Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The irresolvability of the creation/evolution debate
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 16 of 98 (433276)
11-10-2007 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Aven
11-10-2007 6:14 PM


Aven writes:
Science makes a lot of assumptions the only reason why we dont question them is because its been ingrained into our minds as common sense since the time we were born.
You mean that material realities have been ingrained into our minds since the time we were born? The wild assumption that if we bump into something solid, it's there?
Here's one dictionary definition of science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
Apart from the working assumption that observable material reality exists, something all people are obliged to assume on a practical day to day basis, what other assumptions does science require? Surely, at this point, you can start observing and experimenting while saying "We know nothing about the universe, other than it appears to exist, let's see if it's possible to find out anything about it."
I think you're bringing in too much high philosophy into the equation.
The EvC debate is a bit like the six year old kid telling his five year old brother that Santa Claus doesn't bring the presents down the chimney, it's Dad who brings them. The six year old has to assume the reality he's observed in the middle of the night is not an illusion, but nothing more. The five year old is living in a fantasy world he desires, and is frightened to leave it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Aven, posted 11-10-2007 6:14 PM Aven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Aven, posted 11-11-2007 12:17 AM bluegenes has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 98 (433277)
11-10-2007 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Aven
11-10-2007 6:14 PM


Hi, Aven.
Yes, its easy to assume the perspective of a stable independent reality whose natural laws can be gleaned through the scientific method, and then reject creationism when it doesn't fit into that "logic". But i think that many creationists would find that view of reality to be incorrect, and that's the point.
Actually, I think "many creationists" do "assume the perspective of a stable independent reality whose natural laws can be gleaned through the scientific method." Look at any of the major creationist websites like AiG, ICR, and CRS. They are trying to convince their readers that the logical implications of real world evidence is that evolution is false and that their interpretation of the Christian Bible is true. I think that you don't quite understand the "point" of the modern creationist movement.
-
Neither view is more true than another...
Again, this isn't the creationist view. Creationists are convinced that their view are true. If they didn't believe in a literal Genesis then they wouldn't be creationists. And they spend a lot of time trying to convince other people that their views are true. Again, look at the major creationist websites, read books written by creationists, and speak with actual creationists. They are very, very convinced that literal Genesis creationism is true. And they will try to convince you that only real logical conclusion that one can draw from real life facts is that creationism is true.
-
...and both are unprovable.
This is not true. Depending on the premises, one can prove anything. But this is simply the limitations of logic. Anything at all can be proven to be true or proven to be false -- all it depends is the right premises.
What we want is to have premises that make statements corresponding to reality. But logically there is no way of determining which premises are true and which are false. Using only logic we can't even begin -- and if we do begin, we are constrained by the premises that we have assumed to be true by extra-logical means.
This was a big shock to the first Empiricists. But it was a shock only because they were brought up to believe that truths can be determined by the application of logic. This is no longer a shock to us today, because 200 years later we are now used to the fact that logic alone cannot lead to knowledge about the real world.
-
I think its easy (trust me I've been there) to outright reject these creationist beleifs from the stand point of empiricism and scientific rationality, its painfully easy, but it doesn't mean you win the debate at all really.
Well, I don't really care to win a debate, so that's not important.
-
Believing that the holy scriptures are true doesn't make sense in light of a rationalist, scientific "common sense" standard yeah obviously. The point is thats not the standard they are using.
But that's the standard that they are trying to use. And with good reason. The logical conclusion of what you're saying is that a person can believe whatever they want to believe. That's not what creationists believe. They believe that there is a truth, and that their beliefs reflect that truth. And they believe that factual evidence clearly demonstrates that their belief is true.
-
Again, to the creationists these explanations aren't really ad hoc...
That's because creationists don't know what ad hoc means.
...if we start from the premise that the world came into being X years ago, these are necessary truths.
Except that their ad hoc explanations aren't necessary truths based on their premise -- that's what makes them ad hoc. Starting with the premise that Genesis is literally true, there are no conclusions we can make about which stars we see in the sky or what the speed of light is. It is an empirical fact that the speed of light is finite (and has a definite speed), and that we stars that are more than 6000 light years away. So to explain this fact, creationists have to come up with the idea that the speed of light was different in the past. This does not come as a necessary conclusion of the literal words of Genesis -- it is an explanation that is offered after it is discovered that the speed of light is finite and the stars that we see are very, very far away -- this is what makes it ad hoc -- this is what ad hoc means. That creationists cannot even understand the meanings of words does not make their views any more acceptable -- if anything, it should point out their irrationality.
-
If we start from the premise that the world reacts consistently...
But who doesn't start from this premise? Even creationists accept this premise.
But assuming that this premise is wrong, what is left? If we believe that the world doesn't react consistently, then we can't be sure of any interpretation of data. But everything we believe is an interpretation of data that we acquire. So we can't believe anything. We can't believe that the grocery store is still on the corner of Washington and Main, we can't believe any money we put into a bank will still be there when we need it, we can't believe that we will not be paid if we stop showing up at work, we can't believe that it will hurt when we bang our knee into the table -- honestly, you don't even live like this, so what are you trying to pull here?
-
Science makes a lot of assumptions the only reason why we dont question them is because its been ingrained into our minds as common sense since the time we were born.
This is not true. You even say:
look at all the useful things that science has brought us.
This is why we accept science and empiricism. It has brought us a lot of useful things. Believing whatever you want because nothing can be proven has brought us nothing.
So when you say:
But this doesn't prove anything logically....
I will point out that no one has cared that empiricism can't be proven for over 200 years. As you said, empiricism has brought us a lot of useful things. It works. That is all it needs. My experience that banging my knee into tables always hurts is all I need to help me avoid unnecessary pain. Empiricism works. I don't need to "prove" that every time I bang my knee into a table it will hurt. Why do you think I need to do that? And if some lunatic tries to convince me that this is just due my "empiricist assumptions", and that if I bang my knee into his special Jesus table it won't hurt, why do you think I should take his views seriously?
Edited by Chiroptera, : fix italics tag

