Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-25-2019 4:43 PM
34 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,734 Year: 9,770/19,786 Month: 2,192/2,119 Week: 228/724 Day: 67/93 Hour: 5/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Personal Philosophy
IAmMe77777
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 15 (550775)
03-18-2010 5:39 AM


My personal philosophy: A is A. The thing is what it is, nothing more, nothing less. I know some of you reading this may think that statement a bit too obvious for a personal philosophy but itís the foundation of my personal beliefs. It means there is an objective reality that can be perceived by man and man should draw conclusions from its observations. A spade is a spade, a sot is a sot, and a farce is a farce. This by no means makes me an empiricist. I just think man should not ignore what observing the nature world has given humanity. It is the core of scientific testing and it is the reason I can type these rambling thoughts. The proof of the value of observation can be found in pudding. Not only are there 54 amazing flavors to choose from, but it is kept in a magic box that never gets warm.

But A is A does not explain the whole of my philosophy for A is A does not explain how something came from nothing. One could argue that the universe is simply because it is. It exists because it has always existed. And in truth, this is a valid argument. As long as there has been time, and therefore space, the universe has existed. But what is time but an agreed upon measure of observed changes? If there is a timeline of the changes in the universe, then what happens at the beginning of time? I certainly subscribe to the big bang theory of creation. At one point the primordial forces of the universe where unified and proceeded to explode out into expanse that is the universe as we know it. But I posit to you that this almost universal understanding of how the universe was made is not a theory of creation. It is a theory of how creation progressed, not the act of creation itself. A is A, and therefore science, cannot explain the act of creation because it is principle of observation. And the act of observation implies an observer which had yet to be created. In other words, science cannot explain creation because it was created in the act of creation. Something cannot come from nothing (in other words A is not B). Thankfully, nothing has never existed. If it did, then it would be all that exists. And the very absence of nothing, is the observation I use to make a leap of faith.

You see to me, science and faith are one. They are not mutually exclusive. Science should lead to faith, and faith should lead to science. Science cannot explain the important question of life: Why? And faith cannot explain the important question of life: How? One could argue that science explains the question of why with the simple fact that man is a biological organism. We are life and life exists for the same reason all other life exists Ė to create more life. And certainly faith can offer an explanation for the question of how. The world works the way it works because God ordained it. But both of these explanations are hollow.

To say man is nothing more than an animal and biological organism is to deny empirical evidence to the contrary. For evidence, I offer the fact of Man ceasing to evolve. Yes, thatís right, humans are not evolving. While certain traits have become more prevalent species-wide (ie, height), we have effectively stopped evolving. We have stopped evolution in two ways. First, we no longer practice random mating which is a prerequisite for natural selection. And second, we have stopped natural selection completely. The fittest are not the only individuals that survive and produce the most offspring. In our world of plenty, the least fit individuals piggy back on the world created by the strong and reproduce the most. Our lack of evolution is proof of our elevation above animal status.

