|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5013 days) Posts: 30 From: IN, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hello | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
We need to get this going in a better place, as suggested by my non-admin alter-ego, a couple of messages up.
Going to close this one down in about 15 minutes. Adminnemooseus ps: You are confusing philosophical naturalism (which is specifically anti-theistic) with methodological naturalism (which is agnostic - pretty much "don't know, don't care). This can be discussed further in a new topic. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Tweak and a ps. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Replaced "actively atheistic" with "anti-theistic".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Practical Prodigy Junior Member (Idle past 5013 days) Posts: 30 From: IN, USA Joined: |
You can close and move to new thread as you see fit, I respect that...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
I closed this topic, then saw your final message.
I'm not going to move anything out of this topic or in any other way start a new topic. That's your job. Pull your basic position out of this topic (copy and paste if you wish) and post that material as a new topic at the Proposed New Topics forum. That will be admin reviewed and if up to standards (we're not that hard) will then be moved to a open debate forum. Perhaps you would like to start with a topic on the differences between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism, since that seems to be a central point in the disagreement between you and the forums evolutionists. I'll leave this topic open for at least a while, but all further messages should be about starting a new topic. And let me introduce you to my catch phrase - "Or something like that". Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Oops, posted before reading AM's message.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Looking at your wiki source I see I've blotched the naturalism thing somewhat.
Practical Prodigy quotes and writes: Naturalism is a religious worldview, theistic evolutionists and accept the supernatural aspect of creation. Fundamental evolutionists believe in abiogenesis and hold a naturalists world view in most instances as does a majority of empirical science. The are based on the human experince and observable processes.
If that isnt a religious worldview I dont know what is. My color bolding. It specifically states that Methodological naturalism (or scientific naturalism) is independent of religious beliefs. What you seem to have conflict with is next at your wiki cite: Metaphysical naturalism. This is what I was erroneously calling philosophical naturalism.
quote: Metaphysical naturalism denies God's existence. Methodological naturalism does not - It doesn't care one way or the other - God's existence or lack of existence is irrelevant. But all this needs to go to a theme specific topic elsewhere. Closing this one down. Please start a new topic with the specific theme of your choice. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Thread copied here from the Hello thread in the Coffee House forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I also like atronomy and cosmology. We have a theoretical physicist that posts here as cavediver, he's posted some really helpful explanations. Check him out.
I am pretty well versed in the Bible, my history knowledge is fairly vast I have done alot of research on most of the Books. I have also researched Pseudepigrapha, Apocrypha, and Sacred Writings such as; Book of Enoch, Book of Adam, etc. You should come in handy in the Bible debates.
I am a nondenominational Christian. I'd say I'm lacking most in organized religion, I grew up in Roman Catholic schooling but dont hold much stock in the "Hollywood" style religion types. In my opinion it takes you from the personal relationship with God and destroys free-thinking and encourages dogma. Makes sense. No reason to argue that here, although, how many Catholics do you think hold "much stock" From Message 11:
My position in theistic evolution, due to the fact that I believe in the process of adaptation, mutation, etc (ie micro-evolution). I do not believe that one species will become another through macro-evolution. Ooh... Sounds like somebody's been reading too much creationist literature That's not a position you'll arrive at from reading the biology. There's nothing preventing a bunch of micros from resulting in a macro. Its pretty much a fact that one species can evolve into another. I wrote up a post near that subject, Theropods and Birds showing a change in kinds, take a look and reply there.
I also believe that Evolutional Theory, which is based on philosophical naturalism, All of science is based on methodological naturalism. Evolutionary Theory isn't based on a philosophy of naturalism and more than, say, chemistry acid/base titrations. We don't look for God in the test tube, so why look for him behind the genes? I'm not sure of any threads discussing that one that I can refer you to.
Methodological naturalism is thus going far beyond science's proper boundaries of the observable human experience. Maybe somewhat in some places, but not in general. I doubt anything with a consensus has gone outside the boudaries. Evolution certainly hasn't.
