Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 24/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17849
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 165 of 485 (570129)
07-25-2010 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by marc9000
07-25-2010 5:50 PM


quote:
But as I touched on in my previous post, it goes both ways. Creationists are often told that their understanding of science, (and therefore how the world works) is very limited.
So what you mean is that creationists assume that they know what their opponent's think - and are wrong AND creationists often assume that they know about science - and are wrong about that, too.
quote:
I’ve done some reading and studying on the actual history of the ToE. Darwinism wasn’t made a complete package by only Darwin, it has been put together by many others, by philosophers as well as scientists. People like Thomas Huxley and Herbert Spencer were two of the more prominent early ones, but there are practically too many to name. Huxley’s two grandsons, Sir Julian, and Aldous, made profound statements about evolution that are no longer politically correct, but are just as true as they ever were.
Yet apparently you don't know that Aldous Huxley made no great contributions to evolutionary theory - or that the quote that you offer isn't about evolution at all. THe only good point is that you didn't falsely attribute the quote to Julian Huxley as a number of creationists have done.
quote:
It is documented that the purposelessness of the evolutionary mindset is often closely connected to moral and ethical decisions. The Terry Schiavo case is a good example. Several people with scientific credentials that were quoted by the media attempted to discredit individuals of opposing views simply by mocking them because of their public Christian worldview.
I very much doubt that that is an honest description of the case. Of course those who took the moral stand were those in favour of taking the corpse off of "life support". THe campaign of lies and slander came from the other side.
quote:
The Origin is not directly consulted, but the detailed works that followed it were inspired by it and are often consulted. Daniel Dennett is described as a major contributor to the understanding of the conceptual foundations of evolutionary biology. He doesn’t call evolution an innocent study of science, he calls it a universal acid that eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways.
Have you ever heard of Daniel Dennett?
Yes. And that is why I know that he is a philospher - primarily known as a philosopher of mind - and that his main contribution is one popular-level book written in 1995. Hardly a foundational work, and one that did not meet with universal agreement from evolutionary scientists. Nor is it a book consulted for ethical advice by - to the best of my knowledge - anyone at all.
quote:
Just as Christians have no desire to eat Bibles. The passions are equal — each worldview applies their beliefs to their own lives, and their opinions on the political decisions that they believe make the best organized societies. In believing that the order we see the world is formed by purposelessness, it’s only natural that evolutionists hold science in high regard as a source of knowledge. Those of the Christian religion are more likely to regard time-tested,corroborated, written history over the evolutionist writings of Daniel Dennett or Richard Dawkins. Neither worldview holds a defined advantage in critical thought, as this threads opening posts assert.
And what "time-tested,corroborated, written history" contradicts the writings of Dawkins or Dennett ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by marc9000, posted 07-25-2010 5:50 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17849
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 285 of 485 (571110)
07-30-2010 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by GDR
07-30-2010 10:17 AM


quote:
In the natural world something that is infinite doesn't make sense as Greene points out. Infinity as an answer to either the situation at T=0, or the example of the combining of the equations for QM and Relativity that Greene talks about, may be just because of the fact that we haven't solved the problem yet and there will be another answer.
Which is almost certainly the case. Until we can get QM and GR to work together, we can't trust GR to describe situations where quantum mechanical effects are important.
quote:
Right now however, the answer is infinity, and it seems to me that this could constitute evidence for something that exists outside of the physical world as we understand it.
So you are building a speculation on top of a highly unlikely speculation. That's so weak as to be negligible as evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by GDR, posted 07-30-2010 10:17 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by GDR, posted 07-30-2010 11:40 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17849
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 287 of 485 (571114)
07-30-2010 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by GDR
07-30-2010 11:40 AM


quote:
I don't agree. Right now science and mathematics provide an answer of inifinity which if correct is not something that is conceivable in our 4 dimensional world.
Right now, we don't have a theory that can be trusted to describe those conditions. The theory that we do have comes up with a result that is probably impossible. So that theory is almost certainly wrong (in this situation).
quote:
The current science points to something metaphysical. It's evidence of something metaphysical. Is it the final word? No. But it seems to be where we are at right now.
No, it doesn't. Current science says that the answer you like so much is almost certainly wrong. That is where we are now.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by GDR, posted 07-30-2010 11:40 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by GDR, posted 07-30-2010 1:25 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17849
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 291 of 485 (571150)
07-30-2010 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by GDR
07-30-2010 1:25 PM


quote:
I'm not saying that it isn't wrong but right now the evidence points to something outside the physical.
No, the evidence says that the theory that we have is not applicable to those circumstances. You cannot validly ignore QM at the scales where it applies and we have no working way of fully combining GR and QM.
quote:
You can only say that it is almost certainly wrong if you discount the possibility of anything outside the physical.
Wrong. The reasons are that the calculation is an abuse of the theory and the result makes no sense - according to the quotes that you produced. As I have already pointed out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by GDR, posted 07-30-2010 1:25 PM GDR 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