And faith is just as guilty of shallowness as science. To put your blind faith into a book written thousands of years ago ignores your own reason. If you think the earth is only a few thousand years old I pity you. You are refusing to use your own God given eyes. To doubt that the earth is millions of years old should also lead you to doubt that cell phone in your pocket. The science that allows you to speak to your grandmother in Florida while you are in Maine is the same science that dates the earth as millions of years old. You cannot accept the benefits of science while denying its observations. If you accept the biblical account of creation then you should be living in same society described in the bible. No electricity, no use of fossil fuels, and no life saving antiseptics. Feel free to take your faith to its logical end - perhaps we can restart evolution with your demises.
As explained earlier, the simple observation that something cannot come from nothing should be the logical springboard for a belief in God in any human person. But how should faith lead one to science? I opine that faith is an essential part of science. Perhaps not a faith in God, but faith nonetheless. Isn't the first step of the scientific method creating a thesis? And isn't a thesis defined as an educated guess about the outcome of an experinment? A sceintist obsevers from past experience and says "I think this will occur." The problem with this model of knowledge aquisition is that the past does not guruntee the future for the very simple fact that the future is undefined. Anything can happen. And by anything, I literally mean anything. You could sprout wings. The floor you are standing on could become pourus. That carrot in your fridge could speak to you the next time you open the door. It is possible simply because it has not occured yet. I argue that any guess, even an educated one, is a leap of faith simply because the future is uncertain. Therefore the scientific method itself is based upon some form of faith, even if it is only that things will occur in the future as they did in the past.
I opine that with a combined faith/science model the questions of how and why can be answered. The question of how is the easier of the two. How did the universe come to exists? Via the big bang of course, we know this through science. We know this because of the utility of science. We know this because I can fly on a jumbo jet while surfing the interent at over 500 miles per hous. The benefits of science prove its truth. The question of why, however, is a much harder question. I am content to say that it is a question that must be answered by each indiviual. This is the fortune cookie's answer to life's great mystery. But it is the truth of the matter.
Let's do a little role play. Say you are God. You are all powerful. You are all knowing. And you are all loving. You are the true, the good, and the beautiful. Why would you create the universe? I realize many could be reluctant to put themselves in the shoes of God as some sort of blasphamy, but each of us is said to be made in God's own image - complete with reason. So I ask you to use that reason and consider why you would create something inferior to yourself. Some say it is out of love and others say out of a need to be loved by worhsipers. I say both of these explinations are inadequate. You are the supreme being. The end all, be all. Why would you care about anything else? There is nothing greater than yourself, so how could anything else warrent your atteantion? This is what is called the philosopher's God. It is God, but it is a God that only ponders its own devine essece - as nothing else is worthy of its attention. It is with this idea of God that I offer the Why of human existance: We are God.
We ARE God.
I know, I am crazy. But hear me out. Socrates once said "The unexamined life is not worth living." And he was right. How many people in your daily life do you encounter who seem to have no capacity to think of life on a higher level than a day at a time? No reason to live other than thier own personal comfort? They think nothing is greater than themselves and it shows in thier unhappiness. What I argue is that God created us, created the universe, to better ponder his own existence. To better explain why does something exist rather than nothing. What is better, one head or two? What is better, one God, or countless trillions of beings capable of indepentdent thought to discover thier own reasons for existence? True, God is all powerful and all knowing, but god exists to ponder God's own existence. Is there a better way to ponder a question than a think tank of literally billions of minds concerned with the same problem?

How could he love that which he had yet to create? I know, I know, he is God he can do anything he wants, blah, blah, blah. But love is a reciprocal relationship. If love is unrequited, it isn't love - its an obesstion. It is something twisted and vile, not a thing of beauty. So, logically, wouldn't God have to create us before he loved us for it to be true love? He would have to make something and wait to see the results. He would have to gamble to see if we loved him, which could explain the state of the world. It's an experiment.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 03-18-2010 1:01 PM IAmMe77777 has not yet responded
 Message 4 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2010 1:13 PM IAmMe77777 has not yet responded
 Message 5 by anglagard, posted 03-18-2010 11:00 PM IAmMe77777 has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Taq, posted 03-19-2010 12:41 PM IAmMe77777 has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Stagamancer, posted 03-19-2010 8:32 PM IAmMe77777 has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Stile, posted 03-21-2010 11:15 AM IAmMe77777 has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12602
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 2 of 15 (550782)
03-18-2010 9:11 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Personal Philosophy thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 3114 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


(1)
Message 3 of 15 (550809)
03-18-2010 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by IAmMe77777
03-18-2010 5:39 AM


Hi IAmMe

Thanks for laying out your philosophy.

To say man is nothing more than an animal and biological organism is to deny empirical evidence to the contrary. For evidence, I offer the fact of Man ceasing to evolve. Yes, thatís right, humans are not evolving. While certain traits have become more prevalent species-wide (ie, height), we have effectively stopped evolving.