Proper science uses inductive reasoning from facts or general principles and causality, without excluding possibilities (supernatural or natural) Supernatural... by science's nature of being methodological naturalism, everything it can study is by definition natural. Something truely supernatural must be excluded from science and if it ain't, then it ain't supernatural. If something you hold as supernatural does end up being studied by science, then that would mean that it really was natural the whole time. I think the word paranormal works better when discussing the things that I think you are referring to.
Using undirected nature and unnatural intelligent causes to explain everything in the human experience leaves various phenomena unexplained (a basis for most of the content on this site). If something is not repeatable and leaves little trace or no trace of its occurance, mainstream science has a hard time dealing with it. To which the philisophical naturalist would find no use in studying. But oh well, its his loss. Perhaps.
Evolutional theory does not nearly have all the answers it is limited in its application at best, and misleading at worst. That diversity of life on Earth has certainly been answered. Outside of that, the Theory of Evolution doesn't apply. I think you'll find that the misleading isn't really by the scientists, but by the creationists in saying that the scientists are misleading. You can always just propose a new topic on any one of these issues and you'll probably have plenty of people chiming in to straighten you out. Have fun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Practical Prodigy Junior Member (Idle past 5013 days) Posts: 30 From: IN, USA Joined: |
Ooh... Sounds like somebody's been reading too much creationist literature That's not a position you'll arrive at from reading the biology. There's nothing preventing a bunch of micros from resulting in a macro. Its pretty much a fact that one species can evolve into another. I wrote up a post near that subject, Theropods and Birds showing a change in kinds, take a look and reply there.
Actually there is alot of things that can stop a bunch of micro's from resulting in a macro. Here is an interesting excerpt to show what I meant:
quote: There is limits based on genetic information available in other words. Even mutations and variations have to come from pre-existing genetic information. No new genes can be created only combined in various ways. Explain the evolution of the following features by the accumulation and selection of small mutations; hair in mammals, feathers in birds, segmentation in arthropods and of vertebrates, the transformation of gill-arches in phylogeny, including the aortic arches, muscles, nerves, etc. Further, teeth, shells of molluscs, ectoskeletons, compound eyes, blood circulation, alternation of generations, statocysts, ambulacral system of ecinoderm, pedicellara of the same, enidocysts, poison apparatus of snakes, and finally, primary chemical differences like hemoglobin versus hemocyanin, etc. I could also provide examples with plants but I highly doubt you could even cover these, look forward to the explainations ;P
All of science is based on methodological naturalism. Evolutionary Theory isn't based on a philosophy of naturalism and more than, say, chemistry acid/base titrations. We don't look for God in the test tube, so why look for him behind the genes? Im not sure what your trying to imply. I stated that science was based on methodological naturalism and divorces anything that cant be repeatedly observed or explained through naturalism from its scope. This would leave out various phenomena that have been thoroughly proven to occur. There is a difference between looking for God behind something you can observe and applying a philosophic belief system of deduction and inductive reasoning to something you cant observe nor prove beyond a hypothetic theory. Take a few Forensics classes and you will see what I mean. Do you know how many times the observed data will be completely wrong? Do you realize how much of a person perspective relates to the observance? I could go on for days...
Maybe somewhat in some places, but not in general. I doubt anything with a consensus has gone outside the boudaries. Evolution certainly hasn't. I'm sorry but that is simply false for various reasons. Evolution has certainly gone far beyond it scope and basis as a majority of its "proof" is based on extrapolation and inference not on hard evidence. Even in the genetic arena, which is its strongest evidence initiator, there are usally as many questions that are raised and things unexplainable or unobserved. It uses theory, inferences, and fitting available data to a theory to determine its "facts". Quite a poor way of gathering evidence and making its case, and this is coming from someone who's job it is to gather evidence and cross-reference sources. Most of the genetic data and correlations evolutional biologists provide as "missing-links" would never hold up in a court case, which in my experience is more flexible in its acceptance of scientific evidence than mainstream science is SUPPOSED to be.
