Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 170 of 485 (570282)
07-26-2010 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Granny Magda
07-26-2010 10:09 AM


If he would have said more clearly, that 90% of NAS scientists are either atheist or agnostic, would you have still called this nonsense?
And would you have also said that since 90+ percent of the NAS scientists ARE agnostic or atheist, and a full 94% of the biologists at NAS do not believe in a GOD, that if any particular scientists came to the conclusion based on their research that life is in fact influenced by a higher power, that that individual would have a reasonable chance of being accepted into the NAS or of getting support by scientific institutions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Granny Magda, posted 07-26-2010 10:09 AM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Coyote, posted 07-26-2010 11:48 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 172 by Blue Jay, posted 07-27-2010 12:42 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 173 of 485 (570316)
07-27-2010 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Coyote
07-26-2010 11:48 PM


Re: How evolutionists think...
That would be fine, if the scientific community allowed a scientist to conclude that a non-material explanation is the most likely for a said phenomenon.
But that is not what the scientific community allows. Instead they specifically say that such a conclusion is absolutely unacceptable, even if that's where the evidence points. So they do not truly believe in following the evidence where it leads.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Coyote, posted 07-26-2010 11:48 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Meldinoor, posted 07-27-2010 1:50 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 175 by bluescat48, posted 07-27-2010 2:31 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 176 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2010 2:39 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 177 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-27-2010 2:41 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 178 by Otto Tellick, posted 07-27-2010 4:44 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 179 of 485 (570362)
07-27-2010 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Otto Tellick
07-27-2010 4:44 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
See, so you are saying science doesn't allow this. Even if all of the evidence was pointing exactly to that conclusion.
That is why it is false to say that science only goes where the evidence points. Because sometimes the evidence points to the super-natural.
So if you are saying the scientific community has made a conscience effort to not allow this, because it is not practical for their desired result, they are not really conducting science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Otto Tellick, posted 07-27-2010 4:44 AM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2010 8:48 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 198 by Otto Tellick, posted 07-27-2010 7:17 PM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 180 of 485 (570364)
07-27-2010 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Meldinoor
07-27-2010 1:50 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Of course science could point towards a non-material explanation, if we only looked at the evidence. There is no law that prevents this conclusion.
Take for example a study of near-death experiences. Or experiments of psychic powers. Or if an experiment proved that a new type of cell appeared from nothing, instantly.
You can't just throw a blanket over everything that is possible and say-nope, we can't allow non-materialism-instead if that's what it looks like we must either deny it or bury our heads in the sand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Meldinoor, posted 07-27-2010 1:50 AM Meldinoor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2010 8:55 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 183 by Wounded King, posted 07-27-2010 9:00 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 185 by nwr, posted 07-27-2010 9:45 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 190 by ringo, posted 07-27-2010 10:56 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 184 of 485 (570377)
07-27-2010 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Wounded King
07-27-2010 9:00 AM


Re: The limits of material science.
I think whether or not there is anywhere else to go with that information is immaterial. If it's even the most likely answer, then as scientists we have to accept that this is the most likely answer.
Secondly, I don't think that you can say that no such phenomenon have been identified. There are real scientific studies on psychic phenomenon and on near death experiences that so far can only be explained as not having a material cause. I am talking about real scientists doing real studies, and drawing conclusions in the same manner that any other scientific method draws.
Of course, skeptics will simply scoff and say the experiment must be flawed, or make some other rationalization, but it is a rationalization that they don't apply to every other scientific study that yields results they do agree with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Wounded King, posted 07-27-2010 9:00 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 9:49 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 187 by subbie, posted 07-27-2010 9:50 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 188 of 485 (570389)
07-27-2010 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by nwr
07-27-2010 9:45 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Ho, well science can certainly be wrong.
That can be the case regardless of the whether the conclusions drawn are materialistic or non-materialistic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by nwr, posted 07-27-2010 9:45 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 07-27-2010 10:54 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 193 by bluescat48, posted 07-27-2010 11:24 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 191 of 485 (570420)
07-27-2010 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by ringo
07-27-2010 10:56 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
You look wherever the evidence points you. Even if that is non-materialistic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by ringo, posted 07-27-2010 10:56 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by ringo, posted 07-27-2010 11:21 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 195 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 07-27-2010 12:27 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 203 of 485 (570577)
07-27-2010 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Otto Tellick
07-27-2010 7:17 PM


Re: How evolutionists think...
You are giving yourself way too much credit if you believe that understanding your simple idea is so difficult to understand.
The problem you are missing is that in fact some experiments actually DO provide evidence that is best explained by a non-materialistic cause. Its a shame you don't have enough imagination to see how that is possible.
This concept of yours that if we were to determine that something appears to be supernatural, we then are left without knowing which supernatural cause it is is simply an unfortunate fact of understanding supernatural phenomenon, but that does not eliminate the fact that that can be a conclusion. That would be like saying that we can't study quantum mechanics because it is indeterminate.
Well, sorry, it just is what it is. Our inability to delve all the way into the reality of things doesn't make them just go away.
Now, because you lack a creative mind, let's just look at it for a moment.
If someone conducts an experiment where a one person in Croatia draws an image on a white piece of paper, and someone in Tulsa is able to describe exactly what that image is without being told or shown, and they can repeat this phenomenon and this procedure is tested scientifically to insure there is no cheating, we may well conclude the best explanation is a super-natural one.
Now you can't go and argue, "but we can't determine WHICH supernatural ability is enabling him to know this, so it can't be any supernatural cause." When you are simply looking at the evidence, you don't get to cherry pick which conclusion you are going to draw. It is what it is.
Is that too huge for you to get your mind around man? Can you understand a word of what I have posted because its way too intellectual for you to comprehend? Try to come to grips with it dude, if that's possible.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Otto Tellick, posted 07-27-2010 7:17 PM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 9:31 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 205 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2010 9:34 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 214 by subbie, posted 07-28-2010 12:43 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 265 by Otto Tellick, posted 07-29-2010 6:36 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 206 of 485 (570584)
07-27-2010 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by crashfrog
07-27-2010 9:34 PM


