Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 271 of 485 (570893)
07-29-2010 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Bolder-dash
07-29-2010 7:53 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
You are asking for examples of thought experiments that show evidence of non--materialism, but you are already saying they have all been proven wrong.
Stop beating about the bush and just give us 1 example of these thought experiments that prove (or at least provide substantial evidence for) a "non-material" or "supernatural" cause.
Edited by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-29-2010 7:53 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 272 of 485 (570908)
07-29-2010 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by marc9000
07-27-2010 7:34 PM


The search for meaning
Hi, Marc.
marc9000 writes:
An atheistic meaning to life is created to harmonize with the meaninglessness in Darwinism.
I don’t think this is accurate. Certainly it seems like this would be the case from our perspective, and I’m certainly not a good example in which this isn’t the case, because my personal move away from strict theism was spurred by my conversion to evolutionism; but, I don’t think this is a general rule for all atheists, and I don’t think it’s fair of you to assert it as such without their permission.
Here’s what Crashfrog wrote in Message 201:
crashfrog writes:
Evolution certainly implies a lack of meaning in the natural world, but it hardly necessitates meaninglessness in the human world. It just entails the realization that humans are the source of their own meaning.
I certainly don’t claim that I get this. It doesn’t sound like meaning to me. But, who gets to decide what meaning is, or where it comes from? I don’t feel comfortable designating myself as that authority, and I certainly don’t like when people who disagree with me do feel comfortable designating themselves as that authority.
So, in what way is it right for us to claim a monopoly on meaning?
You might be right that they view the world as meaningless, and have just deluded themselves into to thinking otherwise, but you don’t really get anywhere in debates by simply refusing to engage people about their personal views on their terms. So, what point is served by these blunt assertions of yours? I argue that no point at all is served.
-----
marc9000 writes:
quote:
Since religion answers every question for many Creationists...
Can you imagine, or have you ever known, any creationist making that claim?
I have known many creationists who seem to say just that. I suppose I haven’t actually pursued the topic with anybody, so I can’t say for certain: but, if it isn’t true, I think there are a lot of creationists who would do well to make it clearer than they do.
And, I certainly can imagine creationists making that claim.
-----
marc9000 writes:
But if you’re saying that this point in your life is when you’re first becoming most interested in accepting Darwinism and questioning Christianity, I believe it’s rare, I think it is more common in younger people.
How old do you think I am? I think my birth date is listed on my member profile.
-----
marc9000 writes:
That’s because compromising Christianity with evolution (Darwinism) is a dangerous thing for a Christian to do.
It’s not uncommon in many subjects for a conclusion to be established at the beginning, and then evidence formed to fit that conclusion.
I have now sat here for about thirty minutes, trying to figure out how to respond to the fact that you just juxtaposed those two statements.
If I am not allowed to even consider altering my conclusion, how can I possibly consider my pursuit of knowledge anything but the epitome of what you said in the second sentence above?
I have convinced myself that honesty, even if it is misguided, is more important than the particular conclusion at which I arrive. I am at a loss to explain why God would punish me for that.
Edited by Bluejay, : Addition from "so, what..." to "...is served."

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by marc9000, posted 07-27-2010 7:34 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by marc9000, posted 07-31-2010 9:37 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 273 of 485 (571033)
07-29-2010 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Bolder-dash
07-29-2010 7:53 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
(as if you really know about every study ever done on psychic behavior-which clearly you don't
How many do you think there are?
What was the last one you read? Be specific. I'm looking authors, title, and date and journal of publication.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-29-2010 7:53 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


(1)
Message 274 of 485 (571035)
07-29-2010 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by marc9000
07-27-2010 7:34 PM


Sincere congratulations, you’re in an important, memorable phase of your life right now. But if you’re saying that this point in your life is when you’re first becoming most interested in accepting Darwinism and questioning Christianity, I believe it’s rare, I think it is more common in younger people. That’s not a put down, just a statement that young people seek liberation.
It may be rare but it took me almost 30 years of research before I abandoned creationism & theism for evolution & atheism.
It was launched when I was young in a place called Vietnam but I was nearly 50 when I finally accepted the points in evolution and atheism, although not together. I had accepted part of evolution much earlier, but thought of it as guided.