I don't think you can look at any contempory species and say whether or not it has stopped evolving. Calculations have been made that a species of mammal could increase at a steady rate from the size of a mouse to the size of an elephant in just a few thousand generations without it being possible to detect any such evolutionary changes within a human lifetime. It will only be possible to determine whether or not we are still evolving at this time in retrospect hundreds if not thousands of years in the future.

We have stopped evolution in two ways. First, we no longer practice random mating which is a prerequisite for natural selection.

When did we practise random mating? Exactly how and when did our mating habits change? Can you correlate that with evolutionary changes?

And second, we have stopped natural selection completely. The fittest are not the only individuals that survive and produce the most offspring. In our world of plenty, the least fit individuals piggy back on the world created by the strong and reproduce the most. Our lack of evolution is proof of our elevation above animal status.

You misunderstand the meaning of "fitness" in the context of evolution through natural selection. If the least physically or mentally able within our population are breeding the most (which I think is what you are implying - Richard Dawkins agrees that the least intelligent in modern society are breeding more) then that is because they are the "fittest" as far as natural selection is concerned within modern society. If we end up with a less intelligent population, we will have evolved to that state. Evolution doesn't have to move in one particular direction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IAmMe77777, posted 03-18-2010 5:39 AM IAmMe77777 has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 15 (550811)
03-18-2010 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by IAmMe77777
03-18-2010 5:39 AM


But what is time but an agreed upon measure of observed changes?

Time is also a fundamental property of the universe, like space. The universe is a manifold of space and time, i.e. spacetime <-- clicky

If there is a timeline of the changes in the universe, then what happens at the beginning of time?

For time to begin would require a time before time. There is no point in time where time doesn't exist. Think finite, yet unbounded.

At one point the primordial forces of the universe where unified and proceeded to explode out into expanse that is the universe as we know it.

Not just forces, but space and time, themselves, as well. And it all couldn't have expanded into something, as what was expanding contained everything so there was no thing to expand into.

You see to me, science and faith are one.

I don't think so. I use science and I have faith. And like you say:

Science cannot explain the important question of life: Why? And faith cannot explain the important question of life: How?

So how can they be one?

To say man is nothing more than an animal and biological organism is to deny empirical evidence to the contrary. For evidence, I offer the fact of Man ceasing to evolve. Yes, thatís right, humans are not evolving.

I used to think that, but it turns out that it is impossible for things to not be evolving as allele frequencies will always be changing somewhat, even if barely.

While certain traits have become more prevalent species-wide (ie, height), we have effectively stopped evolving.

If traits' prevalencies are changing then that is evolution. This "effectively" qualifier is ambiguous and obfuscatory.

We have stopped evolution in two ways. First, we no longer practice random mating which is a prerequisite for natural selection.

Random mating is not a prerequisite for natural selection. How do you think the peacock got its tail? Sexual Selection

And second, we have stopped natural selection completely. The fittest are not the only individuals that survive and produce the most offspring.

A reduction in fitness is still evolution. And we haven't completely stopped natural selection. Although things like predation have been removed, there's still sexual selection and genetic drift.

I agree that its seems like we have reached stasis, but there's no such thing as absolute stasis.

Our lack of evolution is proof of our elevation above animal status.

Crocodiles... they have a more static evolutionary path than humans do.

As explained earlier, the simple observation that something cannot come from nothing should be the logical springboard for a belief in God in any human person.

Wait... you said so yourself: there never has been nothing.

But how should faith lead one to science? I opine that faith is an essential part of science. Perhaps not a faith in God, but faith nonetheless. Isn't the first step of the scientific method creating a thesis? And isn't a thesis defined as an educated guess about the outcome of an experinment?

The first step is observation. Then you form a hypothesis. A thesis is more like a presentation of a conclusion.

A sceintist obsevers from past experience and says "I think this will occur." The problem with this model of knowledge aquisition is that the past does not guruntee the future for the very simple fact that the future is undefined

See, you too posit starting with observing. And the tentativity of science accounts for the future being technically unknown.

