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:   What is the basis for a Creationist argument against Evolution?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 61 of 96 (79779)
01-21-2004 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-20-2004 3:22 PM


Re: Both Sides
Theomatics qualifies as well, prayer studies. All that I know of appeal to the God Jehovah.
Well, so far your example of prayer studies is starting to look a bit shaky isn't it? I'm still waiting for the independent replications.

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-20-2004 3:22 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 96 (79796)
01-21-2004 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Mammuthus
01-21-2004 3:27 AM


Re: Both Sides
Mammusthus,
Evidently, we don't have the same applied epistemology. Free will is a wonderful thing. Makes us all responsible for what happens to us. As you say, "there is absolutely no excuse."
I'll stay with my data-based choices, until there is data that makes me change my mind.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Mammuthus, posted 01-21-2004 3:27 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Mammuthus, posted 01-21-2004 11:47 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 63 of 96 (79797)
01-21-2004 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-21-2004 11:34 AM


Re: Both Sides
quote:
Free will is a wonderful thing. Makes us all responsible for what happens to us. As you say, "there is absolutely no excuse."
We agree on this point though I suspect for very different reasons.
quote:
I'll stay with my data-based choices, until there is data that makes me change my mind.
Yes, I will continue to practice science i.e. methodological naturalism and you will continue to be outraged and disappointed that your alternative finds no takers in the science community.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-21-2004 11:34 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-21-2004 12:10 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 96 (79807)
01-21-2004 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Mammuthus
01-21-2004 11:47 AM


Re: Both Sides
Mammuthus,
You caution me,
you will continue to be outraged and disappointed that your alternative finds no takers in the science community.
Few, not no. I was delighted by the Newsweek report of Nov 10. And by the big NIH grant studying this at Duke with Koenig. And by Dossey's book and summaries. It will take time, always does. The scoffers resist, and the true scientists plod ahead.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Mammuthus, posted 01-21-2004 11:47 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by hitchy, posted 01-21-2004 4:26 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied
 Message 70 by Mammuthus, posted 01-22-2004 3:10 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 65 of 96 (79847)
01-21-2004 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-20-2004 3:22 PM


Re: Both Sides
If the Bible Codes are so sophisticated, how do you explain the fact that when you apply the methods to a page of Moby Dick you get numerous references to Diana, Princess of Wales, Dodi Al Fayed, and death in a car crash? Surely if the Bible Codes are real and unique, we shouldn't be able to do the same sort of thing with fiction?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-20-2004 3:22 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not replied

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 66 of 96 (79858)
01-21-2004 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-21-2004 12:10 PM


Did you read the whole Newsweek article?
in the article, both sides of the issue are given and the results are somewhat inconclusive. the front cover of that particular issue, however, is very misleading and has been addressed by several people and organizations, including CSICOP. the contributing writers of the article had no input on the cover.
i am sure, though, if you look in one of the little side-bar stories you will find the words, "stephen" "is" "delusional" hidden in the text. all you have to do is turn the magazine upside down and skip every fifth letter on the diagonal opposite the picture when turned clockwise. or something like that.
[This message has been edited by hitchy, 01-21-2004]
[This message has been edited by hitchy, 01-22-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-21-2004 12:10 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-24-2004 11:55 AM hitchy has replied

  
Soracilla
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 96 (79889)
01-21-2004 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by JonF
01-20-2004 7:48 PM


Re: Interesting...
It seems to me, correct me if I am wrong, that most of you see science as not merely the investigation and testing of empirical data to find truth, but rather to find a material explanation for what we see. But how can it be shown that only the material exists? That is bordering on empiricism, which was greatly rejected by the Stoics in ancient Greece that asserted only what we experience can possibly be real. Yet how can that be said? Can you prove without a shadow of a doubt that only that which is material and sensible is able to be real?
How about giving the evidence a thought, and following where it leads, no matter how it may conflict with your preconceptions?
That is precisely what I have been saying in many of my previous posts.
We have given creationism far more than a thought. We've investigated it thoroughly, and some continue to investigate it. It has failed every test.
I have seen this statement or ones like it many a time when browsing the posts here. But saying that gets us nowhere, show me evidence of these failures, for I've read many articles that claim to do so, yet with some critical thinking, prove incoherent.
Most of modern creationism consists of attacking various branches of science rather than developing any coherent theories, and the few attempts at developing coherent theories have been abject failures (e.g.: Behe and Dembski)
Once again, I'm open to change if you show me how they have failed.
In closing, I find it hard to be convinced of evolution on this site, if all many of you say it how many times Creationism has been disproved. Articles, references, links, anything that would give some non-controvertible evidences for evolution would be greatly appreciated. If you present some actual pieces of evidence instead of saying merely how many such pieces exist, perhaps then I can be challenged of my view.
I'm not trying to be harsh, I just get a bit frustrated when you refer to evidences you have not stated, and I feel as if no progress is being made on both sides. Thanks, Soracilla.

