Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Equating science with faith
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 136 of 326 (461188)
03-23-2008 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Beretta
03-23-2008 5:10 AM


Re: The first imperfect reproduction
But how did you get the reproducible thing together in the first place -from chemicals to reproducible thing is a bi.....g jump.
It is still chemicals. I hate to keep banging on at this point, but it's important to grasp: there's no magical living/dead divide.
If you're going to suppose this first reproducible thing, why not go the whole hog and suppose what came before. Evolutionists are not usually so reticent....this is the alternate creation story after all, you have to start at the beginning.
That's because we like to stick to this akward thing called "the facts". It makes it all terribly inconvenient for us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Beretta, posted 03-23-2008 5:10 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Beretta, posted 03-24-2008 3:48 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 137 of 326 (461201)
03-23-2008 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Beretta
03-23-2008 3:24 AM


Re: Change in allele frequencies over time
Beretta writes:
claims such as those found in the Bible that are based upon faith rather than evidence will inevitably clash with reality
Well Percy,
At least we agree that faith should not clash with reality...
Actually, we don't agree at all. What I said was that faith-based beliefs will inevitably clash with reality because they are not based upon the real world.
...-so this is actually a case of getting the log out of your own eye before you criticize my stick.
Don't worry, I won't criticize your stick. Is it a nice one, I hope?
I didn't say anything about you in particular, and didn't even comment upon whether I believe its important that people reconcile their faith-based beliefs with reality. It was a simple observation that conclusions reached in the absence of evidence, i.e., faith-based beliefs, are very likely to clash with reality.
Clashes are unavoidable when the philosophy of evolutionists (materialism)imagines that life progressed by a process of gradualism and then refuses to alter their imaginative musings despite the Cambrian explosion that clearly defies gradualism in the unbiased mind.
The topic of this thread isn't whether evolution is right or wrong, but whether scientific beliefs are based upon faith or evidence. While you may disagree with the conclusions that evolution draws from the evidence, they're still based upon evidence, not faith.
...the committed evolutionist has an answer for everything because we KNOW God didn't do it so random mutation and natural selection must be responsible.
Actually, except when responding to creationists, an evolutionist wouldn't mention God when explaining evolution. Science means building our understanding upon observations of the real world, and since God hasn't yet been observed as a real-world phenomenon he can't yet be included in those explanations.
If faith is to be converted to righteousness, evolutionists deserve the grand prize in the hereafter that doesn't exist (according to them).
It wouldn't be accurate to equate acceptance of evolution with any particular religious viewpoint. Evolutionists come from every stripe of religion and no religion.
That's a BIG log you got there Percy!
I hope we don't see many more attempts from you to make discussion personal.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Beretta, posted 03-23-2008 3:24 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Beretta, posted 03-24-2008 10:01 AM Percy has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 138 of 326 (461202)
03-23-2008 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Beretta
03-23-2008 5:10 AM


Re: The first imperfect reproduction
Hi Beretta,
We try to discourage the posting of many quick, short chat-style messages. There's a chat room for this type of style. I've placed you on a 15-minute minimum per message. You'll have to wait 15 minutes between posting one message and the next.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Beretta, posted 03-23-2008 5:10 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Beretta, posted 03-24-2008 4:13 AM Admin has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 139 of 326 (461208)
03-23-2008 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Beretta
03-23-2008 1:55 AM


Re: Change in allele frequencies over time
You can't just have a big theory with no starting point.
Actually I can. The last time I worked on my car I developed a worn valve guide theory (WVGT) without regard to any of the many theories of automobile origins (AO).
Edited by lyx2no, : left out the quote.

Kindly
******
Only claiming to not wanting to be difficult as a courtesy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Beretta, posted 03-23-2008 1:55 AM Beretta has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 140 of 326 (461209)
03-23-2008 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Beretta
03-23-2008 4:35 AM


Re: Exxonmobile (three cheers)
I’ve a broken finger at the moment so typing is a bit of a pain in the arse. The need to type less or get my finger out of my arse is indicated. Thankfully, I’ve been spared having to do either by those who've nicely answered to most of your postings.
As to my bus story, it displayed that, base on two or three disconnected observations, the patterns of this world proclaim creation. If that’s what I want it to do. Had I made a few million more observations form dozens of different disciplines and didn’t come into it with a pet theory then I might just have been forced to come to a different conclusion. But maybe I’m asking for a bit to much evidence in one case and not enough in another.
AbE: I was baking an Easter cake and had not seen post #138. This is coincidence solely having nothing to do with my proclivity to rebel in a smarty-pants sort of way.
Edited by lyx2no, : To get my head out of the way of my finger.
Edited by lyx2no, : Typo.
Edited by lyx2no, : Punc.

