Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-21-2019 6:14 AM
15 online now:
(15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,955 Year: 4,992/19,786 Month: 1,114/873 Week: 10/460 Day: 10/91 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
24NextFF
Author Topic:   Key points of Evolution
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.1


Message 181 of 356 (465629)
05-08-2008 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Wumpini
05-08-2008 5:37 PM


Re: God as the Root Assumption
Maybe that would solve this entire controversy. We should allow those who want to make God the root assumption the freedom to do so.

Well, they are free to do so. They do do so. This has not noticeably reduced the controversy.

Those who choose otherwise can give God a value of zero ...

Or they can try to arrive at the existence of God as a conclusion based on evidence.

45% of Scientists also have included God's involvement in the creation as their root assumption.

In the first place, I bet you more of them would say that it is a conclusion, not an assumption, and in the second place, qua scientists, this is not an assumption they use, otherwise theists and atheists would come to different conclusions about science. The belief in God does not imply anything about chemistry or physics or biology.

You see God could have done it however he wanted to.

That's the thing about omnipotence, and this is why the hypothesis that God exists has no implications whatsoever for science, and is not scientifically testable.

However, the omnipotence of God does not prevent us from finding out what did actually happen. The notion that God has infested my house with a plague of frogs is consistent with the existence of God. The notion that God has not infested my house with a plague of frogs is also consistent with the existence of God. However, only one of these hypotheses is consistent with the absence of frogs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Wumpini, posted 05-08-2008 5:37 PM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Wumpini, posted 05-08-2008 8:02 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 3870 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 182 of 356 (465632)
05-08-2008 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Rahvin
05-08-2008 6:04 PM


Objective vs Subjective Reality
Rahvin writes:

The evidence is overwhealming.

It does not seem to be as simple as you are making it out to be. If the evidence is so overwhelming, then why do the majority of the people in the United States of America prefer Creation over Evolution. In the most advanced and powerful country in the world, only 18% of the population last year said that evolution was definitely true. That means 82% of the population in America has doubts about evolution. That is significant. And, that indicates to me that the evidence cannot be as overwhelming as this website is making it out to be.

Rahvin writes:

The only people who do not accept evolution are those who are ignorant of what it actually means, or override objective reasoning with subjective religious beliefs.

Based upon this statement, most of the American population is either ignorant, or not objective. I can assure you that the number is even more swayed toward creation in the area of the world where I live. Why is that? In the 21st century, is man so entrapped by ancient mythical beliefs that they cannot think rationally and objectively?

Or, is it possible that those who are trying to narrow life down to an objective reality are missing something? Most of the world believes that there is a reality beyond the objective evidence that the world of science sees. It is only a small minority in the world that takes the position that what we see objectively is all that exists. Is it possible that to find the truth we must combine the two? Must we take into account both objective and subjective reality?

Rahvin writes:

But that's jsut it: relating evidence to God as Creator invokes the Biblical story of Creation. You've been making Creationist arguments this whole time, Wumpini, like the "distant stars' light created en route" argument.

I have intentionally avoided creationist websites while I have discussed various topics on this forum. I have actually spent most of my time following links that have been given me here, such as talk origins. The arguments and the theories are my own based upon my examination of the evidence and an attempt to reconcile that evidence to a Creator. If it appears that I am making creationist arguments, then it is because I believe in a Creator.

Rahvin writes:

If you continue to look into this objectively, and perhaps ask for a brief summary of what the Theory of Evolution actually states, you'll be swayed.

I think we both need to look into this further. I know you are convinced, but there is always that possibility that you may be missing something. It is possible that there is a subjective reality that is even more real than the objective reality that science depends so much upon.


"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Rahvin, posted 05-08-2008 6:04 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2008 9:53 PM Wumpini has responded

  
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 3870 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 183 of 356 (465636)
05-08-2008 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Dr Adequate
05-08-2008 6:16 PM


Omnipotence of God
DA writes:

That's the thing about omnipotence, and this is why the hypothesis that God exists has no implications whatsoever for science, and is not scientifically testable.

I agree that the existence of God is not scientifically testable. I also agree that the existence of God has no affect on scientific theories. However, it appears that the existence of God has some implication for science. See below.

DA writes:

However, the omnipotence of God does not prevent us from finding out what did actually happen.

It appears to me that if God used supernatural power then that means your observations would be misinterpreted.

For example:

If you observed five thousand people being fed fishes and loaves then scientifically you would conclude that they could
not have started with only a few fishes and loaves. (Jesus feeds five thousand people with a few loaves and fishes.)

