|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: For Herepton and any others interested | |||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
In science, objectivity is attained through concensus So bias plays a critical part. It's subjective when you boil it down to the root. Imo, your comments would be more accurate if evos held themselves to the same standards they insist IDers confine themselves to. Since there are actually no repeatable experiments demonstrating the veracity of ToE, if your line on science is true, then the ToE should be rejected as a mere hypothesis at best, and acknowledged to be philosophical as a set of assumptions to interpret data rather than something formed from the data itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
randman writes: In science, objectivity is attained through consensus So bias plays a critical part. It's subjective when you boil it down to the root. Subjectivity and bias are inherent qualities in all human endeavors. Scientific methodology reduces the influence of subjective factors by factoring in the opinions of many scientists of many backgrounds and of widely varying biases in the expectation that they will balance out so that any resulting consensus has a good chance of being an accurate assessment of reality. As time goes by the consensus extends not only across national, cultural and religious boundaries, but also across temporal boundaries which means more examination and testing and exposure to more scientists, thereby increasing the confidence in the consensus. The task before intelligent design advocates is to design sets of experiments and/or observations whose results can help build a consensus for their ideas across the community of scientists. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The task before intelligent design advocates is to design sets of experiments and/or observations whose results can help build a consensus for their ideas across the community of scientists.
Well, I agree with that, but I also think it's a good idea to show the fallacies of evo models. Personally, I think QM demonstrates ID concepts and mechanisms, but I don't see a lot of crossover among IDers talking biology in this area.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
You remind me of a debate I once had a few years ago with a holocaust denier. His whole argument was based on "christ was too good to allow something like that to happen."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
What if I said, hey, your stance reminds me of Hitler's eugenic program? Inflammatory?
When we talk about the "natural world", we also have to realize that this includes beings, such as people, with a will. Sure, I beleive that Jesus is active in participating in ruling over the earth's reality.....but he does so in a particular way, described as a small seed that grows, and so the effects of His kingdom are actually very gradual, and that means bad things continue to happen. But there are improvements. I think Jesus' message and followers are the reason things like religious liberty, an end to slavery, the elevation of women above chattel status, etc,....have occurred, and you see these things primarily if not solely in nations that once or continue to be strongly influenced by Jesus' teachings. If you don't accept the Resurrection, fine. I don't expect you to accept He has the power to preserve the earth so that the gospel is not lost. I do accept it and believe God's power will preserve the earth so that this knowledge will not be lost. Regardless, your hypothetical is just that, a hypothetical, and cannot really be the basis for rejecting belief in the gospels. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
quote: still waiting for an answer to this whole post. randman answered the first section about the necessity of invisibility. i'd love to see an answer to the rest of this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
randman writes:
I don't think it is inflammatory as long as you can tell me why what I said sounded like hitler's eugenic program. What if I said, hey, your stance reminds me of Hitler's eugenic program? Inflammatory? The holocaust denier I talked to used the same reason you used to argue that our culture could never go extinct. Obviously, christ never stopped the holocaust from happening.
When we talk about the "natural world", we also have to realize that this includes beings, such as people, with a will.
What you define as "natural" is drastically different than what the rest of us define as natural. You seem to think that a magical being like god with his doppelganger self jesus christ is purely natural. I'm sorry I'm going to stop talking to you after this post, or will try to stop anyway. I could never bring myself to believe that magic is natural. Sure, I beleive that Jesus is active in participating in ruling over the earth's reality.....but he does so in a particular way, described as a small seed that grows, and so the effects of His kingdom are actually very gradual, and that means bad things continue to happen. One more thing. Notice how we are talking about science and objectivity here and your entire post looks more like a christian evangelical rant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The holocaust denier I talked to used the same reason you used to argue that our culture could never go extinct. Obviously, christ never stopped the holocaust from happening. Except he didn't use the same argument. The argument for the Lordship of Christ is not the same as the argument that Christ would never allow suffering of that magnitude.
What you define as "natural" is drastically different than what the rest of us define as natural. That's because you are not thinking this through. Science must presume something is possible, that a concept could be right or wrong, in order to maintain some objectivity. Your stance is basically not scientific as is shown by the following:
could never bring myself to believe that magic is natural. If magic is not fake, but real, it is natural in the sense of being real. The concept of real magic is by definition natural from a scientific perspective. Keep in mind I am using a definition of natural to the same as real. People and machines are thus part of the natural world, able to be studied by science, but machines are not natural in anothe sense of the word. The issue then is whether something like magic exists as a reality in the universe or not. To say you could never accept that hypothesis or fact is to deny objectivity, and assert a prejudicial view of reality. Also, keep in mind that a lot of what you think of as real, in terms of physical law, has probably been outdated. There is a lot of misunderstanding about what is and is not possible that is based on classical physics when quantum physics shows that some of these concepts of impossibility were dead wrong. Heck, what we learn from QM sounds a bit like magic in comparison to classical physics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
evolution has a design process called natural selection Which doesn't mesh with the facts. There is no way it is reasonable to infer that the Mammalian ear structure, for example, would evolve independently the same way due to natural selection. But truth be told, this is really not about natural selection, as natural selection is still confined by the means of the design of the universe. What we know about design, creating an original design, is that there is an agent, a Designer involved. That doesn't rule out the possibility of some designs emerging "on their own" so to speak after an initial design, but in one form or another, when you see design and order, there is a Designer at the root of the process. Another way to put it is that to say there is no Creator posits contradicts the principle of causality. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
randman writes:
Honestly, does anyone here actually take this seriously?
If magic is not fake, but real, it is natural in the sense of being real. The concept of real magic is by definition natural from a scientific perspective.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
If by magic you mean God answering prayers, then yes indeed some here besides myself probably take magic seriously. If you are referring to aspects of the occult, I take it very serious. I wasn't raised to think such things were real, nor educated to either, but my experience and observations are that some occultic practices whether you want to call them witchcraft or whatever, are indeed real....not Harry Potter type stuff, but one reason so many people in the world resort to various forms of witchcraft, divination, etc,...is that there is something to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
since you all haven't answered this, i'll take your all's silence to mean:
silence = inability to refute. didn't think you'd all give up that easily.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
...my experience and observations are that some occultic practices whether you want to call them witchcraft or whatever, are indeed real....not Harry Potter type stuff, but one reason so many people in the world resort to various forms of witchcraft, divination, etc,...is that there is something to it.
I do agree that there is "somethjing to it." If people believe that sticking pins in voodoo dolls will hurt the intended victims, then that is what is real for those true believers. I don't deny that. But true believers should know that their belief-based realities are different from scientific ones. That's all. You can have your alternative realities and find comfort in them, but they have no functional meaning to those who don't share your beliefs (and even for those who do the function is dubious). The biggest part of becoming conscious is to see the folly of such mystical exercises. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
why does the designer have to be invisible? Beause God is invisible and the way He decided to reveal Himself is to make things looked designed so persons would conclude that an invisible Designer exists.
and then, what do you mean by designer? evolution has a design process called natural selection. that is the designer of evolution. i don't think that's the designer you mean. Correct. Science knows the appearance of design corresponds to the work of an invisible Designer. Darwinian Scientism says the same appearance corresponds to an antonym (= mindless law of nature that only exists in their head). Ray
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024