Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
0 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: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.
Taq
Member
Posts: 10191
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 30 of 485 (568516)
07-06-2010 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Big_Al35
07-06-2010 9:31 AM


Creationists like to think of themselves as optimists; they believe in an afterlife, morals and good nature and that these attributes are worth pursuing.
As do many evolutionists, being that 30% of biologists are theists of one sort or another. Also, atheists and agnostics also believe in morals and good nature and think they are worth pursuing.
They believe in survival of the fittest, kill or be killed, anything goes. Success is measured in terms of still being around to see the death of all those around you.
Survival of the fittest is simply what happens just like gravity and the transmission of infectious diseases (that good ol' Germ Theory). What nature does in no way informs us of what we ought to do. Success is measured in living a fulfilling life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Big_Al35, posted 07-06-2010 9:31 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10191
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 36 of 485 (568538)
07-06-2010 12:47 PM


Much of this can be explained by projection, IMHO. Creationists accept creationism because their religious texts tell them to believe in it. Creationists project this thought process onto evolutionists. They believe that evolutionists do the same thing, except that their "bible" is "On the Origin of Species". They actually think that atheists are somehow lost and need something to cling to, and so they pick evolution as a religious belief that helps define their worldview. Creationists don't see this as science vs. religion but as religious vs. religion.

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10191
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 62 of 485 (568638)
07-07-2010 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Big_Al35
07-07-2010 9:25 AM


You seem to think that creationists should think like evolutionists.
How do evolutionists think, in your opinion? Please keep in mind that about 30% of biologists world wide believe in some form of a creator god and an afterlife.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Big_Al35, posted 07-07-2010 9:25 AM Big_Al35 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Big_Al35, posted 07-14-2010 10:37 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10191
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 302 of 485 (571224)
07-30-2010 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Bolder-dash
07-30-2010 7:48 PM


Re: How evolutionists think...
By what standard are you using to say that one piece of evidence is suitable to say it it connected to what it appears to (such as the fossils) and another can not be said to be evidence of (seeing things while you are dead) what it appears to be?
The standard is empricism. Fossils are objective things that exist outside of someone's head. Near death experiences do not meet this requirement.
If tomorrow a great cloud appeared in the sky, and said "I am a spirit Percy, this is the truth!" and then suddenly disappeared, and everyone in the world saw and heard it, you could still just say-well, its unknown.
That would meet the standards of empirical evidence, but your NDE's do not since only one person experiences it and it is not available to others.
Well, maybe fossils are just coincidence.
You are moving towards dishonesty land.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-30-2010 7:48 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10191
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 428 of 485 (571814)
08-02-2010 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by Bolder-dash
08-01-2010 1:50 PM


Re: I know it is silly to even ask
I see this rabid dog mentality in the way they ganged up on eminently qualified scientists like Guillermo Gonzalez, who was inexplicably denied tenure at ISU . . .
I have actually read a lot on this "controversy", and I think it sheds a lot of light on the topic at hand. The truth of the matter is that Gonzalez had secured very little grant money, had no major grants from the big foundations like NASA and NSF, had stopped doing new research, and had only graduated one student. What publications he did have during his time at ISU were based on work he had done during graduate school and postdoc work. Admittedly, Gonzalez showed a lot of promise during grad school and during his postdoc years which is why he was hired on at ISU. However, once Gonzalez was on his own he failed to do what is required of scientists at research universities, get funding and graduate students. This is why he was denied tenure, and there is very little Gonzalez can do to deny this.
Tenure is something that is EARNED, not given simply by being around for a little while. Gonzalez hadn't earned it by every measure available. All of this can be determined without ever mentioning his ID leanings.
So what does this have to do with the topic at hand? Creationists think adherence to theology is more important than adherence to reality. Glenn Morton speaks of this very thing in his autobiography:
quote:
By 1986, the growing doubts about the ability of the widely accepted creationist viewpoints to explain the geologic data led to a nearly 10 year withdrawal from publication. My last young-earth paper was entitled Geologic Challenges to a Young-earth, which I presented as the first paper in the First International Conference on Creationism. It was not well received. Young-earth creationists don't like being told they are wrong. The reaction to the pictures, seismic data, the logic disgusted me. They were more interested in what I sounded like than in the data!
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm
Creationists assume that evolutionists are just like them. They figure that adherence to this supposed "evolutionary theology" is more important than anything else, including the data. They never stop to think that maybe, just maybe, the data actually matters. That scientific research really matters. That getting grant money to do original research matters. That graduating new scientists actually matters.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-01-2010 1:50 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10191
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 462 of 485 (572367)
08-05-2010 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 460 by GDR
08-05-2010 10:52 AM