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
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by marc9000, posted 07-27-2010 7:34 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-30-2010 9:38 AM bluescat48 has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 275 of 485 (571074)
07-30-2010 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by marc9000
07-27-2010 7:34 PM


marc9000 responds to Bluejay:
quote:
quote:
Since religion answers every question for many Creationists,
Can you imagine, or have you ever known, any creationist making that claim?
William Jennings Bryan did. You have actually read the transcript of the Scopes trial, haven't you? A lot of his responses to Darrow were of the form, "I haven't looked into it because the Bible is all I need."

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by marc9000, posted 07-27-2010 7:34 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by marc9000, posted 07-31-2010 9:51 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 276 of 485 (571081)
07-30-2010 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by GDR
07-28-2010 7:08 PM


GDR writes:
I realize that it is a mathematical expression, but can it actually be used as an expression of anything that truly applies to the material world. If science found that things in the material world pointed to an answer of infinity wouldn't that be evidence of something beyond the natural?
Infinity as a mathematical concept is essential throughout broad realms of mathematical models of reality, but what you're really asking is what it would mean if one of these models yielded infinity as a final answer rather than just playing a role as part of the model.
One example of a mathematical model yielding an answer of infinity concerns the origin of the universe. If the current motion of matter is projected back in time it tells us that at T=0 all matter in the universe was concentrated at a single point of infinite density called the singularity. Most scientists interpret this as telling us that the model breaks down at this point, because infinite density seems impossible, and because quantum mechanics tell us that it isn't possible to know the precise position and momentum of a particle, and knowing where all particles were at T=0 violates this principle.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by GDR, posted 07-28-2010 7:08 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by GDR, posted 07-30-2010 10:17 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 277 of 485 (571086)
07-30-2010 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Bolder-dash
07-29-2010 7:53 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Assuming the supernatural is important to your argument then we had better agree on how one studies it. We have only our five senses to tell us about the world we live in, and as far as is known our senses have no supernatural detection capability. Anything our senses detect must be natural, i.e, light, sounds, smells, tastes, temperature, pressure, etc. Given this, how does one study the supernatural?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-29-2010 7:53 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-30-2010 9:45 AM Percy has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 278 of 485 (571087)
07-30-2010 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by bluescat48
07-29-2010 6:15 PM


"There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other" WT Young, 2002
What a silly notion, respect for another lump of chemical stews. He might as well have said there is no better love, than the respect between a human shaped mass of cells, and a sponge shaped mass of cells. Or a lump of clay for that matter.
Don't you realize that this feeling of love and respect is just an illusion, brought on by a corrupted chunk of carbon, joining up with more corrupted junks pieces of carbon? Its like saying a thorn bush should respect e coli.
Love, respect, feelings, emotions, what a faulty mess of chemical hodge podge. Do you love boron? How about uric acid?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by bluescat48, posted 07-29-2010 6:15 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by bluescat48, posted 07-30-2010 10:22 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 279 of 485 (571088)
07-30-2010 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Percy
07-30-2010 9:18 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
percy, surely you have a greater imagination than this.
Lets say we have someone recounting a near death experience. And this near death experience is occurring while the patient has flatlined, no heart beat and no brain activity. But let's say the person can recall conversations that were going on during the time he was flat. And he recalls the conversations correctly. And lets also say that he actually could see things from his vantage point floating above the room, that he wouldn't have been able to see lying on a table. Is that not one way that we could have evidence for the supernatural?
BTW, do you know that Roger Ebert, an atheist (or perhaps agnostic), says that he had an out of body experience recently, while he was in and out of death during his treatments, and he heard his wife talking?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Percy, posted 07-30-2010 9:18 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Percy, posted 07-30-2010 10:48 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 280 of 485 (571095)
07-30-2010 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Percy
07-30-2010 6:53 AM