Re: How evolutionists think...
You seem to be arguing two different things at the same time.
First, if you want to say that the experiments that have been done, by real scientists using real scientific methods are just poorly done, that is certainly your choice to believe that. but then the people who are conducting these experiments have more credentials as scientists than you do, so by what authority do you get to decide which experiments are valid and which aren't?
Can I use the same argument to say that all biology experiments that i don't agree with are wrong, because they don't reach the conclusion I say they must?
Now you are saying that every experiment that appears to show supernatural causes is wrong by definition. You know about every single experiment that has ever been done about prayer? Wow, how did you get all those resources?
You know about every experiment that has ever been done about telepathy, or near death experiments, or faith healing? Wow, how did you get access to every study on the planet, and still have the time to determine that all of them are false?
Or are you just saying they have to be false, because its impossible for them to be correct? Because WE scientists say so?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2010 9:34 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2010 10:15 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 207 of 485 (570586)
07-27-2010 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by jar
07-27-2010 9:31 PM


Re: How evolutionists think...
What you are saying is that science should just wear blinders if they don't like some of the conclusions, that's silly.
If research is conducted which shows a likely supernatural cause-it is not telling us nothing as you claim. It is telling us that supernatural things can exist. That is actually telling us a lot, even if you don't like that conclusion.
You are free to challenge any experiment and say it is not valid by showing where the experiment is flawed. But you are not free to say that some conclusions are un-allowable, simply because we can't know as much about them as we want. Science should abide by what the evidence shows.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 9:31 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 10:14 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 210 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2010 10:15 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 211 by Coyote, posted 07-27-2010 10:16 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 212 of 485 (570592)
07-27-2010 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by jar
07-27-2010 10:14 PM


Re: How evolutionists think...
So do you say the same thing about quantum mechanics? Until you can observe it is it false?
You are free to be a disbeliever all you like-but that is not scientific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 10:14 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 10:28 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 215 of 485 (570629)
07-28-2010 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by subbie
07-28-2010 12:43 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Why? Is the results of any particular study the issue here, or is the issue whether or not a non-material explanation is acceptable?
Which side are you taking, A. that a non-material explanation is ok, but I first need to determine if that is what the data really says, or are you saying that B. a non-material explanation is not allowable.
Which is it, A. or B.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by subbie, posted 07-28-2010 12:43 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by crashfrog, posted 07-28-2010 3:04 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 218 by Huntard, posted 07-28-2010 3:20 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 230 by subbie, posted 07-28-2010 9:48 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 217 of 485 (570633)
07-28-2010 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by crashfrog
07-28-2010 3:04 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Which is it, A or B? A non-material explanation is ok if that is where the evidence points, but you just have not yet seen evidence which points that way..
Or is it that a non-material explanation should not be considered?
Which?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by crashfrog, posted 07-28-2010 3:04 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by crashfrog, posted 07-28-2010 3:22 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 220 of 485 (570641)
07-28-2010 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Huntard
07-28-2010 3:20 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Well, at least this is a start. Crashfrog can't even decide between A or B. I didn't think it was that hard of a choice.
We can't say we know for certain that something is the result of a non-materialistic cause. Just like we can't say for certain whether or not any phenomenon is the result of a naturalistic cause. We could just be being fooled, because something looks natural.
Instead all we can do is say what does it look like the evidence points to.
But when you take the stance, that many here are doing, that we are only willing to look in one direction, even if that direction is wrong, I strongly disagree that that is science.
Science has for centuries been intertwined with a metaphysical world. It hasn't stopped science from progressing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Huntard, posted 07-28-2010 3:20 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by crashfrog, posted 07-28-2010 4:32 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 223 by Huntard, posted 07-28-2010 4:42 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 228 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-28-2010 5:19 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 222 of 485 (570647)
07-28-2010 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by crashfrog
07-28-2010 4:32 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Where does thought come from smart guy? What's the DNA mutation that created thought? Can you find that mutation?
No "non-material" claim has ever withstood scrutiny? Haha. That has withstood scrutiny for at least 5000 years, for as long as man has been able to think. It withstands scrutiny by virtue of the fact that in all of our years studying it, we still have no explanation for it.
Think a little bit would you? Stop just taking every stupid notion that you have read or simple thought that you heard in a bar, and accepting it as literal truth. Somewhere along the way, someone told you that no supernatural cause has ever stood the test of time-and you just believed it because you couldn't be bothered to actually think about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by crashfrog, posted 07-28-2010 4:32 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by crashfrog, posted 07-28-2010 4:48 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 225 by Huntard, posted 07-28-2010 4:51 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024