|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is the basis for a Creationist argument against Evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen ben Yeshua Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6475 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: We agree on this point though I suspect for very different reasons.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen ben Yeshua Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3706 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hitchy Member (Idle past 5118 days) Posts: 215 From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh Joined: |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Soracilla Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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: From Hugh Miller -- 19th-century creationist geologist:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6475 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: It was a prediction
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hitchy Member (Idle past 5118 days) Posts: 215 From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh Joined: |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Soracilla Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Soracilla Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
...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 Dating2) 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024