If you observed a man named Lazarus walking around, then scientifically you would conclude that the man had not been dead for the last four days, and had not been decomposing earlier in the day. (Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.)

If you observed a man walking on the ocean, then scientifically you would conclude that something was holding Him up besides water. (Jesus walks on water.)

Do you see how a supernatural event could affect your observations?


"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2008 6:16 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2008 10:05 PM Wumpini has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.1


Message 184 of 356 (465645)
05-08-2008 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Wumpini
05-08-2008 7:28 PM


Re: Objective vs Subjective Reality
It does not seem to be as simple as you are making it out to be. If the evidence is so overwhelming, then why do the majority of the people in the United States of America prefer Creation over Evolution.

Because they haven't looked at the overwhelming evidence.

Scientists, on the other hand, have.

Based upon this statement, most of the American population is either ignorant, or not objective.

Or both, and wilfully misinformed to boot.

Look, here's a poll showing that 49% of people think that antibiotics are effective against colds and 'flu. And this is without being deluged with propaganda saying that if they don't believe this then they're bad people who'll go to Hell.

In the 21st century, is man so entrapped by ancient mythical beliefs that they cannot think rationally and objectively?

Apparently some of them are, yes.

Must we take into account both objective and subjective reality?

What do we do when objective reality conflicts with subjective reality?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Wumpini, posted 05-08-2008 7:28 PM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 5:27 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.1


Message 185 of 356 (465646)
05-08-2008 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Wumpini
05-08-2008 8:02 PM


Re: Omnipotence of God
If you observed five thousand people being fed fishes and loaves then scientifically you would conclude that they could
not have started with only a few fishes and loaves. (Jesus feeds five thousand people with a few loaves and fishes.)

If you observed a man named Lazarus walking around, then scientifically you would conclude that the man had not been dead for the last four days, and had not been decomposing earlier in the day. (Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.)

If you observed a man walking on the ocean, then scientifically you would conclude that something was holding Him up besides water. (Jesus walks on water.)

Well, what I should also need is equally solid evidence that they really did just start off with a few loaves and fishes; that Lazarus really was decomposing; and that nothing was supporting Jesus. At that point, the fact that the multiplication of loaves and fishes, the resurection of Lazarus, and Jesus walking on water are impossible according to the laws discovered by scientists would convince me that these were actually miracles.

Without such evidence, I would indeed take the evidence of, for example, a perfectly healthy living human being, as evidence that he was also alive the previous day. So would you. A natural explanation must always be our default position, whether or not we're theists.

Now in the case of evolution versus creationism, I find no evidence for fiat creationism or Noah's Flood or what-have-you, but plenty of evidence for a naturalistic explanation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Wumpini, posted 05-08-2008 8:02 PM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 5:50 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 3870 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 186 of 356 (465676)
05-09-2008 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Dr Adequate
05-08-2008 9:53 PM


Objective vs Subjective Reality
I am not trying to be difficult, but it is not as simple as some are trying to make it seem. It is like "groupthink." It appears that many scientists have went into this little room and agreed that this is the position and these are the answers to every question, no matter what the evidence.

DA writes:

Because they haven't looked at the overwhelming evidence.

Scientists, on the other hand, have.

However, you are forgetting that 45% of scientists have looked at the overwhelming evidence, and come to the conclusion that God exists. If my understanding is correct then all of them believe that God is behind man's creation. They differ in what means God used to achieve this feat. Over 10% of these scientists believe that God created man fully formed around 10,000 years ago. If the evidence is so overwhelming then how can so many scientists, who should know the evidence, believe as they do. When almost half of all scientists hold personal beliefs such as these, then it makes me wonder about what I am being told. What evidence do they have that contradicts what you believe? It also makes me be very cautious when someone tries to make the issue as clear-cut as many do.

DA writes:

Look, here's a poll showing that 49% of people think that antibiotics are effective against colds and 'flu. And this is without being deluged with propaganda saying that if they don't believe this then they're bad people who'll go to Hell.

And who do you think is responsible for this problem. We have physicians who appear to be divided on this issue. They should have been trained in science. It is the physician who prescribes these drugs even though they should know that they are ineffective and overused. Why don't they tell the patients the truth?

Here is a quote from the article where the poll that was taken:

quote:
It is believed that when patients ask their physicians for antibiotics, even for illnesses for which antibiotics are ineffective, many physicians prescribe them.

My question would be, Why?

