Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,136 Year: 5,393/9,624 Month: 418/323 Week: 58/204 Day: 34/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2215 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 75 of 485 (568804)
07-17-2010 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by GDR
07-17-2010 9:40 PM


Re: Evolution is agnostic
It just seems to me that if our science is correct then it should have something to tell us about a creator should one exist. That's how I see it anyway.
Different field entirely.
Science has chosen to work with natural phenomena, so why should it be telling you about supernatural phenomena?
For that you need to turn to the approximately 4,000 world religions, or if you prefer, the approximately 40,000 sects, denominations, or flavors of Christianity.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by GDR, posted 07-17-2010 9:40 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by GDR, posted 07-17-2010 10:06 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2215 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 83 of 485 (568819)
07-17-2010 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by GDR
07-17-2010 10:06 PM


Re: Evolution is agnostic
I'm not suggesting that science will necessarily help you choose between different faiths, (although it might), I'm just saying that the study of the creation might give us clues about the creator.
Science can easily evaluate some of the claims of particular faiths; for example, the young earth belief and the global flood about 4,350 years ago claim have both been devastated.
But wouldn't you need to establish the existence of a creator before you could learn from that creator's creation?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by GDR, posted 07-17-2010 10:06 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by GDR, posted 07-17-2010 11:10 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2215 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 171 of 485 (570287)
07-26-2010 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Bolder-dash
07-26-2010 11:36 PM


How evolutionists think...
Summary:
Evolutionists (and other scientists) follow the evidence where it leads. That is the definition of a scientist.
There are a few folks out there with scientific backgrounds who have accepted the bible or scripture as the highest form of knowledge, and in doing so can be said to think like creationists. They have turned their backs on science and can no longer be considered scientists.
So no, evolutionists don't think like creationists.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-26-2010 11:36 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 1:44 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2215 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 211 of 485 (570591)
07-27-2010 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Bolder-dash
07-27-2010 10:04 PM


Re: How evolutionists think...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 10:04 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2215 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

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2215 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 253 of 485 (570787)
07-28-2010 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by jar
07-28-2010 9:05 PM


What is metaphysical about...
And what is metaphysical about mathematicians coming up with weird stuff?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by jar, posted 07-28-2010 9:05 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by jar, posted 07-28-2010 9:39 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2215 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 316 of 485 (571263)
07-31-2010 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 315 by Bolder-dash
07-31-2010 12:17 AM


Re: That's a Big Jump
Given the fact that we know that there is no such thing as the smallest unit, that things just keep getting smaller or disappear altogether if we look closely enough, we are virtually guaranteeing that the world is super-natural. Because this is what super-natural is, the inability of something to be able to exist in a natural world.
In many science fiction books the authors felt the need to have faster than light travel to make the plot work. Many faster than light drives were "developed" and explained, more or less. These became known as "double-talk drives" because they surpassed the rules of physics as we understand them, while being cursorily explained in the text.
You have done much the same with your explanations of things scientific. You ignore real learning and study and rely instead on double-talk in an effort to make your religious beliefs relevant to the real world.
Like the science fiction authors, you have failed miserably at science while still being entertaining!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-31-2010 12:17 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2215 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 413 of 485 (571632)
08-01-2010 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 400 by Bolder-dash
08-01-2010 2:26 PM


Re: Expelled?
Anyway, do you have any theory about why evolutionists intentionally alter Wikipedia to suit their cultism?
Sorry to have to break this to you, but science is the norm, the standard. People around the world, of all religions and no religion, contribute to it and help shape it. It is based on evidence that is clear to anyone who cares to look for it.
It is those who follow particular interpretations of particular religions who have trouble with science and what science has learned. They adhere to a narrow view of ancient texts and myths. They have to deny and ignore the evidence that contradicts their religious beliefs.
Now which of these is more properly called a "cult?"

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-01-2010 2:26 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2215 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 438 of 485 (571908)
08-02-2010 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by bluescat48
08-02-2010 11:03 PM


Re: The search for meaning
I don’t think it’s all that unusual for a person to hold personal opinions, yet not insist that only those opinions be used to structure or maintain how a society operates.
Then tell that to the Texas school board. A number of members there want to force pseudoscience (creationism) into the science curriculum.
Sure they have a right to have an opinion on creationism, but should not be able to force that view down anyone else's throat.
Forgive him, Caesar — he is a barbarian and considers that the customs of his tribe are the laws of nature.
G.B.Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by bluescat48, posted 08-02-2010 11:03 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2215 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 450 of 485 (572236)
08-04-2010 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 446 by marc9000
08-04-2010 8:27 PM


Re: The search for meaning
If Christianity had peer review, would you respect it like scientific peer review?
Depends on whether it was nothing more than apologetics. That's the most likely kind of peer review that most religions would willingly accept.
The record for religions actually subjecting their beliefs to a reality test is pretty poor.
Personally, I think real evaluation against empirical evidence is the last thing most religions want to see.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by marc9000, posted 08-04-2010 8:27 PM marc9000 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