Kindly
******
Only claiming to not wanting to be difficult as a courtesy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Beretta, posted 03-23-2008 4:35 AM Beretta has not replied

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 141 of 326 (461235)
03-23-2008 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Beretta
03-23-2008 4:45 AM


Re: Exxonmobile
quote:
where it can be found is one thing (pattern of sedimentation)and that would be helpful but the 'when' of it is irrelevant since that is all based on uniformatarian presuppositions in any case.
How is that irrelevant? What makes uniformatarianism wrong? That has already been discussed with a resounding failure of creationists to show that it is wrong, provide any evidence of why it is wrong, and completely failing to show any evidence of a different set of natural laws. There is no reason to assume that the rates were any different.
quote:
That will be the circular reasoning thing -the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks -you don't need time to follow that -you could call it alpha, beta etc. instead of 100 million, 200 million -it would be a lot more realistic.
Your ignorance, or your deliberate dishonesty will get you warned. Fossils are partially dated from rocks, and rocks are dated on a wide variety of dating techniques. Your argument sounds straight out of AiG without any understanding of radiometric dating.
CC310: Dating fossils, dating strata
Isochron Dating

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Beretta, posted 03-23-2008 4:45 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Beretta, posted 03-24-2008 6:17 AM obvious Child has replied

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 142 of 326 (461236)
03-23-2008 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Beretta
03-23-2008 5:04 AM


Re: Miller Experiment
But it does indeed prove that the building blocks of life can arise naturally without any Divine Origin, which flies in the face of your argument. Sure it may have its flaws, but its basic premise and conclusion do refute your arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Beretta, posted 03-23-2008 5:04 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Beretta, posted 03-24-2008 10:56 AM obvious Child has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 326 (461238)
03-23-2008 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Beretta
03-23-2008 1:55 AM


No logic here.
You can't just have a big theory with no starting point.
Sure you can. In my family we have a theory: my mother's family started out in Ohio when her dad was a small boy, moved to Kansas for a few years, then moved on to Oregon. We have all sorts of evidence to back this theory up: the family legends, photographs, and there exists actual birth, death, and marriage certificates for the right names at the right times.
However, we do not know when my granddad's ancestors first came to North America. Yet not knowing when or how my ancestors came to America does not negate the evidence that we have of their journeys starting at the time they left Ohio.

There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president. -- Kurt Vonnegut

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Beretta, posted 03-23-2008 1:55 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Beretta, posted 03-24-2008 7:00 AM Chiroptera has replied

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 144 of 326 (461241)
03-23-2008 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Beretta
03-23-2008 1:55 AM


Re: Change in allele frequencies over time
quote:
Well that doesn't prevent it from being pretty obvious what they think - with all this random chance going around, God is still out of the equation. What do you imagine they say about how life originated? You can't just have a big theory with no starting point.
So? Merely because a person who accepts Theory A believes in Idea B does not equate that Theory A includes Idea B. That is a not only dishonest, but a serious flaw of thinking, if not gross negligence. You cannot honestly states that since someone believes in A and B, that A = B. Evolution clearly states is the change in allele frequencies. Things that aren't alive excluding Viruses don't have alleles. Therefore evolution cannot study anything earlier then the first life form. Secondly, evolution does not state that God is out of the question. To do so would require testable evidence of God, which does not exist. Furthermore, science cannot test the existence or non-existence of God as God is of the supernatural and out of the jurisdiction of science. Finally, you have completely and utterly failed to address which God/set of Gods we're talking about. Like many dishonest creationists, you have seem to given the argument that only ONE god exists rather then honestly include all possible Gods, many of which have no problems with Evolution and several that require it as part of their belief system.
Stop the dishonesty.
Edit: Looking through your posts, it seems that you have deliberately avoided responding to posts which bring up your massive dishonesty about multiple Gods. Perhaps you realize just how flimsy your arguments are?
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Beretta, posted 03-23-2008 1:55 AM Beretta has not replied

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 145 of 326 (461245)
03-23-2008 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Beretta
03-23-2008 4:29 AM


Re: Correction: equating Darwinian "science" with blind faith
Care to explain the contradiction for Deists? Or how about those who see Genesis as a metaphor?
Stop dishonestly trying to argue that your interpretation of Genesis and Christanity is the only interpretation and that there is only one God out there.
You do realize that there are thousands of Gods out there with a possibility of infinite Gods?
Stop the dishonesty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Beretta, posted 03-23-2008 4:29 AM Beretta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Admin, posted 03-24-2008 8:57 AM obvious Child has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 146 of 326 (461280)
03-24-2008 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Dr Jack
03-23-2008 5:56 AM


Re: The first imperfect reproduction
there's no magical living/dead divide.
Well I think there is -it's called organization.A cell is an organized assembly of micromachines that work according to a plan.
When the plan fails, you die. It is pretty magical in my estimation.
we like to stick to this awkward thing called "the facts".
I really wish that were true -unfortunately philisophical considerations make evolutionists selectively blind to whatever evidence goes against their belief system.The facts don't seem to be as important as they would have us believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Dr Jack, posted 03-23-2008 5:56 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 147 of 326 (461282)
03-24-2008 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Admin
03-23-2008 10:31 AM