Wumpini writes:

In the 21st century, is man so entrapped by ancient mythical beliefs that they cannot think rationally and objectively?

DA writes:

Apparently some of them are, yes.

Are you including the 45% of scientists? Or, are you saying that those who believe in God can also think rationally and objectively?

Wumpini writes:

Must we take into account both objective and subjective reality?

DA writes:

What do we do when objective reality conflicts with subjective reality?

As a scientist, I believe that you know the answer to that question. God does not perform supernatural acts to confuse scientists, and to convince them that they must disregard the naturalistic theories that they have established. We are told that the reason Jesus performed miracles is so we would believe that He is who He claimed to be. God intends for science to search out these naturalistic explanations. However, God never intended that He be discounted to a position of nonexistence. According to this forum, 40% of scientists have been able to reconcile their religious beliefs to the objective reality of science. It appears that when they encounter supernatural acts (miracles) they are able to place these in a separate category, and they do not affect their scientific objectiveness.

I don't know if you are familiar with Plato. If I understand some of his teachings, he proposed that those things in the physical world that you can see and touch were not reality. It was his idea that until you could move beyond the objective world, you were blind. Everything that you see until you can break free from this physical existence is only a shadow of reality. He suggests that those who are trapped are mistaking the things they see in the physical world as reality when in actuality they are only illusions. Is it possible that science by denying the existence of a reality beyond the physical world is hampering their ability to find the ultimate truth?

We can accept that both exist. We can accept that there is an existence and concepts that go beyond the physical world. That does not mean that we walk around in a state of psychosis. We believe and understand the objective world around us, with the knowledge that there is a deeper reality that underlies what we are seeing.

Jesus Christ was crucified. Many people witnessed this fact. After He was raised from the dead over 500 people witnessed that he was alive. It seems that all of Jesus' apostles, except one, were put to death for teaching the fact of his death and resurrection. We have many eyewitnesses to this event (objective evidence). This was not a natural event that could be explained by science.

My point is there is a lot more evidence for the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ than there is for many of the scientific theories that are in existence today regarding physical origins. When you begin talking about primordial soup, and astronomical odds resulting in the origin of life then it may be time to begin looking into the other reality that is being ignored by much of the scientific world.


"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2008 9:53 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Wounded King, posted 05-09-2008 5:47 AM Wumpini has responded
 Message 196 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-09-2008 8:29 AM Wumpini has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2201 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 187 of 356 (465677)
05-09-2008 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Wumpini
05-09-2008 5:27 AM


Re: Objective vs Subjective Reality
What evidence do they have that contradicts what you believe?

What makes you assume they have evidence? Have you never encountered people who hold on to beliefs in spite of evidence to the contrary? They may be scientists who work in fields totally unrelated to evolution and therefore have had no exposure to the evidence.

quote:
It is believed that when patients ask their physicians for antibiotics, even for illnesses for which antibiotics are ineffective, many physicians prescribe them.
My question would be, Why?

For an easy life? As a form of placebo?

We have many eyewitnesses to this event (objective evidence).

Really, are you sure thats what you mean? At best we might have some nth generational copies of old written down eyewitness accounts, I doubt that any actual eyewitnesses to that event are going to be in much of a state to testify. And what evidence do you have that these 'accounts' are objective?

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 5:27 AM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 6:27 AM Wounded King has responded

  
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 3870 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 188 of 356 (465678)
05-09-2008 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Dr Adequate
05-08-2008 10:05 PM


What is Solid Evidence?
DA writes:

Well, what I should also need is equally solid evidence that they really did just start off with a few loaves and fishes; that Lazarus really was decomposing; and that nothing was supporting Jesus. At that point, the fact that the multiplication of loaves and fishes, the resurection of Lazarus, and Jesus walking on water are impossible according to the laws discovered by scientists would convince me that these were actually miracles.

Is eyewitness testimony solid evidence? That seems to be a lot better evidence then we have for the origin of life and the origin of the universe.

DA writes:

Without such evidence, I would indeed take the evidence of, for example, a perfectly healthy living human being, as evidence that he was also alive the previous day. So would you. A natural explanation must always be our default position, whether or not we're theists.

As I said, I do not walk around in a state of psychosis. Actually if I was psychotic, that is what I would say isn't it?

DA writes:

Now in the case of evolution versus creationism, I find no evidence for fiat creationism or Noah's Flood or what-have-you, but plenty of evidence for a naturalistic explanation.