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Aven, posted 11-10-2007 6:14 PM Aven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Aven, posted 11-11-2007 12:09 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
Aven
Junior Member (Idle past 5982 days)
Posts: 10
Joined: 11-10-2007


Message 18 of 98 (433285)
11-11-2007 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Chiroptera
11-10-2007 10:35 PM


Chiroptera:
Alright you make some good points let me try to clarify my argument a bit in light of them.
But who doesn't start from this premise? Even creationists accept this premise.
But assuming that this premise is wrong, what is left? If we believe that the world doesn't react consistently, then we can't be sure of any interpretation of data. But everything we believe is an interpretation of data that we acquire. So we can't believe anything. We can't believe that the grocery store is still on the corner of Washington and Main, we can't believe any money we put into a bank will still be there when we need it, we can't believe that we will not be paid if we stop showing up at work, we can't believe that it will hurt when we bang our knee into the table -- honestly, you don't even live like this, so what are you trying to pull here?
Right, good question. It was my understanding that a lot of creationist argumentation takes place on a more foundational level where the argument about the insufficiency of logic is more practically applicable. I'm not arguing that because we can't prove that my grocery store doesn't exist, the debate is irresolvable.
You say that creationists start from the premise of stable natural laws existing since the beginning of time, but don't you also agree that a lot of them make the argument that laws were different in the past, for example that the speed of light was slower some years ago? These kind of claims take place at a more foundational level / origin of the world level than a practical the grocery store exists level. There's not a big practical impact to whether you believe the laws were different in the past versus they were consistent.
Sure, we may want to adopt an empiricist view to determine whether or not it will hurt if I bang my knee against the table because its "worked" for us in the past and so we may think (though not necessarily so) that it will work this time too. But there's no real reason to apply this same practicality standard to creationist beliefs, though. (Is there? I don't think it would be very persuasive.) Empiricism isn't the end all be all belief system. There could be plenty of reasons to move outside of a scientific mindset in certain situations, even in the here and now.
Actually, I think "many creationists" do "assume the perspective of a stable independent reality whose natural laws can be gleaned through the scientific method." Look at any of the major creationist websites like AiG, ICR, and CRS. They are trying to convince their readers that the logical implications of real world evidence is that evolution is false and that their interpretation of the Christian Bible is true. I think that you don't quite understand the "point" of the modern creationist movement.
I'm trying to give creationists the benefit of the doubt here. I think that if you bite into empiricism and the scientific method completely then, yeah, all you end up with obviously is science and not God. So if these websites do that I would agree with you that they are wrong. But I think creationists that argue well are always going to disagree with something about the foundational beliefs / world view of science itself and in this way move outside of it, by discrediting the notion of natural law, for example. At this point I don't think it makes a lot of sense to just say, look we can never prove anything so lets go with pure empiricism because its the only thing that's "worked". Well yeah it worked but so what, its not a reason to adopt it as a framework for thinking about the origin of man. I think you're right that it may be one to adopt if you're going to be banging your knee on tables often...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Chiroptera, posted 11-10-2007 10:35 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by nator, posted 11-11-2007 10:16 AM Aven has not replied
 Message 29 by Chiroptera, posted 11-11-2007 11:33 AM Aven has not replied

  
Aven
Junior Member (Idle past 5982 days)
Posts: 10
Joined: 11-10-2007


Message 19 of 98 (433286)
11-11-2007 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by bluegenes
11-10-2007 10:32 PM


bluegenes:
You mean that material realities have been ingrained into our minds since the time we were born? The wild assumption that if we bump into something solid, it's there?
Here's one dictionary definition of science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
Right - I obviously agree that the existence of a material reality is something we all at least functionally adhere to on a day to day basis even though we can't philosophically ground it, and for our own sanity we should probably keep on doing that. The problem is that the evolution/creation debate doesn't necessarily take place on this plane: the debate is more about the origin of man and the universe, which has no immediate practical effects. Therefore, I would argue that a practicality standard isn't necessarily warranted, and so when dealing with foundational claims, its not a given that we should use it.
The EvC debate is a bit like the six year old kid telling his five year old brother that Santa Claus doesn't bring the presents down the chimney, it's Dad who brings them. The six year old has to assume the reality he's observed in the middle of the night is not an illusion, but nothing more. The five year old is living in a fantasy world he desires, and is frightened to leave it.
I don't think so. Yeah, science is cool if we're building a car or something. If we're asking about what the universe was like 6000 years ago, though, I would argue that it would be naive to privilege science or religion as necessarily correct or a more real vs. illusory belief system to use.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by bluegenes, posted 11-10-2007 10:32 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by nator, posted 11-11-2007 10:23 AM Aven has not replied
 Message 27 by bluegenes, posted 11-11-2007 10:50 AM Aven has not replied

  
Aven
Junior Member (Idle past 5982 days)
Posts: 10
Joined: 11-10-2007


Message 20 of 98 (433289)
11-11-2007 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by subbie
11-10-2007 8:10 PM


Re: This debate is very easy to resolve
To subbie:
The E v C debate doesn't revolve around the question of which should be taught, science or religion. The debate is about what should be taught in science class.
Well if this is the case then obviously you're right... no serious person in the scientific academic community thinks creationism is a legitimate scientific theory. If the EvC debate is just what should we teach in science class... we should teach science so obviously religion does not make sense within a scientific framework.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by subbie, posted 11-10-2007 8:10 PM subbie has not replied

  
Aven
Junior Member (Idle past 5982 days)
Posts: 10
Joined: 11-10-2007


Message 21 of 98 (433290)
11-11-2007 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Modulous
11-10-2007 12:34 PM