Admin
Hi Percy,
would you mind altering that ruling as I can't be here regularly which is why I've been away for probably a month before the last few days. My answers are usually as long as the person who I am responding to and I'm trying to answer as much as I can in the time that I am able to be here.Unfortunately the 15 minutes prevents me even starting to answer anything for the entire 15 minutes so only after 15 minutes can I begin my next answer which makes it much longer between postings.How 'bout cutting that to five minutes -it'll be more practical for me then I can sit around for five minutes while I consider my response.
Thanks
Beretta

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Admin, posted 03-23-2008 10:31 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Admin, posted 03-24-2008 9:13 AM Beretta has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 148 of 326 (461285)
03-24-2008 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by obvious Child
03-23-2008 7:36 PM


Uniformatarianism
How is that irrelevant? What makes uniformatarianism wrong?
Uniformatarianism is based on an assumption formulated in the 18th century about how long they imagined it would take to lay down sediment based on the assumption that is only ever happened slowly at rates they could observe at that point in time.It's an extrapolation of that principle that gives the dates.
That has already been discussed with a resounding failure of creationists to show that it is wrong, provide any evidence of why it is wrong, and completely failing to show any evidence of a different set of natural laws.
Well for a start nobody is trying to find a new or different set of natural laws.
As for the rest - resounding, complete and utter, absolute rubbish, incredible stupidity....and all those sorts of words of certainty comes from reading your heroes literature rather than actually taking the time to read the opposition argument.
You may find that the opposing arguments are based on a lot of practical sense rather than the ridiculous religious references you would expect no matter how the dedicated evolutionist tries to banish any opposing argument to obscurity with their ridiculous and unsubstantiated use of the argument that anything and everything based on intelligent design or creation is REFUTED, absolutely REFUTED, absolutely and utterly REFUTED and so on and so forth....ad nauseum....
It gets really tiring -it's like you're all sucking on the universal evolutionary consciousness and there is nothing new coming out there except the old and boring stock answers.
There is no reason to assume that the rates were any different.
Neither is there any reason to randomly assume uniformatarian principles -that wipes out any possibility of a global event/s that may make that assumption null and void. There are a lot of up and coming catastrophists amongst the geologists these days -they see what the uniformatarians cannot.That's the problem with historical science you see -nobody was there, assumptions are made and those assumptions may be completely in error.
Your ignorance, or your deliberate dishonesty will get you warned.
Warned about what???Anyway thanks for allowing the possibility for ignorance here though I see later on the rather repetitive use of the word 'dishonest'. That implies intentional deceit. What would be my point? This is a serious argument not a one upmanship competition. I believe what I believe based on the evidence and so apparently do you. Don't take it too hard though, I've heard the word often on this forum which just makes me wonder about the real thoughts and intentions of the users of the word.
Your argument sounds straight out of AiG without any understanding of radiometric dating.
Oh I understand it just fine and so do a lot of scientists at AIG -you are succumbing to propoganda again -try using your own brain -you may find it inspiring.
As a matter of interest there are lots of other dating techniques apart from the radiometric ones -radiometric dating is very problematic -dates tend to be picked based on pre-existing misconceptions about what the date should be based on their pre-existing belief in the geologic column as formulated by the uniformatarians. Radiometric dating gives long ages which is why it is so popular. Methods of dating that give young dates are ignored because according to our belief system, they just can't be true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by obvious Child, posted 03-23-2008 7:36 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Chiroptera, posted 03-24-2008 6:37 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 150 by Granny Magda, posted 03-24-2008 6:39 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 159 by Admin, posted 03-24-2008 9:28 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 166 by obvious Child, posted 03-24-2008 11:31 PM Beretta has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 326 (461286)
03-24-2008 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Beretta
03-24-2008 6:17 AM


Re: Uniformatarianism
Uniformatarianism is based on an assumption formulated in the 18th century about how long they imagined it would take to lay down sediment based on the assumption that is only ever happened slowly at rates they could observe at that point in time.It's an extrapolation of that principle that gives the dates.
Actually, uniformitarianism is based on the principle that explaining what we see today in terms of processes that can be observed and studied today and making testable assumptions is better than making stuff up as you go along.

There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president. -- Kurt Vonnegut

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Beretta, posted 03-24-2008 6:17 AM Beretta has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 150 of 326 (461287)
03-24-2008 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Beretta
03-24-2008 6:17 AM


Re: Uniformatarianism
Hello again Beretta,
Uniformitarianism is not the topic here, nor is radiocarbon dating, or the fossil record or ID. The topic here is "Equating Science with Faith". It's nice to see you back, but if you can't stay on topic and you insist on dragging the conversation back to your usual "Evolution seems weird and freaky to me, therefore it's not real." shtick, I don't really see what the point in your participating might be.
If you really want to discuss the topic at hand you might do better by choosing a less contentious area of scientific endeavour to use as your example. If you want to discuss why you think evolution is wrong, there are plenty of threads available, including the ones you bailed from before.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Beretta, posted 03-24-2008 6:17 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Beretta, posted 03-24-2008 7:46 AM Granny Magda 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