Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Greater Miracle
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 76 of 199 (508041)
05-10-2009 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by GDR
05-09-2009 10:53 PM


GDR responds to me:
quote:
I agree that the type of evidence that I'm talking about isn't objective, (but the same can be said of a great deal of science for that matter).
No, it can't. That's the point. Subjective claims are not science. That isn't to say that gut feelings, intuition, etc. have no place in science. Again, they're great for getting questions asked, but they are lousy for actually answering them. You need to be able to guess and wonder and speculate in science, but all that does is help you to set up an experiment to test what you were guessing and wondering and speculating about. It is the experiment that will let you know if you had any connection to reality, not how pretty your thoughts were.
quote:
So what?
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? We should ignore the lessons we have learned about not expecting our flights of fancy to be real so that we can continue to have them, demand others conform to them, and make their lives miserable when they don't? People were MURDERED because they insisted that no, the sun does not go around the earth.
And you say, "So what?"
quote:
We keep learning new things and we change our beliefs in the face of new evidence. Learning and adjusting one's views is usually a good thing.
Nice try, but that's my argument to you. That's the way science works: Nothing is set in stone. Every conclusion, no matter how well justified, is only tentative at best and will be discarded the moment new information comes along.
But until that new information comes along, it is illogical to insist that what we think we know is wrong. While science can never prove anything right, it is actually quite good at proving things wrong. Thus, in order to make a claim that something is wrong, you need to come up with the evidence. That your personal philosophy is offended by the conclusion is not sufficient.
And when you do come up with the evidence, when you overturn the dominant paradigm and show everybody that they were wrong, they give you the Nobel Prize.
Where is your evidence?

Rrhain

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by GDR, posted 05-09-2009 10:53 PM GDR has not replied

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


Message 77 of 199 (508042)
05-10-2009 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by GDR
05-10-2009 2:19 AM


GDR writes:
quote:
If it comes from simply unguided biological mutations then why should we trust our reason.
Um...because it works? Because it is independent of the person? Because you can deny gravity all you want but jumping off a building has always lead to a great fall?
quote:
It seems to me likely that reason had to exist prior to reason coming into existence on Earth. Can I prove it sientifically?
And since you claim to agree with the concept that your personal feelings aren't sufficient to make a rational conclusion about the state of the world, what does this tell you about your "seems to me" statement?
quote:
Where do emotions come from?
Good question. What makes you think that you can come up with an answer just by thinking about it?
quote:
I think it's worth considering as evidence.
Huh? Evidence of what? All you've done is ask a question and now you think you have something beyond that? Just how arrogant are you?
quote:
You can draw your conclusions and I'll draw mine.
And you are entitled to your conclusion.
You are not entitled to your facts, however. When the facts contradict your conclusion, there is no justification for it and the only logical response is to reject it.
You're allowed to be illogical. And other's are allowed to call you out on it.

Rrhain

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by GDR, posted 05-10-2009 2:19 AM GDR has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 78 of 199 (508052)
05-10-2009 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by GDR
05-09-2009 10:53 PM


GDR writes:
I agree that the type of evidence that I'm talking about isn't objective, (but the same can be said of a great deal of science for that matter).
You are mistaken if you believe there is any resemblance between your type of evidence and scientifically valid evidence. You have no reliable methods for establishing the correspondence between your type of evidence and the real world. That's why you can say things like, "You can draw your conclusions and I'll draw mine," and not see the irony. Not only will Rrhain draw different conclusions from you, so will those just like you who also accept subjective approaches to evidence.
Your approach leads to no consensus, and it is only through consensus (many people perceiving the same thing the same way) that our knowledge of the real world becomes reliable. Or stating it another way, knowledge is unreliable and can't be shared when everyone creates their own "truth," which is the approach you endorsed with your "You can draw your conclusions and I'll draw mine" statement.
Your approach isn't just you and Rrhain drawing different conclusions, but everyone drawing different conclusions. It's interesting if you can have confidence in conclusions that only you accept, but no one else could have confidence in your supposed knowledge. This is the lack that science remedies.
That's why Rrhain uses the example of falling off a building. The "truth" that you will fall is an actual for-real truth, because it is true for everyone. But a statement like, "Reason had to come from somewhere," is not a truth because there's no consensus around it, and there isn't even a hint of any effort to formulate the statement in an objective way where you could be sure everyone is making the same interpretation.
There are probably few phenomena which cannot be approached both scientifically and subjectively. You can ask, "What is love?", and the scientific answer could examine brain responses to thoughts of loved ones, while the subjective answer could describe feelings of love. But the scientific answer would be objective and reliable because any scientist with suitable equipment could make the same measurements of brain response and there could be no disagreement, while a subjective discussion of the nature of love would never end and certainly never result in consensus.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by GDR, posted 05-09-2009 10:53 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by GDR, posted 05-10-2009 10:16 AM Percy has replied

