Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 3:49 PM
29 online now:
CosmicChimp, GDR, JoeT, PaulK, PurpleYouko, ringo, Taq (7 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,830 Year: 9,866/19,786 Month: 2,288/2,119 Week: 324/724 Day: 49/114 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
33NextFF
Author Topic:   Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 166 of 485 (570142)
07-25-2010 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by marc9000
07-25-2010 5:50 PM


. Creationists are often told that their understanding of science, (and therefore how the world works) is very limited.

Isn't it possible that it is? I mean, look around this forum and gauge the general level of scientific expertise among the prominent creationists and then gauge it among their evolutionist counterparts.

I mean, on one hand we have you, whose knowledge of science is at a junior high level at best, and then there's me, a senior undergraduate biochemistry major. There's Buzsaw, who has no formal science training any of us have been able to discern, and the cranky Minnemooseus, a geology professor at the University of Minnesota.

I'm not cherry-picking examples except to pick individuals whose biography I can remember offhand. If you'd like to do a more formal survey I think you'd find the pattern holds, though. The Discovery Institute's famous lists of "scientists" who "doubt evolution" rarely contains any actual biologists, its invariably engineers and doctors (who aren't really scientists at all.)

Darwinism wasn’t made a complete package by only Darwin, it has been put together by many others, by philosophers as well as scientists.

You're right. There's been two centuries of scientific advancement since Darwin and his theory of evolution by natural selection has had to expand in order to account for new observations (not least of which, the entire science of genetics.) But it's a testament to the robustness of the original theory that evolution by natural selection and random mutation has been able to account for all biological observation.

It is an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.

Liberation from what? Religion has never posed any obstacle to people's political and sexual desires. Catholics are still strong liberal voters. Ted Haggard had no trouble preaching sexual "morality" while engaging in meth-fueled trysts with gay prostitutes. The highest rates of divorce in America are in the highly-religious southern states.

Revolutionizing the science of biology just to get some space to get your jollies off - you can't really expect us to believe that's how it works, do you? How can that seem reasonable to you? Darwin labored over "On the Origin of Species" for over ten years. That's a bit far to go just for some kinky sex, isn't it? Especially since there's no indication that Darwin was anything but a devoted family man? Why do all that work just for "sexual liberation" and then not take advantage of it?

frisky teenagers

The friskiest teenagers in the country, by rate of STD transmission and extramarital pregnancy, are the conservative, Creationist teens. How does that square with your notion of evolution as a means of sexual liberation?

But an old earth is one of several fragile foundations that evolution rests on, and the evolutionary community spends a lot more effort mocking the possibility of a young earth than they attempt to reasonably address the points made by those who suggest the possibility of it.

The points have <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/">been comprehensively addressed.</a> Since by your own admission creationists have no new evidence, what's left to do but point them to the archive and ridicule them as they go? When our opponents - such as yourself - insist on offering risible notions (like that of a scientific conspiracy dedicated to the murder of creationists) why isn't derision a reasonable response?

But humanity would more accurately be described as “the public who foots the bills”.

And enjoys the benefits.

and the next minute that it’s an instrument of liberation, a philosophy of meaninglessness.

But you're the one claiming that it's "an instrument of liberation, a philosophy of meaninglessness."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by marc9000, posted 07-25-2010 5:50 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 870 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 167 of 485 (570146)
07-25-2010 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by marc9000
07-25-2010 5:50 PM


Hi, Marc.

marc9000 writes:

...it’s easy to see a motive for not wanting the world to have meaning. It is an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.

Marc, I want to lodge two complaints about this statement.

  1. I have learned a great deal about atheists from this website. Atheists only rarely think of the world as “meaningless”: they often perceive a “meaning” for the world and for their lives that is as profound and as deep as any “meaning” that you and I, as religious folks, perceive.

    This is another example of a creationist not understanding how an evolutionist thinks.

  2. I am a family man. I have a son who is almost three years old, and my wife is five months pregnant with my first daughter. I am content and happy with my family life, and have no interest in looking for sex anywhere else. In fact, I would be perfectly happy if I underwent andropause right now. I seek no sexual liberation.

    In addition, I don’t really pay much attention to politics. I have voted Democrat more often recently, simply because I greatly prize education, and Democrats are friendlier to education. But, my general political philosophy is to not rock the boat too much and not ask for too many favors from people. I seek no political liberation either.

