|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3658 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3658 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3658 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Bolder-dash writes:
For me? A. Which is it, A. or B. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3658 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3658 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Bolder-dash writes:
My brain?
Where does thought come from 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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024