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


Message 79 of 199 (508064)
05-10-2009 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Percy
05-10-2009 7:45 AM


Percy writes:
You are mistaken if you believe there is any resemblance between your type of evidence and scientifically valid evidence. You have no reliable methods for establishing the correspondence between your type of evidence and the real world. That's why you can say things like, "You can draw your conclusions and I'll draw mine," and not see the irony. Not only will Rrhain draw different conclusions from you, so will those just like you who also accept subjective approaches to evidence.
Scientists often believe or disbelieve theories in the scientific world, just as Einstein initially rejected a great deal of QM based on his view of things. I was an agnostic until I changed my views based on philosophical and theological evidence. Since accepting the Christian faith, I have changed my views on many aspects of the faith. The evolutionary process is either a designed process or completely materialistic. Science can't determine which it is. Science assumes, (quite rightly), that the process is strictly a natural process. As to whether it is a creative process or not is subjective so as I say, "you can draw your conclusions and I'll draw mine".
Percy writes:
Your approach leads to no consensus, and it is only through consensus (many people perceiving the same thing the same way) that our knowledge of the real world becomes reliable. Or stating it another way, knowledge is unreliable and can't be shared when everyone creates their own "truth," which is the approach you endorsed with your "You can draw your conclusions and I'll draw mine" statement.
I'm not the only Christian let alone the only Theist around. Of course my views are largely formed through discussion and consensus with others. I have no doubt that there are things that I believe that are wrong. (The trouble is, I don't know which things those are.) Over time my views will likely be modified again. (When I get to the next life, I'm definitely going to all the lectures. ) In the meantime, Christianity makes more sense to me of the world, spiritually, philosophically, and theologically than do other forms of religion or secularism.
Percy writes:
There are probably few phenomena which cannot be approached both scientifically and subjectively. You can ask, "What is love?", and the scientific answer could examine brain responses to thoughts of loved ones, while the subjective answer could describe feelings of love. But the scientific answer would be objective and reliable because any scientist with suitable equipment could make the same measurements of brain response and there could be no disagreement, while a subjective discussion of the nature of love would never end and certainly never result in consensus.
Sure science can research the chemical reaction in the brain but it isn't telling us why that chemical reaction was triggered in the fist place.
I'm out of time. Going to church.
Edited by GDR, : missed a quote

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Percy, posted 05-10-2009 7:45 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by bluescat48, posted 05-10-2009 1:29 PM GDR has replied
 Message 81 by Rrhain, posted 05-10-2009 2:57 PM GDR has replied
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 05-10-2009 4:53 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 80 of 199 (508084)
05-10-2009 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by GDR
05-10-2009 10:16 AM


Scientists often believe or disbelieve theories in the scientific world, just as Einstein initially rejected a great deal of QM based on his view of things.
So why is this a problem? If not for skepticism, we would still be living in caves. All robust theories are incomplete. This is why scientists constantly tinker with theories, refining, redefining, corralating, investigating, rectifying etc.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by GDR, posted 05-10-2009 10:16 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by GDR, posted 05-10-2009 6:29 PM bluescat48 has not replied

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


Message 81 of 199 (508092)
05-10-2009 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by GDR
05-10-2009 10:16 AM