The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.
-Mark Twain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by JonF, posted 01-20-2004 7:48 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by NosyNed, posted 01-21-2004 6:58 PM Soracilla has replied
 Message 69 by JonF, posted 01-21-2004 7:56 PM Soracilla has replied
 Message 71 by hitchy, posted 01-22-2004 9:35 PM Soracilla has replied
 Message 77 by sidelined, posted 01-23-2004 8:39 AM Soracilla has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 68 of 96 (79893)
01-21-2004 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Soracilla
01-21-2004 6:49 PM


Re: Interesting...
I have seen this statement or ones like it many a time when browsing the posts here. But saying that gets us nowhere, show me evidence of these failures, for I've read many articles that claim to do so, yet with some critical thinking, prove incoherent.
Ok, pick one, open a thread, use your critical thinking to show how it is incoherent. By giving you the choice we give you the advantage in picking one you are most comfortable with.

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Soracilla, posted 01-21-2004 6:49 PM Soracilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Soracilla, posted 01-22-2004 10:30 PM NosyNed has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 69 of 96 (79905)
01-21-2004 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Soracilla
01-21-2004 6:49 PM


Re: Interesting...
Once again, I'm open to change if you show me how they have failed.
I urge you to avail yourself of Ned's offer, but here's what you asked for. The idea of a global flood creating any significant portion of the geologic features of the Earth was abandoned by creationist geologists well before Darwin, because it could not be reconciled with the evidence. Many of them went so far as to assert that no global flood happened.
Adam Sedgwick was perhaps the greatest proponent of a global flood, yet in 1831 he said (as quoted at Summary on the Flood and A Flood Geologist Recants: Post of the Month: April 2002):
quote:
Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.... There is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established -- that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period....
From Hugh Miller -- 19th-century creationist geologist:
quote:
Perhaps of particular interest to present-day creationists, however, is the way that Miller also discusses the theological issues. Many of the points Miller raises will be completely familiar to anyone who has followed the newsgroup talk.origins for a while, no matter what their perspective on the issues discussed there. Also, Miller's "The Testimony of the Rocks" book, published in 1857, provides useful historical documentation of the state of geology and the "global flood" model a few years prior to the publication of Darwin's theory of evolution in "The Origin of Species" in 1859. A common claim of some modern "young Earth global flood" creationists is that the geologic time scale and fossil succession is somehow "circular" or otherwise dependent upon evolutionary theory. A simple reading of Miller's discussion, prior to the proposal of evolutionary theory, makes it obvious that before Darwin's theory was published, the basic fossil succession and geologic time scale was well-established by completely independent means, even in the opinion of creationist geologists of that time. Likewise, the theory of a global flood as an explanation for the Earth's geology had been completely abandoned by almost all scientists familiar with geology, including the creationist ones. It was not consistent with the evidence known even then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Soracilla, posted 01-21-2004 6:49 PM Soracilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Soracilla, posted 01-24-2004 10:59 PM JonF has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 70 of 96 (79984)
01-22-2004 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-21-2004 12:10 PM


Re: Both Sides
quote:
You caution me,
It was a prediction
quote:
It will take time, always does. The scoffers resist, and the true scientists plod ahead.
Yes it does take time..those scoffers blinded by religious fundamentalism and the extreme self importance that comes with it will resist every step that methodological naturalism makes...and true scientists will plod ahead overturning hypotheses..maybe knocking down a few theories and continuously improving our understanding of the natural world based on evidence. Too bad you will be in a corner with your thumbs in your ear hiding from imaginary demons and denying that any progess has been made...perhaps you should join the Amish or start your own cult..Fretwellism perhaps?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-21-2004 12:10 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-24-2004 11:58 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 71 of 96 (80196)
01-22-2004 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Soracilla
01-21-2004 6:49 PM


