Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4941 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


(1)
Message 226 of 485 (570651)
07-28-2010 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by marc9000
07-27-2010 7:34 PM


Bluejay:
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.
marc9000:
You maybe, but not myself. An atheistic meaning to life is created to harmonize with the meaninglessness in Darwinism.
I always think it's important in these discussions to remember that most atheists, at least in my part of the world, don't even think of themselves as atheists, and, although they will be vaguely aware of it, they have no in-depth knowledge of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, or the concept of Darwinism. It's also the case that they would have no idea what you were talking about if you mentioned Creationism, or the New Atheist Movement. Society is not so cleanly divided between Atheists and the Religious, or Evolutionists and Creationists, as these discussions often imply.
Most people just want to follow the basic human instincts to grow up, have a family and a home, and just make their way through life while socialising with friends and family, and generally conforming to local customs. I think that applies to most people whether or not they harbour a belief in the supernatural.
In my experience, if you attempt to raise any kind of ontological discussion in most social situations the barriers come down very quickly. I think most people are actually frightened of considering these things and just prefer to live in the bubble they construct around them, which is all that is generally necessary to get them through the day. That's as far as they look for any meaning in life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by marc9000, posted 07-27-2010 7:34 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 227 of 485 (570652)
07-28-2010 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by crashfrog
07-28-2010 3:22 AM


crashfrog writes:
quote:
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?
Well, one way would be manifestation. I've often brought this up as an example in another context ("Is there anything that happens on its own?"), but it seems to fit here:
Suppose you had a handful of coins and you tossed them on the ground. You then take an identical set of coins and deliberately, consciously, and personally set them down in an identical pattern to the one you just tossed on the ground.
How could you tell the difference between the coins that got that way on their own ("Is there anything that happens on its own?") and the ones that were put there deliberately?
Well, one way would be for me to come forward and say, "I did this. Here, watch me do it again."
This is connected to general skeptical inquiry: How do you tell the difference between a charlatan and the real thing? Well, you have to put in controls and get someone who understands how someone fakes such things keeping an eye out for just such fakery.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by crashfrog, posted 07-28-2010 3:22 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by crashfrog, posted 07-28-2010 5:21 AM Rrhain has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3100 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 228 of 485 (570654)
07-28-2010 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Bolder-dash
07-28-2010 4:14 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
We can't say we know for certain that something is the result of a non-materialistic
That is because you can't define what a non-materalistic cause is. Please give us an example of a proven non-materialistic cause.
Just like we can't say for certain whether or not any phenomenon is the result of a naturalistic cause
We do not need to prove what is already known to exist. There is a tree in my back yard. It grew from an acorn or such. I can plant an acorn and watch it grow into a tree over time. That is a naturalistic cause. Please give me an example of a non-naturalistic cause for which we have evidence.
We could just be being fooled, because something looks natural
You cannot back up this assertation until you can define and provide evidence for what something non-natural or supernatural is. And no, like I said in another thread, you cannot use personal experience as a credible source, otherwise you would have to accept every other pseudoscientific phenomena for which people claim to be true i.e. astrology, divination, esp, spoon bending, big foot, ufo's, fairies, the lochness monster, etc.
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.
Just because you think it is wrong-headed, doesn't make it so. What direction do you want to take this? Is there something better than the scientific method we can use to determine the reality in which we exist? Are you saying we should just take everything at face value without emperical evidence to back up claims? If so than why not accept all pseudoscientific phenomena. Why not believe in astrology etc.
Science has for centuries been intertwined with a metaphysical world.
Now you are just throwing out terms you do not even understand. What the heck is a metaphysical world. And what is the evidence this exists.
It hasn't stopped science from progressing.
Indeed, religious fundamentalism often (though not always) puts a dampner on scientific progress. Cases in point:
1. Pope Benedict XVI's 2009 statements claiming that the use of condoms to combat the AIDS epidemic in Africa was ineffective and counterproductive. The World Health Organisation responded at the time by saying that "These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million."
2. Roman Catholic Church's opposition to Heliocentrism and other scientific advances and discoveries by condemning via inquisition, ostricizing imprisoning or even executing those who advocated such views i.e. Galileo Galilie in the 17th century.
3. Christian fundamentalism has opposed significant scientific discoverers such as Copernicus, Kepler, Bruno, Galileo, Descartes, Newton and Darwin. Christian fundamentalism has also often opposed the following fields of science throughout history: cosmology, biological evolution, geography, astronomy, geology, anthropology, meteorology, chemistry, physics, medicine, hygiene (germ theory of illness) and psychology.
Though I am not as simplistic to say that all religion is opposed to science. I do not believe that to be true at all. It is in fact religious fundamentalism and bigotry that has significantly opposed scientific progress at one time or another throughout history. For example church father John Chrysostom instructed people to "empty your minds of secular knowledge," and in 448 the Christian emperor of the East Roman Empire, Theodosius II, ordered all non-Christian books to be burned.
It is not the religious belief itself that stifles science, it is those who take these beliefs to the extreme and let non-rational worldviews impede their ability to rationally observe and investigate the world they live in and then impede the progress of those who are conducting scientific investigation.
I am not going to say that you cannot believe in God or anyother supernatural being. However if you want anyone else to understand why you believe what you believe you must bring credible emperical evidence to the table why you think that a supernatural cause/origin exists. Everything we see, touch, feel, detect, experience is what we consider the 'natural' world around us. The burden of proof lies with those who claim that the supernatural world exists not the other way around.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