Re: the reason we continue in what appears to be a futile endeavour
Obviously - the case cannot be proven from self-evident truths, but the argument can persuade people that they have been looking at the world wrong.
We know people can change their minds, and that's what debate is essentially about.
Agreed - logic can clarify our thought processes and call us to look at our arguments in a new light, which could persuade us. But sometimes there's just no persuading someone and its important to realize that they're not necessarily "wrong".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Modulous, posted 11-10-2007 12:34 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Modulous, posted 11-11-2007 9:49 AM Aven has not replied
 Message 28 by bluegenes, posted 11-11-2007 11:31 AM Aven has not replied

  
Aven
Junior Member (Idle past 5982 days)
Posts: 10
Joined: 11-10-2007


Message 22 of 98 (433292)
11-11-2007 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Jon
11-10-2007 8:37 PM


Re: Religion or Creationism?
Creationists won ya over, have they? Too bad.
Lol they didn't man, I'm still more comfortable with science than religion. It would be more accurate to say that postmodernism has won me over

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Jon, posted 11-10-2007 8:37 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by nator, posted 11-11-2007 10:25 AM Aven has not replied
 Message 30 by Jon, posted 11-12-2007 4:57 PM Aven has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 23 of 98 (433297)
11-11-2007 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Aven
11-11-2007 12:22 AM


Re: the reason we continue in what appears to be a futile endeavour
But sometimes there's just no persuading someone and its important to realize that they're not necessarily "wrong".
When I say wrong I mean it in a sense of inconsistency, contradictory, incoherent etc etc, trying to persuade people that a worldview that is any of these things is not the best way to go about things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Aven, posted 11-11-2007 12:22 AM Aven has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 24 of 98 (433300)
11-11-2007 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Aven
11-11-2007 12:09 AM


quote:
I think that if you bite into empiricism and the scientific method completely then, yeah, all you end up with obviously is science and not God.
Why do you think that?
quote:
At this point I don't think it makes a lot of sense to just say, look we can never prove anything so lets go with pure empiricism because its the only thing that's "worked". Well yeah it worked but so what, its not a reason to adopt it as a framework for thinking about the origin of man.
Why wouldn't the fact that empricism and the scientific method work be a reason to use it to think about the origins of humans?
Humans are part of nature.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Aven, posted 11-11-2007 12:09 AM Aven has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 25 of 98 (433302)
11-11-2007 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Aven
11-11-2007 12:17 AM


quote:
The problem is that the evolution/creation debate doesn't necessarily take place on this plane: the debate is more about the origin of man and the universe, which has no immediate practical effects.
Er, humans are, the last time I checked, part of material reality.
The universe is, too, I thought.
quote:
Yeah, science is cool if we're building a car or something. If we're asking about what the universe was like 6000 years ago, though, I would argue that it would be naive to privilege science or religion as necessarily correct or a more real vs. illusory belief system to use.
So, what is the differece between using science to tell us what was going on 6000 years ago and using science to determine, say, the cause of death of a murder victim?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Aven, posted 11-11-2007 12:17 AM Aven has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 26 of 98 (433303)
11-11-2007 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Aven
11-11-2007 12:29 AM


Re: Religion or Creationism?
quote:
It would be more accurate to say that postmodernism has won me over
Even worse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Aven, posted 11-11-2007 12:29 AM Aven has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 27 of 98 (433312)
11-11-2007 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Aven
11-11-2007 12:17 AM