Supernatural... by science's nature of being methodological naturalism, everything it can study is by definition natural. Something truely supernatural must be excluded from science and if it ain't, then it ain't supernatural. If something you hold as supernatural does end up being studied by science, then that would mean that it really was natural the whole time. I think the word paranormal works better when discussing the things that I think you are referring to. Paranormal and supernatural are synonyms and mean the exact same thing so I'm lost on your point here. As far as naturalism its scope only refers to things thought to duplicate themselves, everything it can study is not by definition natural just repeatable. But then again that depends on your interpretation and use of the word natural.
To which the philisophical naturalist would find no use in studying. But oh well, its his loss. Perhaps.
That applies to methodological naturalism as well, one is the basis for the other. They are not exclusive.
That diversity of life on Earth has certainly been answered. Outside of that, the Theory of Evolution doesn't apply. I think you'll find that the misleading isn't really by the scientists, but by the creationists in saying that the scientists are misleading. It has not been answered thats conjecture and personal opinion and there are several instances I could show to dispute that observation. But I'll save that for the topics as they are created or I find them and reply to them on these boards.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2294 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hello again Practical Prodigy,
Practical Prodigy writes:
Yeah, that's not how we do things around here. If you'd like to discuss the evidence for the evolution of that stuff, pick one (yes, just one) subject and propose a new thread. Nobody is going to tackle all of that at once.
Explain the evolution of the following features by the accumulation and selection of small mutations; (Lists a bunch of stuff). Im not sure what your trying to imply. I stated that science was based on methodological naturalism and divorces anything that cant be repeatedly observed or explained through naturalism from its scope. This would leave out various phenomena that have been thoroughly proven to occur.
Like?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Since you reject speciation by evolution, where do all the species come from, especially all the new species that have arisen throughout the history of the Earth ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Actually there is alot of things that can stop a bunch of micro's from resulting in a macro. A lot? Like what, in general in your own words? Just one.
Here is an interesting excerpt to show what I meant: Its always a good ideo to provide links when you quote outside material. I found the article here: The mutation matrix and the evolution of evolvability - PubMed
There is limits based on genetic information available in other words. I didn't quite get that from the article. Can you explain in your own words how the article says that? What is the limit? How is it based on genetic information available?
Explain the evolution of the following features by the accumulation and selection of small mutations; hair in mammals, feathers in birds, segmentation in arthropods and of vertebrates, the transformation of gill-arches in phylogeny, including the aortic arches, muscles, nerves, etc. Further, teeth, shells of molluscs, ectoskeletons, compound eyes, blood circulation, alternation of generations, statocysts, ambulacral system of ecinoderm, pedicellara of the same, enidocysts, poison apparatus of snakes, and finally, primary chemical differences like hemoglobin versus hemocyanin, etc. I could also provide examples with plants but I highly doubt you could even cover these, look forward to the explainations ;P Well I'm not going to go through all those here. Some of them can be explained, some of them I don't know about. But a currently unexplained phenomenon doesn't falsify the theory, nor is any of those showing how a bunch of micros are prevented from being a macro.
Im not sure what your trying to imply. I stated that science was based on methodological naturalism and divorces anything that cant be repeatedly observed or explained through naturalism from its scope. This would leave out various phenomena that have been thoroughly proven to occur. Like what?
There is a difference between looking for God behind something you can observe and applying a philosophic belief system of deduction and inductive reasoning to something you cant observe nor prove beyond a hypothetic theory. Sure, but even the Theory of Evolution does not say that god has nothing to do with it.
I'm sorry but that is simply false for various reasons. Evolution has certainly gone far beyond it scope and basis as a majority of its "proof" is based on extrapolation and inference not on hard evidence. How so?