Is that a hyperbole when you say that you "find no evidence for ... what-have-you?"


"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2008 10:05 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Vacate, posted 05-09-2008 6:34 AM Wumpini has responded
 Message 197 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-09-2008 9:05 AM Wumpini has not yet responded

  
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 3870 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 189 of 356 (465680)
05-09-2008 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Wounded King
05-09-2008 5:47 AM


Eyewitness Testimony
Wounded King writes:

What makes you assume they have evidence? Have you never encountered people who hold on to beliefs in spite of evidence to the contrary? They may be scientists who work in fields totally unrelated to evolution and therefore have had no exposure to the evidence.

They are scientists, and probably educated people, therefore they would seem to need evidence to be convinced of anything.

However, maybe you are correct. Maybe many of these scientists have limited knowledge of the evidence for evolution, and are only saying they believe in evolution because it is an accepted scientific theory. It is also possible when they encounter evidence to the contrary that it is discounted because they don't want to be seen as disregarding something that is accepted by the scientific community. That would sure change the meaning of the survey for me. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

Based on your argument, we have almost half of scientists saying that they believe God was involved in the creation of man, and stating that they believe the tool God used to achieve this feat was evolution when they may not even be knowledgeable of the evidence to support the theory of evolution.

Wumpini writes:

We have many eyewitnesses to this event (objective evidence).

Wounded King writes:

Really, are you sure thats what you mean? At best we might have some nth generational copies of old written down eyewitness accounts, I doubt that any actual eyewitnesses to that event are going to be in much of a state to testify. And what evidence do you have that these 'accounts' are objective?

So, are you saying that we should deny everything that ever happened in the history of the world if there are not eyewitnesses alive today to testify to the event?

The eyewitnesses recorded the event of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ during their lifetime. There were many other people alive at that time that could have refuted this testimony. They did not even though it would have been to their advantage!

Their eyewitness testimony lives on today, just as the eyewitness testimony of the assasination of the American president Abraham Lincoln lives on today, and the eyewitness testimony of many other historical events lives on today with no one alive to stand up in court and testify.


"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Wounded King, posted 05-09-2008 5:47 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Wounded King, posted 05-09-2008 7:06 AM Wumpini has responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2707 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 190 of 356 (465681)
05-09-2008 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Wumpini
05-09-2008 5:50 AM


Re: What is Solid Evidence?
Is eyewitness testimony solid evidence? That seems to be a lot better evidence then we have for the origin of life and the origin of the universe.

Eyewiness testimony is not good evidence. There are many studies that have been done to show how memory of events is often incorrect. When comparing the memory of a witness to evidence left at the scene... science proves to be more accurate.

Think of it like a crime scene: how many times have you heard on the news of a person being released from jail after DNA showed he/she was innocent but eyewitness testimony put them in jail?
Google = DNA evidence wrongfully convicted

Fact is our memories just aren't that good.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 5:50 AM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 7:16 AM Vacate has not yet responded

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2201 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 191 of 356 (465682)
05-09-2008 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Wumpini
05-09-2008 6:27 AM


Re: Eyewitness Testimony
They are scientists, and probably educated people, therefore they would seem to need evidence to be convinced of anything.

Thats a pretty huge assumption, for my own part I would assume most of that 40% probably believed in god before they became scientists, so they would already be convinced of his existence.

It is also possible when they encounter evidence to the contrary that it is discounted because they don't want to be seen as disregarding something that is accepted by the scientific community.

Thats a pretty huge leap there, you just magically poofed some contrary evidence out of nowhere. Do you have anything to suggest that such evidence actually exists?

So, are you saying that we should deny everything that ever happened in the history of the world if there are not eyewitnesses alive today to testify to the event?

No, I don't think you will find I did say that. Although it is worth noting that in many more recent historical events we still have original documents to draw on, what original eyewitness documents are there for the resurrection? The earliest written accounts are apparently from Paul's letters, and Paul surely wasn't an eyewitness, except of his own Damascene experience.

Their eyewitness testimony lives on today, just as the eyewitness testimony of the assasination of the American president Abraham Lincoln lives on today

We could find many examples of original newspapers reporting Lincoln's assassination the day after it occurred and original letters from the doctor who attended him. Do you really not see any difference in the standards of evidence available?

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 6:27 AM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 7:43 AM Wounded King has responded

  
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 3870 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 192 of 356 (465683)
05-09-2008 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Vacate
05-09-2008 6:34 AM


What is Solid Evidence?
Vacate writes:

Eyewiness testimony is not good evidence.