Anything can happen. And by anything, I literally mean anything. You could sprout wings. The floor you are standing on could become pourus. That carrot in your fridge could speak to you the next time you open the door. It is possible simply because it has not occured yet. I argue that any guess, even an educated one, is a leap of faith simply because the future is uncertain. Therefore the scientific method itself is based upon some form of faith, even if it is only that things will occur in the future as they did in the past.

I don't think there's any faith in science. Its just inductive logic.

Given: All we've ever observed is black crows. Tentative Conlusion: All crows are black.

This is not a prediction of the future that there will never be a white crow observed, as you say that is impossible to arrive at. Its that the conclusion is tentatively held until a non-black crow is actually observed. There is no need for faith in the blackness of crows.

Let's do a little role play. Say you are God. You are all powerful. You are all knowing. And you are all loving. You are the true, the good, and the beautiful. Why would you create the universe? I realize many could be reluctant to put themselves in the shoes of God as some sort of blasphamy, but each of us is said to be made in God's own image - complete with reason. So I ask you to use that reason and consider why you would create something inferior to yourself. Some say it is out of love and others say out of a need to be loved by worhsipers. I say both of these explinations are inadequate. You are the supreme being. The end all, be all. Why would you care about anything else? There is nothing greater than yourself, so how could anything else warrent your atteantion? This is what is called the philosopher's God. It is God, but it is a God that only ponders its own devine essece - as nothing else is worthy of its attention. It is with this idea of God that I offer the Why of human existance: We are God.
We ARE God.

Sure, god could have split himself up into a bunch of little us's. Or maybe he wanted to validate his existence by having something not-him exist as well.

What I argue is that God created us, created the universe, to better ponder his own existence.

Or that. Whatever. Who knows...

How many people in your daily life do you encounter who seem to have no capacity to think of life on a higher level than a day at a time? No reason to live other than thier own personal comfort? They think nothing is greater than themselves and it shows in thier unhappiness.

None.

But love is a reciprocal relationship. If love is unrequited, it isn't love - its an obesstion.

I was going to say that I love Modern Warfare 2 and it doesn't love me back, but you're right... its really an obsession

He would have to gamble to see if we loved him, which could explain the state of the world. It's an experiment.

God is a kid with an antfarm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IAmMe77777, posted 03-18-2010 5:39 AM IAmMe77777 has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2189
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 5 of 15 (550866)
03-18-2010 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by IAmMe77777
03-18-2010 5:39 AM


The Fact is Humans Continue to Evolve
IAmMe77777 writes:

For evidence, I offer the fact of Man ceasing to evolve. Yes, thatís right, humans are not evolving. While certain traits have become more prevalent species-wide (ie, height), we have effectively stopped evolving.

Just as previous respondents have pointed out, I must take issue with this statement as it is not true according to the latest research published in peer-reviewed journals.

From: "Are Humans Still Evolving?" By: Balter, Michael, Science, 00368075, 7/8/2005, Vol. 309, Issue 5732.

Here is a chart from the above article showing selective pressures and associated genes showing that humans continue to evolve.

GENE OR GENETIC LOCUS - HYPOTHESIZED SELECTIVE PRESSURE

Lactase - Improved nutrition from milk
G6PD - Protection against malaria
Duffly blood group - Protection against malaria
Hemoglobin C - Protection against malaria
TNFSF5 - Protection against malaria
CCR5 - Protection against smallpox and AIDS
H2 Haplotype - Unknown but only in Europe
DRD4 - Cognition and behavior
MAOA - Cognition and behavior
AGT - Protection against hypertension
CYP3A - Protection against hypertension
TAS2R38 - Bitter taste perception

The article is not available online but can be accessed through any large university or public library.

However this article is available and provides similar, referenced, information:

Human Evolution

Sorry, but since one of your 'facts' is demonstrably false, it casts some doubt upon your conclusions.

Of course if you disagree with this current scientific evidence, you are free to start a new thread concerning any purported lack of ongoing evolution in humans.