GDR writes:
quote:
Scientists often believe or disbelieve theories in the scientific world, just as Einstein initially rejected a great deal of QM based on his view of things.
Indeed, but this fact actually destroys your claim rather than bolstering it.
The reason why scientists reject current theories is because they have evidence to suspect those theories might be wrong. Again, their intiuition may have spurred them to question the theory, but that gut feeling is insufficient at actually answering it. You have to do experiments.
Einstein's theory of general relativity, while certainly very pretty, needed actual evidentiary justification before it could be accepted. Indeed, it described the orbit of Mercury accurately, but more was needed. An experiment would have to be designed that predicted a result that wasn't already known.
And that opportunity came with the eclipse of 1919. While Newtonian gravitational theory predicts that light would bend around the sun, general relativity predicts a different amount. With the eclipse of 1919 and the observations made of stars around the sun, it was found that the deflection matched the predictions of general relativity, not Newtonian mechanics.
Thinking it through is one thing, but it isn't enough. You have to have evidence.
Now, Einstein was asked if the results of the eclipse observations had supported Newton rather than his theory, Einstein is reported to have replied: "Then I would feel sorry for the dear Lord. The theory is correct anyway."
This insistence that thinking things through is more powerful than evidence would prove to be a major error of his. As he continued work on cosmology, he came to the conclusion that the universe needed a "cosmological constant" adjustment to account for a static universe. That is, Einstein insisted that the universe was neither expanding nor contracting. However, a universe of gravity would eventually collapse upon itself. There would need to be something counteracting that gravitational pull and the cosmological constant was the adjustment to the equations of relativity that dealt with it.
But when the red-shift of the various objects of the universe was observed, Einstein abandoned the constant. The universe is not static but is actually expanding. Thus, there is no need for a counteracting force. In his own words, he called it his "biggest blunder."
But in one of those great twists of fate, it seems that not only is the universe expanding, it is accelerating and thus the idea of a cosmological constant is being investigated again.
But note how this had progressed: Evidence trumps all. When you make assumptions and assertions, that can help you determine how you might experiment to test them, but you have to be willing to abandon them when those experiments tell you that you're wrong.
Where is your evidence? Your gut feelings are good for asking questions, but why do you insist upon keeping them when all the evidence is pointing in another direction? By what justification are you insisting that you know more than the universe?
quote:
The evolutionary process is either a designed process or completely materialistic.
Why? Why can't it be something else? Have you considered the possibility that you don't know enough about the subject to make such a statement?
quote:
I'm not the only Christian let alone the only Theist around.
But the majority of people in the world disagree with your theology. Two-thirds of them, in fact, think you're not even close and even the one-third that remains has serious misgivings about the conclusions you've drawn. With so much disconnect between people who claim to be talking about the same thing, by what evidence do we trust any of their claims about science?
quote:
In the meantime, Christianity makes more sense to me of the world, spiritually, philosophically, and theologically than do other forms of religion or secularism.
Since the overwhelming majority of the world disagrees with you, what makes you right and them wrong? Why do you think you managed to figure out what nobody else has?
Where is your evidence?

Rrhain

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by GDR, posted 05-10-2009 10:16 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by GDR, posted 05-10-2009 6:35 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 82 of 199 (508106)
05-10-2009 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by GDR
05-10-2009 10:16 AM


I think you missed the point. I was responding to this from your Message 73:
GDR in Message 73 writes:
I agree that the type of evidence that I'm talking about isn't objective, (but the same can be said of a great deal of science for that matter).
This implies that a great deal of scientific evidence isn't objective, and that is not true. In science evidence is not accepted until it has been established that it is true for everyone, which means that any qualified individual with the proper equipment can gather the same evidence. What science establishes is true applies to everyone, and whether they believe it or not makes no difference.
Your method, on the other hand, does not lead to conclusions that are true for everyone because they are personal subjective truths. It is irrelevant if there are questions science cannot answer. Such questions cannot have objective answers, but that doesn't mean that you should switch to subjective approaches to get your objective answers. That won't work either. If science cannot produce an objective answer, then nothing can.
Your Einstein example was mistaken. This is off-topic so I'll be brief. Einstein accepted the evidence of QM. What he rejected was some of the implications of the theory, for example, what he called "spooky action at a distance" when referring to entanglement. He didn't deny evidence, he just believed QM to be an incomplete theory, that we'd eventually uncover hidden variables that would render the behavior of entangled particles deterministic, and he certainly never "initially rejected a great deal of QM."
I think the issue you were actually trying to raise when you mentioned Einstein is the fact that there is much in science that lacks a consensus, and of course that is true. A consensus cannot develop until sufficient objective evidence is gathered and interpreted.
Sure science can research the chemical reaction in the brain but it isn't telling us why that chemical reaction was triggered in the fist place.
Uh, yes, that's what I said. I'm getting the feeling you didn't really follow most of what I said.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by GDR, posted 05-10-2009 10:16 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by GDR, posted 05-10-2009 7:10 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 83 of 199 (508111)
05-10-2009 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by bluescat48
05-10-2009 1:29 PM


bluescat48 writes:
So why is this a problem? If not for skepticism, we would still be living in caves. All robust theories are incomplete. This is why scientists constantly tinker with theories, refining, redefining, corralating, investigating, rectifying etc.
I agree. I never suggested it was a problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by bluescat48, posted 05-10-2009 1:29 PM bluescat48 has not replied

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


Message 84 of 199 (508113)
05-10-2009 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Rrhain
05-10-2009 2:57 PM