Re: That's a Big Jump
As Greene says we don't encounter inifinity in the natural world. In the natural world an answer of inifinty is meaningless. Greene obviously believes that there must be a physical or natural answer in the end as he calls the answer of the calculations as they stand nonsense. A non-physical or natural answer is meaningless according to Greene. Maybe he's right but it can't be proven, however as things stand the calculations point to something outside the natural.
How can calculations point to something outside of the natural? How does that work? 1/0=infinity, therefore leprechauns? Is that your argument?
The fact of the matter is that our current understanding of nature is incomplete, and probably always will be. GR and QM are great models, but they are just models. They are not reality. When you try to combine GR and QM and get infinities (aka wrong answers) it tells us that GR and QM are wrong in some way. It is very much like the fall of classical mechanics when the precession in Mercury's orbit was first observed. The failure of Newton's equations did not point to something outside of nature. It pointed to a problem in Newton's equations and our understanding of gravity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by GDR, posted 08-05-2010 10:52 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 464 by GDR, posted 08-05-2010 8:20 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10191
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 476 of 485 (573044)
08-09-2010 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 464 by GDR
08-05-2010 8:20 PM


Re: That's a Big Jump
It seems to me that most cosmological discoveries have been made because mathematical calculations pointed toward a specific solution.
What about Newton's Laws of Gravity and the precession of Mercury's orbit? The orbit demonstrated that Newton's laws were wrong, but it didn't point towards Relativity. Mercury's orbit simply showed that Newton is wrong in the same way that current calculations demonstrate that QM and GR are wrong or incomplete on some level (which every physicist has known for quite some time).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 464 by GDR, posted 08-05-2010 8:20 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by GDR, posted 08-09-2010 3:30 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10191
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 478 of 485 (573060)
08-09-2010 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 477 by GDR
08-09-2010 3:30 PM


Re: That's a Big Jump
When Newton was around the evidence indicated that this was a deterministic world. Later new evidence came to light which showed that Newton's views were wrong. The point is though that at the time of Newton the evidence pointed towards a deterministic existence.
If memory serves, Einstein was firmly in the Deterministic school of thought. Remember the quip "God does not play dice"?
It is very possible that in the future there will be advances in science that will find naturalistic answers. I'm just saying that the current science seems to indicate an answer that lies outside our 4 dimensional world.
Or rather, that our world is made up of more than the 4 dimensions that we are familiar with right now. The extra dimensions hinted at in String Theory do not lie outside of our world but are a part of it. A good analogy is Reimman's bookworm. In this analogy the 3D curvature of the crumpled page is detected as a force by the bookworm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by GDR, posted 08-09-2010 3:30 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 479 by GDR, posted 08-09-2010 3:52 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10191
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 480 of 485 (573072)
08-09-2010 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 479 by GDR
08-09-2010 3:52 PM


Re: That's a Big Jump
I agree although it seems to me that our world is made up of what we can pereceive and all we can perceive are 4 dimensions. I don't imagine that string theory advocates dimensions that we can perceive so wouldn't that make them metaphysical?
The extra dimensions are potentially detectable through instruments such as the LHC. They would be no more metaphysical than radio waves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by GDR, posted 08-09-2010 3:52 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 481 by Bikerman, posted 08-09-2010 8:55 PM Taq 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