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 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 229 of 485 (570655)
07-28-2010 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Rrhain
07-28-2010 5:00 AM


Well, one way would be manifestation.
I get you. But it seems to me that there's little reason to suspect that even if someone could do psychic surgery, or remote viewing, or mental telepathy or whatever, they're able to do so by fundamentally metaphysical or supernatural means.
I mean, just about every sci-fi setting where "paranormal powers" exist has some material explanation for them; X-Men have the x-gene. Why couldn't telepaths have an extra organ that can perform biologically-based functional NMR? Why couldn't remote viewers have an extra organ that interprets Wi-Fi signals?
Clarke famously said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Isn't the reverse true, as well? Couldn't advanced technology or biology give legitimately "paranormal" results?
I'm not saying they do because clearly paranormal feats are hoaxes. But even if a genuine manifestation was presented, and we could know it was genuine, why would that mean it was supernatural? Isn't this conversation we're having, at a far remove of geography, something that would be considered supernatural wizardy a few centuries ago?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Rrhain, posted 07-28-2010 5:00 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Rrhain, posted 07-29-2010 4:14 AM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 230 of 485 (570683)
07-28-2010 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Bolder-dash
07-28-2010 2:56 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?
Both.
I'm not going to take a position on the adequacy of evidence until I see the evidence. That's the way science works.