Even in the genetic arena, which is its strongest evidence initiator, there are usally as many questions that are raised and things unexplainable or unobserved. It uses theory, inferences, and fitting available data to a theory to determine its "facts". Quite a poor way of gathering evidence and making its case, and this is coming from someone who's job it is to gather evidence and cross-reference sources. Most of the genetic data and correlations evolutional biologists provide as "missing-links" would never hold up in a court case, which in my experience is more flexible in its acceptance of scientific evidence than mainstream science is SUPPOSED to be. Well I haven't seen any of it.
Paranormal and supernatural are synonyms and mean the exact same thing so I'm lost on your point here. Supernatural implies that there can never be a scientific explanation while paranormal allows for one to be discovered in the future.
That applies to methodological naturalism as well, one is the basis for the other. They are not exclusive. Philisophical Naturalism is an idea. It deals with ontology, what exists and what doesn't. Methodological Naturalism is a process. It deals with epistemology, how can we acquire knowledge about the world. They are not the same thing. Applying Methodological Naturalism is not assuming Philisophical Naturalism. That's why I can perform chemistry expirements without considering whether god is in the test tube or not all the while taking no position on god's existence. The same goes with the Theory of Evolution... seeking a natural explanation for the diversity of life on Earth is not saying that god had no role whatsoever.
It has not been answered thats conjecture and personal opinion and there are several instances I could show to dispute that observation. Give me just one example of something that falsifies the Theory of Evolution. Please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4510 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
Hi Mr Prodigy!
Practical Prodigy writes: I also only reject macro-evolution not the consensus on observable micro-evolution. I believe that biological micro-evolution is merely another process within creation. It is what God employed to develop diversity and adaptation. Thus you are in truth a creationist. Rejection of "macro-evolution" is a rejection of a fundamental part of ToE and modern biological science. It's also a standard creationist talking point. You might believe that you simply differ with other evolutionists about where you draw the line regarding god/s's involvement with the evolutionary process, but in my opinion, if you really believe that it takes god/s to change a wolf into a dog, then you're a creationist at heart. I also personally believe that theistic evolution is ultimately an untenable position, but that's neither here nor there.
Practical Prodigy writes: Wikipedia writes: [Methodolgocial Naturalism] is an epistemological view that is specifically concerned with practical methods for acquiring knowledge, irrespective of one's metaphysical or religious views. It requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events. If that isnt a religious worldview I dont know what is. I was originally going to give my standard reply when someone claims that atheism is a religion, which is simply:
Bald is not a hair color. However, you're going beyond that if you want to claim that methodological naturalism is the same thing as atheism, which is what you appear to be doing in the end. Your logic seems to go: 1. MN is inherently atheistic, since it not only disregards, but actually denies the supernatural. 2. Atheism is a form of religion, as it takes a position on the existence of a deity, i.e. there ain't one. 3. Thus, MN is a religious worldview. So I must point out that not only is bald not a hair color, bald is also not a shoe size. Enjoy your stay here. I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die. -John Lydon What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.-Steven Dutch
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Firstly, a welcome to Practical Prodigy.
Secondly, some editorializing. I do not like what is happening in this thread. As I see it, Practical Prodigy opened the thread in order to introduce himself. I think he should be allowed a friendly introduction.
Practical Prodigy did not open a debate topic. He opened an introduction topic. He presented his position in response to a poster who asked where he stood. I think it rather unfortunate that we should be demanding that he defend that position in his introduction thread. It is reasonable for people to express disagreement, but not to demand that he defend his position in his introduction. Allow Practical Prodigy some time to become more familiar with evcforum, and then to propose a topic on his own terms if he wants to argue for his position. For the record, I do not agree with the position that Practical Prodigy expressed in Message 11. But I respect his right to decide for himself where he stands.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
He's under no obligation to reply. I'm just trying to get a better idea where he stands. Just curious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I probably should have been clearer. My main complaint is about the moving of this topic out of Coffee House.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024