My interest in evolution stems only from what I feel are its logical merits. I do not view the question of “meaning” as having anything to do with my acceptance of evolution. I am currently in the midst of a major religious crisis because I have never been able to glean any success from a faith-based approach to life, and am struggling to understand why a being like God would place such high importance on faith, anyway.

Your comments seem to be written through Christian-tinted glasses. I understand what it feels like to perceive the world from a Christian perspective, because I was as fundamentalist as any Christian ever was up until a couple years ago. I still cannot understand fully atheistic perspectives on life, and I can’t grasp the concept of myself without having some sort of inner “soul,” but I think I understand enough to at least accept that they are sincere and that their view is not the same as mine.

Since I acknowledge that I am no the most reliable source of information, I consequently also acknowledge that I may have no idea how stupid my perspective is. I think the world would be a much better place if everybody also acknowledged this, and approached every conversation as if they acknowledged this.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by marc9000, posted 07-25-2010 5:50 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by subbie, posted 07-25-2010 10:13 PM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply
 Message 199 by marc9000, posted 07-27-2010 7:34 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 168 of 485 (570147)
07-25-2010 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Blue Jay
07-25-2010 10:06 PM


Since I acknowledge that I am no the most reliable source of information, I consequently also acknowledge that I may have no idea how stupid my perspective is. I think the world would be a much better place if everybody also acknowledged this, and approached every conversation as if they acknowledged this.

I applaud you on your attitude, and couldn't agree more with your idea of what would make the world a better place. The unfortunate thing is that those who most need to understand what you acknowledge are those who are least likely to.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Blue Jay, posted 07-25-2010 10:06 PM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 169 of 485 (570215)
07-26-2010 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by marc9000
07-25-2010 5:50 PM


Hi Marc,

Creationists are often told that their understanding of science, (and therefore how the world works) is very limited.

Well of the shoe fits... Fact is that many, if not all creationists I have encountered are deeply ignorant of science. They demonstrate that on a daily basis. It's not an evolutionist who cited the "Second Law of Thermal Documents".

It is also worth noting that there is a difference between telling someone what and how they think and correcting someone when they voice obvious errors.

I’ve done some reading and studying on the actual history of the ToE. Darwinism wasn’t made a complete package by only Darwin, it has been put together by many others, by philosophers as well as scientists.

Yes. Do any of them claim the the ToE is true simply because Darwin says it is? No they do not.

From Aldous Huxley;

But Huxley isn't talking about evolution or the Theory of Evolution, nor is he making an argument from authority. Can you find me an evolution proponent arguing that the ToE is true because Darwin says it is or can't you?

From what I see in the political beliefs of evolutionists, from college professors to frisky teenagers to posters on these types of forums, it’s easy to see a motive for not wanting the world to have meaning. It is an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.

I make absolutely no connection between my politics and the ToE. They are two separate issues. You are welcome to conflate them if you wish, but I do not.

The ToE does not inform my politics, sexual or otherwise.

My politics had no bearing upon my acceptance of the ToE.

It is documented that the purposelessness of the evolutionary mindset is often closely connected to moral and ethical decisions. The Terry Schiavo case is a good example. Several people with scientific credentials that were quoted by the media attempted to discredit individuals of opposing views simply by mocking them because of their public Christian worldview.

Please document where the ToE was cited in the Schiavo case. If you cannot, there is no relevance in this. Merely mentioning "people with scientific credentials" does not count.

Evolutionists are generally politically liberal, and anti-tradition.

Please back this up with some kind of evidence. Of course, you may find that tricky, 'cos it's a lot of old rot...

Anti-tradition is often anti-US Constitution.

Try to get some perspective Marc. Try, please try, even if only for a minute, to realise that not everyone thinks like you.

I'm English. I live in the UK. I have no particular animus toward the constitution of a foreign country. Nor is it of any amazingly special interest to me. Nonetheless, insofar as I do care about the US Constitution, I am an admirer of it, contrary to your ignorant assumptions. One thing is for sure though; the US constitution has absolutely no relevance to my views on evolution. Only a creationist would make that connection.

“The Origin” is not directly consulted, but the detailed works that followed it were inspired by it and are often consulted.

Yes, it's a thing called "progress". Sorry if you find it distressing. I know that you Evangelical chaps value very old books, but I'm pleased to say that not everyone thinks like that. Some of us prefer new books, full of newer and more accurate information, just one of the many differences between the evo and creo "mindsets".

Daniel Dennett is described as a major contributor to the understanding of the conceptual foundations of evolutionary biology.

I'm curious; by whom?