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
ó Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. Itís us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IAmMe77777, posted 03-18-2010 5:39 AM IAmMe77777 has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7925
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 6 of 15 (550915)
03-19-2010 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by IAmMe77777
03-18-2010 5:39 AM


You see to me, science and faith are one. They are not mutually exclusive. Science should lead to faith, and faith should lead to science. Science cannot explain the important question of life: Why? And faith cannot explain the important question of life: How? One could argue that science explains the question of why with the simple fact that man is a biological organism. We are life and life exists for the same reason all other life exists Ė to create more life. And certainly faith can offer an explanation for the question of how. The world works the way it works because God ordained it. But both of these explanations are hollow.

To me, science and faith are opposites. Science is knowledge derived from evidence. Faith is a belief held in the absence of evidence. As to explanations, faith is not an explanation. A belief does not explain anything other than the ability of a person to believe things that can't be shown to exist. The only way you can explain anything is through knowledge, and faith does not lead to knowledge. Science does lead to knowledge. Even worse, beliefs can steer us away from knowledge.

Faith boils down to "I don't know, but it would be really cool if _____ were true, so I will believe that until someone finds the real answer."

Also, if you ask the question "why" you assume that there is a purpose. You first need to show that there is a purpose before asking for an explanation of that purpose. Science also can't explain why Leprechauns wear green, but then why would science need to explain this if no one can demonstrate that Leprechauns exist?

To say man is nothing more than an animal and biological organism is to deny empirical evidence to the contrary. For evidence, I offer the fact of Man ceasing to evolve.

Every person born has between 100 and 200 mutations. Man has not stopped evolving. Also, you assume that there is something man could be other than a natural biological organism. Do you have any empirical evidence that man can be something other than a natural biological organism?

First, we no longer practice random mating which is a prerequisite for natural selection.

You do know that sexual selection is part of natural selection, do you not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IAmMe77777, posted 03-18-2010 5:39 AM IAmMe77777 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Flyer75, posted 03-19-2010 4:42 PM Taq has responded

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 595 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 7 of 15 (550920)
03-19-2010 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Taq
03-19-2010 12:41 PM


Hey Taq,

Taq writes:

To me, science and faith are opposites. Science is knowledge derived from evidence. Faith is a belief held in the absence of evidence. As to explanations, faith is not an explanation

Taq, I respect your opinion on this and don't really disagree with this. Creationists, at least honest ones, will say that they first live and believe by faith and faith alone.

My question then is this: can you please provide scientific proof as to what started all this? How and when did life begin? I want proof of this and what you believe. Scientific proof. I want to be shown what started the evolutionary process. If you can show me this, I may be on my way to being an evolutionist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Taq, posted 03-19-2010 12:41 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Rahvin, posted 03-19-2010 5:31 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Taq, posted 03-19-2010 7:33 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Meldinoor, posted 03-19-2010 11:22 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1359 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(1)
Message 8 of 15 (550923)
03-19-2010 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Flyer75
03-19-2010 4:42 PM


My question then is this: can you please provide scientific proof as to what started all this? How and when did life begin? I want proof of this and what you believe. Scientific proof. I want to be shown what started the evolutionary process. If you can show me this, I may be on my way to being an evolutionist.

Evolution isn;t about the origin of life, it's about the origin of new species once life already exists. Descent with modification guided by natural selection causing the diversification of existing populations into distinct subgroups happens regardless of how the process itself began, whether that means God, aliens, a magic teapot, or abiogenesis. In short, the beginning is irrelevant - you don't need to know where a car started from to see that it's moving on the freeway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Flyer75, posted 03-19-2010 4:42 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7925
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 9 of 15 (550931)
03-19-2010 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Flyer75
03-19-2010 4:42 PM


My question then is this: can you please provide scientific proof as to what started all this? How and when did life begin? I want proof of this and what you believe. Scientific proof. I want to be shown what started the evolutionary process. If you can show me this, I may be on my way to being an evolutionist.

I don't know how this universe started or how life started. However, not knowing does not make unevidenced beliefs (i.e. faith) true. It just simply means we don't know. Even more importantly, the most exciting things in science are the things we don't know about. I find that those who base their outlook on faith are afraid of the unknown.

