Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 211 of 485 (570591)
07-27-2010 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Bolder-dash
07-27-2010 10:04 PM


Re: How evolutionists think...
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.
Are you confusing "unknown cause" with "supernatural cause?"
The two are not the same.
Until some evidence is provided for the supernatural, why would anyone attribute effects to the supernatural instead of the unknown?
And if you reflect back on the history of science, it has been steadily turning "supernatural causes" into normal and understood phenomena. Once studied and understood, they weren't supernatural after all.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 10:04 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

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 213 of 485 (570596)
07-27-2010 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Bolder-dash
07-27-2010 10:17 PM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Bolder-dash writes:
So do you say the same thing about quantum mechanics? Until you can observe it is it false?
Of course not, there is evidence of quantum mechanics.
Now if you could actually present some evidence of super-natural, do as I suggest and round up one of your super-natural critters and slap it down on on a lab table, you might have a chance to convince someone.
Bolder-dash writes:
You are free to be a disbeliever all you like-but that is not scientific.
Total utter nonsense. Belief is not relevant in science.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 10:17 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 214 of 485 (570615)
07-28-2010 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Bolder-dash
07-27-2010 9:24 PM


Re: How evolutionists think...
The problem you are missing is that in fact some experiments actually DO provide evidence that is best explained by a non-materialistic cause.
Citation? Thought not.

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 203 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 9:24 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-28-2010 2:56 AM subbie has 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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 216 of 485 (570632)
07-28-2010 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Bolder-dash
07-28-2010 2:56 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Is the results of any particular study the issue here, or is the issue whether or not a non-material explanation is acceptable?
If non-material explanations are never better it doesn't matter if they're allowed or not. If there's absolutely no real evidence for paranormal anything, then there's nothing you can accuse scientists of ignoring.
And you've not yet explained how you propose to discern the difference between something that can't be explained by materialism yet and something that never will be. Until you answer that you have absolutely no basis to suggest that anything is "evidence for non-material explanations."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-28-2010 2:56 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-28-2010 3:11 AM crashfrog 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

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 218 of 485 (570634)
07-28-2010 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Bolder-dash
07-28-2010 2:56 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Bolder-dash writes:
Which is it, A. or B.
For me? A.
I'd also like to raise the question Crash asks here, in fact, I asked you about that before. How do you know that this is not the result of a natural cause? Do you know everything?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-28-2010 2:56 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-28-2010 4:14 AM Huntard has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 219 of 485 (570635)
07-28-2010 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Bolder-dash
07-28-2010 3:11 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
How would evidence "point to a non-material explanation"? How would you tell the difference between evidence not yet explained materially, and evidence that can never be explained materially?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-28-2010 3:11 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Rrhain, posted 07-28-2010 5:00 AM crashfrog has 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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 221 of 485 (570645)
07-28-2010 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Bolder-dash
07-28-2010 4:14 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Crashfrog can't even decide between A or B.
And you can't answer an apparently simple question. How do you purport to tell the difference between evidence that hasn't been materially explained yet, and evidence that can't be materially explained at all?
Just like we can't say for certain whether or not any phenomenon is the result of a naturalistic cause.
We don't require certainty, only provisional, improving knowledge. But material explanations are indisputably more parsimonious than non-material ones, because non-material explanations have always been wrong in the past and needlessly multiply entities.
Science has for centuries been intertwined with a metaphysical world.
Science has only progressed by debunking the metaphysical world. No "non-material" claim has ever withstood scrutiny. That's a good reason to avoid such claims, right there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-28-2010 4:14 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-28-2010 4:42 AM crashfrog has 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

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 223 of 485 (570648)
07-28-2010 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Bolder-dash
07-28-2010 4:14 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
The problem is, we have as of yet no way to reliabley determine whether or not something is immaterial, or if it originates from the immaterium. As long as no reliable predictions or measurements can be made, how can we ever hope to say something with even the least bit of certainty about it? I mean I can say I'm very confident that evolution happened and is still happening, I can say I'm pretty sure that general relativity is accurate, I can say that bigfoot probably doesn't exist, and I can say that there's probably no way I can fly without aide.
Now, what can we reliably say about the immaterium? I can't think of anything. Does this not render the immaterium as explanation completely useless?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-28-2010 4:14 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 224 of 485 (570649)
07-28-2010 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Bolder-dash
07-28-2010 4:42 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Where does thought come from smart guy?
Brains.
That has withstood scrutiny for at least 5000 years, for as long as man has been able to think.
Thoughts are material patterns of neuron activation. That's how they're able to design and build machines that can determine what you're thinking about.
Mind-reading machine knows what you see | New Scientist
There's no non-material basis for human cognition; human thought is an entirely material process.
It withstands scrutiny by virtue of the fact that in all of our years studying it, we still have no explanation for it.
How would you know if we have an explanation for it or not? Wouldn't that explanation be in the books you consistently refuse to read?
You've made it beyond obvious that you lack the science education of a ninth-grader. Isn't it just possible that science explains a lot more than you're aware of, because you're not aware of the findings of science at all?
What was the last scientific study you read? Be specific, I'm looking for title, author, and date and journal of publication.
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.
I don't go to bars. I certainly don't rely on them for my science education, as you've apparently done. What's the last scientific study you read? Be specific.
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.
Nobody told me that. After all, supernatural bullshit - ghosts, souls, aliens, Bigfoot - are all way more popular than the skepticism of these same notions.
The reason that I know that no supernatural claim has ever withstood scrutiny is that I've asked proponents of the supernatural to show me a supernatural claim that can, and they've always failed. Just as you've failed to do so.
Shouldn't there be at least one proponent of the supernatural who can provide good, unambiguous evidence? Why can't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-28-2010 4:42 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 225 of 485 (570650)
07-28-2010 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Bolder-dash
07-28-2010 4:42 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Bolder-dash writes:
Where does thought come from
My brain?
What's the DNA mutation that created thought? Can you find that mutation?
That's probably not one mutation, and that's not how mutations work. There's not one mutation or gene that when switched off prevents you from thinking. It has more to do with brain size/complexity.
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.
That's alot longer than 5000 years. And we now know it has to do with brain size/complexity.
It withstands scrutiny by virtue of the fact that in all of our years studying it, we still have no explanation for it.
We do, it's because our brains are big and complex enough to think.
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.
I have thought about it. I have yet to see any evidence, that's why I told you the answer was A. Do you have any evidence for me to take into account?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-28-2010 4:42 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