He doesn’t call evolution an innocent study of science, he calls it a “universal acid that eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways.”

It is not my fault or Dennet's fault if traditional concepts are flawed.

I also notice that Dennet is not making the foolish argument from authority that you accused evo's of making. Are you ever going to back that up? Or withdraw it?

Text doesn’t have to be “foundational” to be profound and applicable to a subject.

It's comments like the above that make me wonder if you are even following what I'm saying. I agree that The Origin is both profound and applicable to the subject of evolution. Where we disagree is over your claim that evolutionists believe the ToE for the same reasons that you believe the Bible;

Marc9000 writes:

I read it in historical accounts (the Bible) by authorities that were authorized by the one who did it. That's good enough for me, just like atheists reading "Origin of Species" and accepting without question all the experimentation and theories of Darwin.

Remember that? Are you going to show me any evolutionists claiming to believe the ToE simply because they read it in The Origin? Or not?

I do not believe in the ToE because I read Darwin. Indeed, I haven't even read more than a couple of chapters of The Origin. There's no need; it has been superseded.

Just as Christians have no desire to eat Bibles.

Right. So you understand that a person can hold separate motivations for their beliefs, that not all of a person's beliefs need share the same motivations or thought processes. But then you say this...

The passions are equal – each worldview applies their beliefs to their own lives, and their opinions on the political decisions that they believe make the best organized societies.

...once again conflating politics and evolution in the mids of others.

How many times must I tell you before you start to believe me; I do not link politics with the ToE. I have no inkling how that would even work. You link the two, I do not. Got it?

All I’m doing is reading many common sense quotes from people who have been instrumental in shaping evolution to be regarded as it is today. Here’s one from Sir Julian Huxley;

Oh look, another quote where an evolutionist doesn't argue the point you claimed we argue. These don't help your case. What would help your case would be if you found a quote that actually backed up your claims, y'know, one where an evo claims to believe the ToE just because they read it in Darwin. Like you claimed...

In claiming an intellectual high ground over religious people as is the subject of this thread,

No, the subject of this thread is "Creationists Think Evolutionists Think Like Creationists". You continue to do a bang-up job of proving this thesis right.

You don’t have political opinions?

Yes I do. But they are not informed by the ToE, nor do my political opinions inform my views on science.

You do realise that a political belief is of a rather different nature to an objective claim about the physical world, right?

But if science were taken to court, and all the literature about evolution were studied and combined, a ruling would come forward that would look strikingly similar to the Dover ruling about Intelligent Design. It would look something like this;

A significant aspect of the evolutionary movement is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes evolution as being atheistic. In that vein, the writings of leading evolutionary proponents reveal that there is no god, or that god is insignificant enough to be non-existent.

Nice fantasy. Here in the real world of course there are hundreds of thousands of theists who accept the ToE. Compare and contrast with creationists, who are always fundamentalist religious believers of some stripe.

It’s necessary when discussing worldviews, if one worldview claims a secular superiority, a superior intellect over another worldview, as the opening of this thread asserts.

Where does the OP assert that? I cannot see it.

A passion for one’s own worldview can be labeled as mistakes or lies in court decisions

As can lies. Behe misled the court, telling it that little work had been conducted on the evolution of the mammalian blood clotting system. This was shown to be false. Whether he lied or was merely ignorant of his own field of study, only he knows. Bill Buckingham, another ID proponent actually told flat-out lies whilst under oath. Again, what reaction do you expect?

I’m not saying anything at all about what you think personally.

Nice. So you accept that I do not believe the ToE simply because Darwin said so? Great!

Given that you have not shown any evidence that any atheist does think this way, might it not be an idea to extend this courtesy to atheists as a whole?

All I did was answer the questions that you asked of me. I’m making general statements about how atheists/evolutionists don’t want the world to have meaning.

And again and again, evolutionists are telling you that you are mistaken. We do not have any problem with the world having meaning. We just differ over the source and nature of that meaning. Why do you keep doing this? Why do you insist upon telling us what we think rather than asking?

If that offends you, I’m sorry. But my advise would be to think about how offensive you are when you say “It's the creationist camp who rely on the word of a magic book”.

If I offend you, I regret that, it is not my intent. You are the one though, who said this;

Marc9000 writes:

I read it in historical accounts (the Bible) by authorities that were authorized by the one who did it. That's good enough for me

Given that you ascribe divine inspiration to the Bible, I think the phrase "magic book" is a fair one, if less than wholly respectful. I am only going on what you write.