To use an oft repeated analogy, thousands of years ago no one knew how lightning was produced. There were many beliefs as to how lightning was produced, and many of those beliefs were centered around supernatural beings. Over time we gained knowledge of how lightning is produced, and none of that knowledge was gained through the faith based beliefs that were around prior to us gaining this knowledge. Faith based beliefs are God of the Gaps arguments, a fantasy world supported by the wants of the individual, not by the reality of the natural world. Some think that where we are ignorant or lack knowledge that faith can supply an explanation. I can only conclude that faith is well camoflaged ignorance, that "faith is gullibility misrepresented as a virtue" (a poster at christianforums used this line a lot but I can't think of the posters name--I didn't want to take credit for it).

I have asked this question elsewhere, and it seems to fit here. Can you cite one example where belief has led directly to knowledge?

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Flyer75, posted 03-19-2010 4:42 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded

  
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 3087 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


(1)
Message 10 of 15 (550936)
03-19-2010 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by IAmMe77777
03-18-2010 5:39 AM


First, we no longer practice random mating which is a prerequisite for natural selection.

People have already corrected you on this, but I just want to add that random mating is a prerequisite for a population to be in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium which is a state in which there is NO evolution. So, you're effectively arguing the opposite of what you intend.

The fittest are not the only individuals that survive and produce the most offspring. In our world of plenty, the least fit individuals piggy back on the world created by the strong and reproduce the most.

By definition, the fittest are those that reproduce the most. Fittest, in the evolutionary sense, does not mean strongest, fastest, smartest or richest. Darwinian fitness is a measurement of relative reproductive output, that's it. So, again you argue against yourself. As long as there is variable reproductive success between individuals, there will be evolution.


We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IAmMe77777, posted 03-18-2010 5:39 AM IAmMe77777 has not yet responded

    
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2980 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 11 of 15 (550959)
03-19-2010 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Flyer75
03-19-2010 4:42 PM


Flyer75 writes:

My question then is this: can you please provide scientific proof as to what started all this? How and when did life begin? I want proof of this and what you believe. Scientific proof. I want to be shown what started the evolutionary process. If you can show me this, I may be on my way to being an evolutionist.

Would proof make you an evolutionist?

Science doesn't deal in absolute certainty. While the evidence may in some cases be so conclusive that a theory is beyond reasonable doubt, theories are never absolutely "proven", they can only be disproven. Universal common descent through evolution by natural selection could be disproven in several ways, including if:

  • A truly unevolvable irreducibly complex biological system is found.
  • Species are found inexplicably out of order in the fossil record (ie. the cambrian rabbit)
  • A single species is found to be genetically unrelated to all other life (this would only disprove truly universal common descent)

If any one of these were found to be true, but particularly the first two, the theory of evolution would have to be abandoned or very much altered. I wouldn't hold out hope though. People have been looking to disprove the theory and haven't been successful yet. The point is, evolution can be disproved. And if it really isn't true, then we should have expected droves of "creation scientists" to have turned up some disproof by now. But who knows? Maybe they will.

Accepting a scientific theory means that you are bound to follow the evidence wherever it leads. That's why true science is not dogmatic. And that's why I don't like the term 'evolutionist'. It implies that a person who simply accepts scientific findings holds a particular allegiance to one theory. I can only speak for myself, but if bunnies were conclusively found to have hopped alongside trilobites and giant dragonflies in the cambrian, I'd be the first to go looking for another explanation. I would no more mourn the loss of the theory of evolution than I mourned losing my belief in Santa Claus.

But what about creationists? As you yourself said:

Flyer75 writes:

Creationists, at least honest ones, will say that they first live and believe by faith and faith alone

And that's the difference between a scientist and a creationist. For a creationist who believes only by faith, no amount of evidence will change their mind. That's why I asked you whether "proof" would really make a difference to you. If you accept creationism on faith, then what value does evidence have in moulding your worldview?