Aven writes:
I don't think so. Yeah, science is cool if we're building a car or something. If we're asking about what the universe was like 6000 years ago, though, I would argue that it would be naive to privilege science or religion as necessarily correct or a more real vs. illusory belief system to use.
There isn't a religious view of origins. There are hundreds, if not thousands. New ones are being invented all the time. Pick out any creation mythology at random, and it would be naive to perceive it as anything other than a naive human invention.
I'm not dismissing out of hand the possibility that the real universe may have come into existence with intent, but creationism is about non-existent universes, universes of the mind.
If your O.P. is suggesting that there will always be creationism, history is not on your side. Few Europeans believed that they descended from other animals a century ago, but a majority now do.
Evolution becomes easier and easier to argue as time goes on. Because it happens and has happened, the evidence inevitably increases as science progresses.
The argument that you mention about the laws of the universe having been different in the past is just a symptom of the beginning of the end. It's "we haven't got any evidence, so we'll aim for neutral".
The trouble is that for such a change to have influenced the history of our species, by definition, there would have to be evidence for it.
If you're saying that many creationists will always be able to convince themselves that their views are true, I agree. But the likelihood of most of their great grand children sharing those beliefs is slim.
For those who need religion, there are religious interpretations that are not and can probably never be incompatible with science. It's only these that can survive in the long term.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Aven, posted 11-11-2007 12:17 AM Aven has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 28 of 98 (433320)
11-11-2007 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Aven
11-11-2007 12:22 AM


Re: the reason we continue in what appears to be a futile endeavour
Agreed - logic can clarify our thought processes and call us to look at our arguments in a new light, which could persuade us. But sometimes there's just no persuading someone and its important to realize that they're not necessarily "wrong".
Does your new found "philosophy" tell you that the flat earth society is not necessarily wrong? If so, it sounds like the kind of philosophy that you could easily put to test by jumping in front of a bus to prove that the view that the bus is not really there has some merit. After all, the view that the bus is there and the view that it isn't ultimately rely on assumptions, as you point out in the O.P.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Aven, posted 11-11-2007 12:22 AM Aven has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 98 (433322)
11-11-2007 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Aven
11-11-2007 12:09 AM