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 215 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-28-2010 2:56 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-28-2010 10:45 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 231 of 485 (570689)
07-28-2010 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by crashfrog
07-27-2010 9:34 PM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Prayer, of course, fails every rigorous study, every time. In many studies you're even worse off in terms of recovery times if you are informed that people are praying for your recovery. And in no study, of course, has the power of prayer regenerated limbs, teeth, or corrected serious deformities as described in the Bible (and as God must surely be capable of, if he exists.)
Mythbusters proved prayer does't work! Ok, so it's not the real Mythbusters, but it is funny!
MythBusters: Does God exist?
Edited by Admin, : Fix URL.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2010 9:34 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-28-2010 10:50 AM kjsimons has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 232 of 485 (570693)
07-28-2010 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by subbie
07-28-2010 9:48 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
But it is not a question of whether the evidence is satisfactory or not. I can claim any evidence in any field of science is unsatisfactory. If you think this is a debate about the validity of the evidence, you are not understanding.
The question is whether or not ANY evidence is satisfactory to someone who has already decided that all explanations must be materialistic. If that is the mindset before an experiment even begins, how can you draw the proper conclusion. Scientists don't make conclusions before the experiment even begins.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by subbie, posted 07-28-2010 9:48 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Coyote, posted 07-28-2010 11:59 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 243 by crashfrog, posted 07-28-2010 1:56 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 233 of 485 (570694)
07-28-2010 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by kjsimons
07-28-2010 10:22 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
You know there is a school of thought that says that the testing of any supernatural phenomenon can only work if the participants believe it can work (and there are even studies to prove the results are different depending on the believe of the participants or even what you tell them beforehand). The very notion of disbelieve destroys the sensitivity necessary to achieve the result.
Who are we to say that's wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by kjsimons, posted 07-28-2010 10:22 AM kjsimons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by kjsimons, posted 07-28-2010 11:02 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 236 by nwr, posted 07-28-2010 11:38 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 246 by Trae, posted 07-28-2010 6:31 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 234 of 485 (570698)
07-28-2010 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Bolder-dash
07-28-2010 10:50 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Oh please, not this old canard! Religion has been blaming the non-believer for centuries, claiming that if we only truely believed then we'd experience god's presence. You're just blaming the participants, claiming tests don't work if they don't believe they will work. James Randi ran into this all the time when he tried to test peoples claims of psychic ability. They would blame him for giving off a bad aura or the recording equipment was interferring with the spirits or some such malarky. Sorry, I'm not buying this crap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-28-2010 10:50 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-28-2010 11:19 AM kjsimons has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 235 of 485 (570700)
07-28-2010 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by kjsimons
07-28-2010 11:02 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
But your "buying it" is irrelevant, because you haven't read the data.
There are studies that show that if you tell the participants that it works, before you do the study, the results will be more positive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by kjsimons, posted 07-28-2010 11:02 AM kjsimons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by jar, posted 07-28-2010 11:41 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 239 by Huntard, posted 07-28-2010 11:52 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 236 of 485 (570701)
07-28-2010 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Bolder-dash
07-28-2010 10:50 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Bolder-dash writes:
You know there is a school of thought that says that the testing of any supernatural phenomenon can only work if the participants believe it can work
This is known as the placebo effect, and has been much studied.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-28-2010 10:50 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-28-2010 11:49 AM nwr has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 237 of 485 (570702)
07-28-2010 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Bolder-dash
07-28-2010 11:19 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
There is nothing super-natural about that, just human fallibility and gullibility.
Edited by jar, : add gullibility

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-28-2010 11:19 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 238 of 485 (570704)
07-28-2010 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by nwr
07-28-2010 11:38 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
No, its not the placebo effect. We are talking about the volunteers administering the tests, like the one's turning over cards, or sending out the mental image.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by nwr, posted 07-28-2010 11:38 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by jar, posted 07-28-2010 12:01 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 242 by nwr, posted 07-28-2010 12:22 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 244 by crashfrog, posted 07-28-2010 1:57 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 239 of 485 (570705)
07-28-2010 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Bolder-dash
07-28-2010 11:19 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Bolder-dash writes:
But your "buying it" is irrelevant, because you haven't read the data.
We can't read anything if you don't provide it.
There are studies that show that if you tell the participants that it works, before you do the study, the results will be more positive.
Ok. Please produce them then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-28-2010 11:19 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 240 of 485 (570707)
07-28-2010 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Bolder-dash
07-28-2010 10:45 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
The question is whether or not ANY evidence is satisfactory to someone who has already decided that all explanations must be materialistic. If that is the mindset before an experiment even begins, how can you draw the proper conclusion. Scientists don't make conclusions before the experiment even begins.
It is not a conclusion, it is a working assumption.
But if you don't like the way science does things, do the experiments yourself. Nothing preventing that, is there?
The problem you find, though, is that you are dealing with metaphysics and philosophy, and you have no way to reach any conclusions. Philosophers have been naval-gazing and arguing for 2,500 or more years without reaching any meaningful conclusions, nor do they show any likelihood of ever doing so.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-28-2010 10:45 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