I have looked at the link, and some of the information, and I would agree that eyewitness testimony is not always the best source of evidence.

However, this situation appears to be different. First, the eyewitnesses are many, and many of them knew Jesus personally. Second, we are not talking about details, such as what kind of nails that were used, or what was said while Jesus was on the cross, or what time He was crucified. We are talking about very general ideas such as life and death.

There were many eyewitnesses that saw Jesus die on the cross, that saw Jesus buried, and then saw Jesus later on alive. Jesus spent at least six hours on the cross, and then spent 40 days on earth after His resurrection. These are very general concepts that would be difficult to misconstrue.


"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Vacate, posted 05-09-2008 6:34 AM Vacate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Shield, posted 05-09-2008 7:34 AM Wumpini has not yet responded

  
Shield
Member (Idle past 968 days)
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-29-2008


Message 193 of 356 (465684)
05-09-2008 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Wumpini
05-09-2008 7:16 AM


Re: What is Solid Evidence?
Wumpini, What eyewitness accounts are you talking about?

Link us to the texts written down by several diffrent writers claiming they saw it happen.

Is it the gospels? You do know they were written after jesus and his diciples were long gone?

You know, theres SEVERAL written eyewitness accounts of the hindu god Ganesh (A man with several arms a an elephants head) riding through indian villages on a rat/mouse. Does it make that story true?

How is that any diffrent from the bible stories?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 7:16 AM Wumpini has not yet responded

  
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 3870 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 194 of 356 (465686)
05-09-2008 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Wounded King
05-09-2008 7:06 AM


Contrary Evidence
Wumpini writes:

They are scientists, and probably educated people, therefore they would seem to need evidence to be convinced of anything.

Wounded King writes:

Thats a pretty huge assumption, for my own part I would assume most of that 40% probably believed in god before they became scientists, so they would already be convinced of his existence.

You seem to be making some pretty huge assumptions yourself. How would the question of whether these scientists' belief in God came about before or after becoming scientists have anything to do whether this belief is based upon evidence. Without any evidence how can you assume that most believed in God before they became scientists? How do we know when these scientists became convinced of the existence of God? Would the question of when their belief in evolution came about determine whether this belief was based upon evidence? If their belief in God or evolution is not based upon evidence, then what is it based upon?

Wounded King writes:

Thats a pretty huge leap there, you just magically poofed some contrary evidence out of nowhere. Do you have anything to suggest that such evidence actually exists?

You are the one that brought up contrary evidence.

quote:
What makes you assume they have evidence? Have you never encountered people who hold on to beliefs in spite of evidence to the contrary? They may be scientists who work in fields totally unrelated to evolution and therefore have had no exposure to the evidence.

I am sure that there are many scientists who believe there is contrary evidence. At least the 5% who believe in creation in the last 10,000 years must base that belief on something. I have only began to study some of this evidence, but we don't need to act like it does not exist. The only thing we can question is whether the evidence is strong enough to sway either one of us to believe in something different then we already believe.


"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Wounded King, posted 05-09-2008 7:06 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Wounded King, posted 05-09-2008 7:56 AM Wumpini has not yet responded
 Message 198 by Rahvin, posted 05-09-2008 12:29 PM Wumpini has responded
 Message 199 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-09-2008 3:56 PM Wumpini has not yet responded
 Message 216 by Blue Jay, posted 05-11-2008 11:42 PM Wumpini has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2201 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 195 of 356 (465687)
05-09-2008 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Wumpini
05-09-2008 7:43 AM


Re: Contrary Evidence
Without any evidence how can you assume that most believed in God before they became scientists?

As I said it was an assumption, but I would imagine the majority of the respondents were American, America is a predominantly Christian country and children are often brought up in their parents religion. Therefore I don't consider the assumption that most of the respondents might have been brought up to believe in god to be that large.

You are the one that brought up contrary evidence.

No I wasn't.

I am sure that there are many scientists who believe there is contrary evidence. At least the 5% who believe in creation in the last 10,000 years must base that belief on something.

So you keep saying, but there still isn't any evidence for it being scientific evidence that contradicts modern evolutionary theory. Why can't it be based on a pre-existing belief in god and the literal truth of the bible? We know that exists in a lot of people.

I have only began to study some of this evidence

so what is the contrary evidence you are studying?

but we don't need to act like it does not exist.

Why shouldn't we when you give us no reason to believe it does exist?

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 7:43 AM Wumpini has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
24NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019