Hello, Aven.
It was my understanding that a lot of creationist argumentation takes place on a more foundational level where the argument about the insufficiency of logic is more practically applicable.
But logic is always insufficient as a source of knowledge about the real world. That's been known for over 200 years. That's why no one who understands either philosophy or science tries to use logic as a source of knowledge in any field. Logic is used to test the consistency of one's conceptual framework. That is the only practical use of logic. Both modern philosophers and scientists recognize this. So whether we can "prove" that the premises of any argument reflect the ultimate reality is beside the point -- no one says that we can, and, 250 years after the discovery of this fact shock the intelligentsia, we've all accepted it. Only college freshman who've read a couple of chapters in their introductory philosophy text book think this is a profound statement. It is only profound to those who are used to thinking that logic has a much broader use than it actually has.
Logic is used to test the consistency of one's conceptual framework. In an investigation of ethics, for example, one uses logic to see whether one's ethical beliefs lead to a contradiction, or whether the basis of one's ethical framework leads to an unacceptable moral dilemma. In science, logic is used to test whether an empirical observation contradicts the theories one is testing.
Sure, logic can never be used to prove one's premises. That has been known for 250 years. But logic is used to disprove premises. That is how theories are eventually discarded; that is how people abandon one ethical framework for another. And this is what happens in the investigation of the history of the real world. Evolution is consistent with reality; creationism is not. The use of logic shows that what we observe in real life contradicts creationism. The premises of creationism are therefore wrong.
-
You say that creationists start from the premise of stable natural laws existing since the beginning of time, but don't you also agree that a lot of them make the argument that laws were different in the past, for example that the speed of light was slower some years ago?
Then you need to examine this argument a little more closely. The major creationists who claim that the speed of light was faster in the past (is Humphreys one of them?) don't believe that the natural laws were unstable, just different. They try to make a model that shows just how the speed of has changed over time -- in other words, they actually thinks that the changing speed of light itself is subject to some natural laws that can be known.
Furthermore, the speed of light is not just some number that can be varied with no other effects. For example, the speed of light is due to the exact nature of the electric and magnetic forces. And the laws of chemistry also depend on the exact nature of the electric and magnetic forces. So, if the speed of light was different, then chemistry was different. This can be tested, by looking at the chemical composition of minerals and organic materials from the past. There should be some evidence that chemistry was different in the past.
The only other option -- which is not advocated by creationists, by the way -- is to say that either the world used to operate by magic, or that the physical laws were completely different, but in either case the different physical laws or the magic resulted in a world that looks exactly as if it were a very old world that operated according to the physical laws as we understand them today.
But what sense does this make? It's exactly as if you went home and decided that your family wasn't really your family but a group of impostors. They look exactly like your family, dress exactly like your family, talk about the exact memories that your family would have, act in all respects like your family, and even genetic tests show that they have the same genetic markers as your family -- yet they are only very clever impostors that happen to share those particular genetic markers. Well, if you were to try that I'm sure you would be put on some sort of medication real quick.