And that's why I always raise an eyebrow when I hear dogmatic creationists (not saying that you are dogmatic) ask "Well, where's the evidence?" I could ask them the same question, but what would be the point? To the truly dogmatic creationist, no evidence is required to believe that which is accepted on faith, and no evidence is enough to give credence to any theory that conflicts with that faith.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor

Edited by Meldinoor, : Fixed spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Flyer75, posted 03-19-2010 4:42 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3526
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 12 of 15 (551134)
03-21-2010 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by IAmMe77777
03-18-2010 5:39 AM


Are you sure you think A is A?
Hello IAmMe77777, I hope you're having a good day today, and welcome to EvC.

IAmMe77777 writes:

It is a theory of how creation progressed, not the act of creation itself. A is A, and therefore science, cannot explain the act of creation because it is principle of observation.

I hope I understand what you mean by "A is A, and therefore science cannot explain the act of creatino because it is based upon principles of observation." It's not exactly how I'd put it, but I think I get what you're trying to say.

But, what makes you think there was an "act of creation" that requires a why in the first place? What happened to "A is A" for where this idea comes from?

What, specifically, shows to you that this universe was initiated through an act of creation? Why must that be true? Surely you understand the foibles of an "everything must come from something" argument. For one, you seem to agree that it's possible that "nothing" never existed. Therefore, the universe (possibly) always existed in some form. Therefore (if true), there would not be any act of creation that would require an explanation.

So again, what specifically makes you so sure that an act of creation occurred? That is, if you truely accept this "A is A" philosophy, what is it that concretely, objectively, verifiably shows that an act of creation must have happened?

If you're not sure that an act of creation actually happened, then all this stuff about faith and science coming together seems to be... well, let's just say... "not based on the A is A philosophy."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IAmMe77777, posted 03-18-2010 5:39 AM IAmMe77777 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by IAmMe77777, posted 03-23-2010 3:14 AM Stile has responded

    
IAmMe77777
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 15 (551560)
03-23-2010 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Stile
03-21-2010 11:15 AM


Re: Are you sure you think A is A?
Then why is there something rather than nothing?

Edited by IAmMe77777, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Stile, posted 03-21-2010 11:15 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Rahvin, posted 03-23-2010 3:22 AM IAmMe77777 has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Stile, posted 03-23-2010 7:39 AM IAmMe77777 has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1359 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 14 of 15 (551561)
03-23-2010 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by IAmMe77777
03-23-2010 3:14 AM


Re: Are you sure you think A is A?
Then why is there something rather than nothing?

Why not? Why would there be nothing rather than something?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by IAmMe77777, posted 03-23-2010 3:14 AM IAmMe77777 has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3526
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 15 of 15 (551574)
03-23-2010 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by IAmMe77777
03-23-2010 3:14 AM


Re: Are you sure you think A is A?
IAmMe77777 writes:

Then why is there something rather than nothing?

A perfectly valid question.

However, this question is certainly not based upon any "A is A" philosophy. Don't you agree?

An A is A philosophy would accept that there is something (because we are here) and then look at what actually exists. Since nothing seems to point towards any "why" for us being here... an A is A philosophy would not bother with such a question until such a time as it becomes objective, and verifiable that such a question is warranted.

Until such a time, according to "A is A", such a question is as meaningless and useless as "why is Puff the Magic Dragon invisible to adults while other imaginary dragons are not?"

Both questions, about imaginary dragons and why we're here, are good questions within their own context. But neither question stems from an "A is A" philosophy.

Don't you agree that such questions have nothing to do with an "A is A" philosophy? The question can be answered, but only outside of any obejectively based philosophy. It is a subjective question, and therefore will have a subjective answer. Such things are certainly not "A is A". Before we proceed with these and any other subjective questions, I suggest that we first clear up your standing with this A is A philosophy. Such a standing will have an impact upon any subjective questions anyway.

Your persistance in requiring an answer for this question seems to imply that "A is A" most certainly is not your personal philosophy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by IAmMe77777, posted 03-23-2010 3:14 AM IAmMe77777 has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019