take exception to such a definition--it's one of the earmarks of an unscientific organization; that is, unless that organization also controls what the definitions are . . . how convenient for them.

The provable stuff is just as consistent with creationism.

NosyNed writes:

Hmmmmm, from this one might guess you disagree with most creationists.

How so?

NosyNed writes:

Certainly, you can't be a young earther.

Do you mean that if God really did create the universe and everything in it, he certainly wouldn't have done it in a relatively quick fashion as opposed to the methodology that might appease the nats to a degree? If for the moment, and for the sake of argument, you're considering the idea of a Creator, why would it seem so odd if he was to create a la yec-ish?

NosyNed writes:

Again, this would be clearer if you listed some very specific examples.

I'm sorry. I'm not sure what you're asking for here.


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

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

  
Prev1
...
67
8
9101112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018