90% of the members of the National Academy of Scientists are atheists

Total nonsense. From Wiki;

quote:
Nature's chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. The highest percentage of belief was found among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).

Most of the differences in Christian denominations are minor ones, but this thread isn’t really about Christian authority. It’s about a claim of evolutionists superior intellect, by those who are one minute claiming evolution is biological change, and the next minute that it’s an instrument of liberation, a philosophy of meaninglessness.

No, once again, the thread is about whether "Creationists Think Evolutionists Think Like Creationists". You would seem to have proved this beyond all reasonable doubt. Of course, if you want to prove that "Evolutionists Think Like Creationists" you could always provide us with some evo quotes that make the silly argument from authority that you accused us of making. But we both know you can't do that.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by marc9000, posted 07-25-2010 5:50 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 11:36 PM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

    
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1803 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 acknowledged this reply

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

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 171 of 485 (570287)
07-26-2010 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Bolder-dash
07-26-2010 11:36 PM


How evolutionists think...
Summary:

Evolutionists (and other scientists) follow the evidence where it leads. That is the definition of a scientist.

There are a few folks out there with scientific backgrounds who have accepted the bible or scripture as the highest form of knowledge, and in doing so can be said to think like creationists. They have turned their backs on science and can no longer be considered scientists.

So no, evolutionists don't think like creationists.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 11:36 PM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 1:44 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 870 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 172 of 485 (570306)
07-27-2010 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Bolder-dash
07-26-2010 11:36 PM


Hi, Bolder-dash.

Bolder-dash writes:

If he would have said more clearly, that 90% of NAS scientists are either atheist or agnostic, would you have still called this nonsense?

I think showing an ability to distinguish between atheists and agnostics would go a long way toward demonstrating that one can understand how they think.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 11:36 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1803 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 yet responded

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

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2981 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 174 of 485 (570317)
07-27-2010 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Bolder-dash
07-27-2010 1:44 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Bolder-dash writes:

Instead they specifically say that such a conclusion is absolutely unacceptable, even if that's where the evidence points

But can material evidence truly point toward a non-material explanation? It might sometimes not agree with specific materialistic theories, but I would argue that actually finding scientific evidence that points to a non-materialistic theory would be impossible. What would constitute such evidence?

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 1:44 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 8:43 AM Meldinoor has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2362 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 175 of 485 (570328)
07-27-2010 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Bolder-dash
07-27-2010 1:44 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
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.

So if this be the case, give me an example of such.


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 173 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 1:44 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 485 (570329)
07-27-2010 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Bolder-dash
07-27-2010 1:44 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
But that is not what the scientific community allows.

Because there's never been any evidence that made a non-material explanation more likely. And every time non-material explanations have been suggested, they've been proven to be false.

So naturally scientists lean against non-material explanations. They're more likely to be correct if they stick to material explanations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 1:44 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 177 of 485 (570330)
07-27-2010 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Bolder-dash
07-27-2010 1:44 AM


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.

OK, let's add methodological naturalism to the list of things you don't understand.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 1:44 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 503 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 178 of 485 (570336)
07-27-2010 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Bolder-dash
07-27-2010 1:44 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Bolder-dash writes:

... if the scientific community allowed a scientist to conclude that a non-material explanation is the most likely for a said phenomenon...

Drawing such a conclusion entails that an unlimited number of non-material "explanations" are equally likely for the given phenomenon, because there can be no objective and verifiable (i.e. material) basis for assessing the relative merits of all the possible non-material accounts that could be made up as "explanations".

That's why the scientific community doesn't allow this. It doesn't yield any substantive progress toward a better understanding of any given phenomenon; instead, it leads to a potential morass of irreconcilable alternatives with no rational path to a valid resolution.

The worst thing about such an idea is that if science allowed it, then secular courts of law would be inclined to allow it as well, because science and secular jurisprudence use the same principles of evidence and explanation. The result would be the end of secular jurisprudence, because some particular religious dogma would inexorably step in to assume authority in those cases where "a non-material explanation" could be deemed the most likely for some collection of evidence. There would be no basis, beyond a judge's own chosen bias, for selecting among the "possible" non-material explanations...

No, thank you. That won't do at all. No one with a decent amount of common sense would want to go there.

Edited by Otto Tellick, : grammar tweak


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 1:44 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 8:30 AM Otto Tellick has responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1803 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 responded

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

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1803 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 yet responded

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

  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
33NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019