Rrhain writes:
Thinking it through is one thing, but it isn't enough. You have to have evidence.
But we seem to disagree on the nature of evidence. We would agree on evidence that is scientific but you reject what I consider to be evidence that is philosphical or theological.
Rrhain writes:
But note how this had progressed: Evidence trumps all. When you make assumptions and assertions, that can help you determine how you might experiment to test them, but you have to be willing to abandon them when those experiments tell you that you're wrong.
Where is your evidence? Your gut feelings are good for asking questions, but why do you insist upon keeping them when all the evidence is pointing in another direction? By what justification are you insisting that you know more than the universe?
I agree that I'll accept evidence when experiments tell me I'm wrong as per your first paragraph. I'm curious to know what you consider evidence that points in another direction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Rrhain, posted 05-10-2009 2:57 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Rrhain, posted 05-10-2009 9:10 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 85 of 199 (508121)
05-10-2009 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Percy
05-10-2009 4:53 PM


GDR writes:
I agree that the type of evidence that I'm talking about isn't objective, (but the same can be said of a great deal of science for that matter).
Percy writes:
This implies that a great deal of scientific evidence isn't objective, and that is not true. In science evidence is not accepted until it has been established that it is true for everyone, which means that any qualified individual with the proper equipment can gather the same evidence. What science establishes is true applies to everyone, and whether they believe it or not makes no difference.
Your method, on the other hand, does not lead to conclusions that are true for everyone because they are personal subjective truths. It is irrelevant if there are questions science cannot answer. Such questions cannot have objective answers, but that doesn't mean that you should switch to subjective approaches to get your objective answers. That won't work either. If science cannot produce an objective answer, then nothing can.
I agree that I wrote that poorly. My intent was to point out that scientific theory is often subjective. Scientific evidence is objective although the analysis of the evidence could well be subjective.
Percy writes:
I think the issue you were actually trying to raise when you mentioned Einstein is the fact that there is much in science that lacks a consensus, and of course that is true. A consensus cannot develop until sufficient objective evidence is gathered and interpreted.
I agree
GDR writes:
Sure science can research the chemical reaction in the brain but it isn't telling us why that chemical reaction was triggered in the fist place.
Percy writes:
Uh, yes, that's what I said. I'm getting the feeling you didn't really follow most of what I said.
Sorry. I shouldn't reply when I'm short of time. Essentially then we agree on this point. I'd add though that just because we can come to a subjective conclusion even though we know that objectively we can't be sure.
We all have a world view. That world view is based on faith, whether it be Atheism, Christianity, Islam, Wiccan or whatever else we choose. We live our lives in the knowledge that our world view cannot be tested objectively. We all have a world view that in the end is subjective. As I said before in quoting Bob Dylan, you've got to serve somebody. I choose to serve God as represented by Jesus Christ and the Christian faith. In my opinion my particular faith makes sense of the world historically, philosophically, scientifically and experientially more than anything else I've encountered, but again,I agree that my point of view is subjective but so is everyone else's point of view in this regard.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 05-10-2009 4:53 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Rrhain, posted 05-10-2009 9:51 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 89 by Coyote, posted 05-10-2009 10:12 PM GDR has replied
 Message 96 by Percy, posted 05-11-2009 8:57 AM GDR has replied

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


Message 86 of 199 (508139)
05-10-2009 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by GDR
05-10-2009 6:35 PM


GDR responds to me:
quote:
But we seem to disagree on the nature of evidence.
Indeed. You seem to think that wishing makes it so while I claim that you need to show it to me. Your word isn't good enough. If it's really there, if it is truly something that isn't just a fantasy that you made up, then everybody else should be able to do it.
quote:
We would agree on evidence that is scientific but you reject what I consider to be evidence that is philosphical or theological.
Because it isn't consistent. This isn't to say that philosophy or theology don't exist. It's simply that it is what you make it to be. There are too many people with wildly differing philosophies and theologies to be able to claim that any one of them has a lock on it. This isn't to say that they are internally inconsistent. It's that the justification for them comes from internal assertion, which is not logical.
It may be good enough for you, but that is not sufficient to claim it is good enough for anybody else. Where is your equivalent of jumping off a building and always plummeting to the earth? Do you really think that if you thought hard enough, you'd stay afloat? That all you have to do is make like Arthur Dent, throw yourself at the ground, and miss?
quote:
I'm curious to know what you consider evidence that points in another direction.
Hie thee to a natural history museum and see it for yourself. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Rrhain

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by GDR, posted 05-10-2009 6:35 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by GDR, posted 05-10-2009 9:58 PM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 87 of 199 (508145)
05-10-2009 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by GDR
05-10-2009 7:10 PM