And I have heard some people try to make this argument about the appearance of an old earth. But it's just as nuts -- the universe only happens to look exactly like a very old universe that has operated according to the natural laws that we understand them today. Every single test that has been attempted to detect a difference in physical laws in the past has failed because the old laws happened to be such that they produce a universe that, in any situation, looks exactly as if it were old.
And this is why the major creationists don't make this argument. Because they realize that it's nuts. That's why they implicitly assume that the universe has always acted according to stable natural laws, even if we don't quite understand what those laws are or were, so that they can find a discrepancy that will finally disprove evolution once and for all.
-
Sure, we may want to adopt an empiricist view to determine whether or not it will hurt if I bang my knee against the table because its "worked" for us in the past and so we may think (though not necessarily so) that it will work this time too.
But it does work this time, too. On TheologyWeb there is a Christian geologist who goes by grmorton who has an interesting story. He used to be a young earth creationist. He abandoned young earth creationism when he began to work for the oil companies. He found that in trying to locate the most productive places to drill for oil, he was using techniques developed by old earth geologists according to old earth geological theories. He never, ever used any of the principles he learned as a young earth creationist geologist. And when he contacted other young earth creationist geologists in other oil companies, he found that none of them ever used any of the principles they learned as young earth creationists -- they were all using techniques and methods based on old earth geology.
So it works. The premises of an ancient world gives us information that, when checked, happen to be true. The premises of young earth creationism give us nothing.
-
Empiricism isn't the end all be all belief system.
No one says that it is. It is very useful to acquire knowledge about the material universe. Whenever it have been applied to the material world, it produces new information that happens to be true. But empiricism isn't so useful when one is talking about something other than the material world.
And no one claims that empiricism is going to tell us anything about the ultimate reality of things. But just because we may never know ultimate reality doesn't mean we can't know anything. The empirical methods of science to provide knowledge about how the universe operates. It may not be perfect knowledge, but it is certainly better than basing one's belief on the literal meaning of an ancient text that has been shown to be factually inaccurate.
-
So if these websites do that I would agree with you that they are wrong.
Why the "if"? Check out the websites and read their books. They are wrong because they fail according to their own standards. They are irrational. And that is why the "debate" between creationists and evolutionists can't be resolved -- it's because one side is irrational.
And at all times keep this in mind: creationists do not really believe that the past is ultimately unknowable. They actually believe that they know the past. This is what makes them creationists: they really believe that they know that Genesis is literal history. And they really believe that common sense and logic applied to empirical observation proves that they are correct. Ultimately, that is what makes them wrong. When they make factual claims about what has been empirically observed, they are often wrong. And when they apply their "common sense and logic" to the empirical observation they usually commit egregious fallacies. They are wrong by the very standards they themselves try to apply.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Some typos. Made some changes for clarity.

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Aven, posted 11-11-2007 12:09 AM Aven has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 98 (433626)
11-12-2007 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Aven
11-11-2007 12:29 AM


Re: Religion or Creationism?
Aven (emph. added) writes:
Lol they didn't man, I'm still more comfortable with science than religion.
Nope. Looks like they really did win. Pity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Aven, posted 11-11-2007 12:29 AM Aven has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024