Percy writes:
Infinity as a mathematical concept is essential throughout broad realms of mathematical models of reality, but what you're really asking is what it would mean if one of these models yielded infinity as a final answer rather than just playing a role as part of the model.
Exactly. In the natural world something that is infinite doesn't make sense as Greene points out. Infinity as an answer to either the situation at T=0, or the example of the combining of the equations for QM and Relativity that Greene talks about, may be just because of the fact that we haven't solved the problem yet and there will be another answer. Right now however, the answer is infinity, and it seems to me that this could constitute evidence for something that exists outside of the physical world as we understand it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Percy, posted 07-30-2010 6:53 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by PaulK, posted 07-30-2010 11:27 AM GDR has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


(1)
Message 281 of 485 (571096)
07-30-2010 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Bolder-dash
07-30-2010 9:38 AM


from my signature writes:
"There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other" WT Young, 2002
What a silly notion, respect for another lump of chemical stews. He might as well have said there is no better love, than the respect between a human shaped mass of cells, and a sponge shaped mass of cells. Or a lump of clay for that matter.
Don't you realize that this feeling of love and respect is just an illusion, brought on by a corrupted chunk of carbon, joining up with more corrupted junks pieces of carbon? Its like saying a thorn bush should respect e coli.
Love, respect, feelings, emotions, what a faulty mess of chemical hodge podge. Do you love boron? How about uric acid?
I can't figure if your post is a poor attempt at sarcasm or if the quote went totally over your head. Either way it shows one thing, you definitely think we evos think like creos.

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
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-30-2010 9:38 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 282 of 485 (571101)
07-30-2010 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Bolder-dash
07-30-2010 9:45 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Hi Bolder-dash,
You're proposing that things we can't explain constitute evidence of the supernatural. The problem with this view is that the entire history of science is one of uncovering natural explanations for once inexplicable phenomena. Perhaps someday something we can't explain will be found to have a supernatural origin, but it hasn't happened yet.
Given this long history of failure if you believe the supernatural should still be considered a valid possibility for unexplained phenomena then that's your prerogative, but the fact remains that it is a explanation without evidence. In science one only considers phenomena which are known through evidence to exist, and that's why I asked how you propose the supernatural should be studied since it has not thus far ever been observed to have an impact on the natural world.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-30-2010 9:45 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-30-2010 10:57 AM Percy has replied
 Message 297 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-30-2010 7:48 PM Percy has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 283 of 485 (571103)
07-30-2010 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Percy
07-30-2010 10:48 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
What I just suggested to you is not evidence, but fossils are evidence for how the theory of evolution works?
Seems you have a double standard for what constitutes evidence then. Can't you turn your logic around and just say fossils are just evidence of things we don't know but can explain later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Percy, posted 07-30-2010 10:48 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Percy, posted 07-30-2010 11:20 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 284 of 485 (571108)
07-30-2010 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Bolder-dash
07-30-2010 10:57 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Bolder-dash writes:
What I just suggested to you is not evidence, but fossils are evidence for how the theory of evolution works?
Fossils are evidence that the process of descent with modification and natural selection that we observe operating in the world today was also operating throughout the history of life on Earth.
You're claiming that your example is evidence of something never before observed, the supernatural, but this evidence isn't of the same quality as fossils, i.e., scientifically gathered and analyzed. This is why I keep asking how you propose to study the supernatural if our senses can only detect the natural. Your example makes it clear that you believe the supernatural can affect the natural and that of course our senses can detect such effects, and if that's true then supernaturalists should have not trouble developing evidence for it.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-30-2010 10:57 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 285 of 485 (571110)
07-30-2010 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by GDR
07-30-2010 10:17 AM


quote:
In the natural world something that is infinite doesn't make sense as Greene points out. Infinity as an answer to either the situation at T=0, or the example of the combining of the equations for QM and Relativity that Greene talks about, may be just because of the fact that we haven't solved the problem yet and there will be another answer.
Which is almost certainly the case. Until we can get QM and GR to work together, we can't trust GR to describe situations where quantum mechanical effects are important.
quote:
Right now however, the answer is infinity, and it seems to me that this could constitute evidence for something that exists outside of the physical world as we understand it.
So you are building a speculation on top of a highly unlikely speculation. That's so weak as to be negligible as evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by GDR, posted 07-30-2010 10:17 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by GDR, posted 07-30-2010 11:40 AM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024