GDR writes:
quote:
My intent was to point out that scientific theory is often subjective.
No. No, it isn't. If it were subjective, it wouldn't be science. It cannot be theory if it is based upon subjectivity. That's the entire point behind theory: It exists to explain facts. You cannot have a theory unless you have a fact to base it upon. The thoughts inside your head are not facts, they are speculations. If all you have is a guess, then what you have is an untested hypothesis, not a theory.
quote:
Scientific evidence is objective although the analysis of the evidence could well be subjective.
Indeed, the analysis can be subjective...but then it isn't science anymore.
quote:
We all have a world view.
But reality doesn't care about your world view. Ooh! We're back to the question nobody ever answers!
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
Now, it's true that science is carried out by humans and since humans have agendas and biases and prejudices, those failures will always cloud our results, but one of the great things about science is that it is a self-correcting process: You put your results out for the world to see so that people who are very different from you, who have different world views, can try to replicate your results. If we find that the results are the same despite our differing opinions, then we can be more confident that we're onto something real.
But that requires that there be something external and independent of our view of the world. If the universe conforms itself to our opinions of how it should be, then there is no objectivity and all we have to do is wish hard enough and it will be real.
So tell us: Is there anything that happens on its own?
quote:
That world view is based on faith, whether it be Atheism
Wait just a parboiled second.
You do realize that "faith" and "atheism" are mutually exclusive, yes? This is going to be a major sticking point, so please tread carefully. The entire point behind atheism is that you don't have faith. To claim that atheism has "faith" defeats the entire purpose and you've just insulted all atheists by claiming that they don't really understand their own philosophy.
Please do not presume that you have the ability to tell an atheist that he or she is really just a theist who denies it.
quote:
We all have a world view that in the end is subjective.
In the sense that the only way we can perceive the world in any way is through the interpretations made by our minds of signals received from our senses, yes. But this doesn't mean what you think it means. Let us not wander into Cartesian Doubt.
Is there an external world to examine? I really want to know the answer to that question. I do not ask it for my health. It is not rhetorical.
quote:
As I said before in quoting Bob Dylan, you've got to serve somebody.
Why? Just because you can't conceive of it doesn't mean nobody else can.
quote:
In my opinion my particular faith makes sense of the world historically, philosophically, scientifically and experientially more than anything else I've encountered
So why does the vast majority of the world disagree with you? If your explanations were so accurate and valid, don't you think it would be a bigger consensus?
quote:
I agree that my point of view is subjective but so is everyone else's point of view in this regard.
The difference is that nobody here is trying to claim that their subjective view of the world is anything other than their subjective view. You're the one claiming that your subjectivity is objectively justifiable.

Rrhain

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by GDR, posted 05-10-2009 7:10 PM GDR has not replied

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


Message 88 of 199 (508146)
05-10-2009 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Rrhain
05-10-2009 9:10 PM


Rrhain writes:
Hie thee to a natural history museum and see it for yourself. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat it. I have no problem with evolution. I have zero background in bilology so I'm not qualified to argue for or against it, but the vast majority of prople who are qualified support the theory of evovlution which is good enough for me. I'll accept that I'm a theistic evolutionist with the proviso that I'm not saying that based on a personal knowledge of the biological foundation for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Rrhain, posted 05-10-2009 9:10 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Rrhain, posted 05-10-2009 10:15 PM GDR has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 89 of 199 (508148)
05-10-2009 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by GDR
05-10-2009 7:10 PM


World view
We all have a world view. That world view is based on faith, whether it be Atheism, Christianity, Islam, Wiccan or whatever else we choose. We live our lives in the knowledge that our world view cannot be tested objectively. We all have a world view that in the end is subjective.
That would be false.
Your idea of a world view is influenced by your religious beliefs so that you assume everyone else's world view is based on such beliefs. This is not the case.
You should not assume everyone else shares the same mode of world view that you do. For many, their world view is based on verifiable evidence. This is exactly the opposite of a world view based on religion.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by GDR, posted 05-10-2009 7:10 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by GDR, posted 05-11-2009 12:44 AM Coyote has replied

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


Message 90 of 199 (508150)
05-10-2009 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by GDR
05-10-2009 9:58 PM


GDR responds to me:
quote:
I have zero background in bilology so I'm not qualified to argue for or against it, but the vast majority of prople who are qualified support the theory of evovlution which is good enough for me.
I understand the practicality of having to accept expert opinion on things for which we simply do not have the time, equipment, money, or inclination to investigate for ourselves. Nobody can be an expert on everything, after all.
But the question is why you are seeking to make an exception for other areas. Nobody is questioning your faith in god. The question is why you seem to want to ascribe to god things which seem to be capable of happening on their own.

Rrhain

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by GDR, posted 05-10-2009 9:58 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by GDR, posted 05-11-2009 12:50 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024