Re: Interesting...
ok, you said, and correct me if i am wrong...
"most of you see science as not merely the investigation and testing of empirical data to find truth, but rather to find a material explanation for what we see. But how can it be shown that only the material exists?"
science can only deal with "real" situations and evidences gathered in nature. "real" being the operative word here. what is "real"? i say reality is "what can be objectively detected repeatedly by anyone." for example, the grass is green. a blind man cannot see that the grass is green. however, if we extract the green pigment from the grass and analyze it, it will show that the light reflected off of the pigment falls in the wavelength range for the color green. that info can then be communicated to the blind man orally or through braille or whatever...
anyone with any other thoughts on reality?
[This message has been edited by hitchy, 01-22-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Soracilla, posted 01-21-2004 6:49 PM Soracilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Soracilla, posted 01-22-2004 10:38 PM hitchy has not replied

  
Soracilla
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 96 (80200)
01-22-2004 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by NosyNed
01-21-2004 6:58 PM


Re: Interesting...
On the contrary, Ned, I'd much rather have you pick your strongest arguments; its the challenge I search, not what I am already familiar with. I want my view put to the test, you see, I want to see if it holds up, if it doesn't, then I'll forfeit it.

The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.
-Mark Twain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by NosyNed, posted 01-21-2004 6:58 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by NosyNed, posted 01-23-2004 1:27 AM Soracilla has replied
 Message 78 by JonF, posted 01-23-2004 9:07 AM Soracilla has not replied

  
Soracilla
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 96 (80201)
01-22-2004 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by hitchy
01-22-2004 9:35 PM


Re: Interesting...
That was exactly my point, hitchy. Thanks . You see, you're dismissing an immaterial thing to be reality, and retreating to a subtle version of empiricism, saying that only what we can see and hear and touch is reality. But can you prove that? Reason tells us no, you cannot make a definitive statement ruling out intangible things from reality. If I am mistaken, and you have a proof of a purely materialistic world, do share.

The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.
-Mark Twain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by hitchy, posted 01-22-2004 9:35 PM hitchy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by NosyNed, posted 01-23-2004 1:34 AM Soracilla has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 74 of 96 (80247)
01-23-2004 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Soracilla
01-22-2004 10:30 PM


Discussion
...its the challenge I search, not what I am already familiar with
But I have no idea what you already agree with. Why bother going over ground that we don't have any disagreement with?
Here in what I think is a reasonable order are some of the major items that some of our folks here disagree with:
1) The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. See Dates and Dating
2) Life has undergone a long series of changes over that time.
3) There has been no global flood in at least many millions of years.
4) We as humans are close cousins of the apes alive today.
It is hard to discuss 2 if you disagree with 1 or 4 if you disagree with 2. So you might start down the list in that order. Which ones do you agree with and witch do you disagree with?

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Soracilla, posted 01-22-2004 10:30 PM Soracilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Soracilla, posted 01-24-2004 10:40 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 75 of 96 (80248)
01-23-2004 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Soracilla
01-22-2004 10:38 PM


Re: Interesting...
If I am mistaken, and you have a proof of a purely materialistic world, do share.
There are very few here who would argue that there is any proof of a purely materialistic world. This isn't something that there is much arguement about. You might start a thread on this if you want to smoke out those who are interested in having such an argument but I'm not going to bother with it.
Hitchy wasn't saying there was any such proof. What he said, in so many words, is that science is a limited way of knowing. It can only know about those things that are, in some way, "material". That is, things which are subject to observation. And observation with some moderately stringent requirements for being independently dealt with by more than one person, in fact, anyone who is interested in dealing with it.
That doesn't prove or even say there isn't anything else. It just says the those who want to understand the material world can only deal with those things that are part of it.
If you have a way of extending that way of knowing that handles the problems with the perception of individual humans then I'm sure we'd be interested in hearing about it.
If not, then don't worry about it. We will not be disproving the existance of something which has no scientifically testable impact on the material world. We will continue to ignore it until it does impact on the material world. That limitation has served very well so far however limited it may be.

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Soracilla, posted 01-22-2004 10:38 PM Soracilla has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by hitchy, posted 01-23-2004 8:22 AM NosyNed 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