Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8972 total)
170 online now:
LionFluit, PaulK (2 members, 168 visitors)
Newest Member: LionFluit
Post Volume: Total: 875,373 Year: 7,121/23,288 Month: 1,027/1,214 Week: 39/303 Day: 0/39 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The opponent of Creationism is Naturalism not Evolution
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7614
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 16 of 30 (875722)
05-04-2020 3:40 AM


re naturalism. This is TalkOrigins' answer

quote:
Response:

The naturalism that science adopts is methodological naturalism. It does not assume that nature is all there is; it merely notes that nature is the only objective standard we have. The supernatural is not ruled out a priori; when it claims observable results that can be studied scientifically, the supernatural is studied scientifically (e.g., Astin et al. 2000; Enright 1999). It gets little attention because it has never been reliably observed. Still, there are many scientists who use naturalism but who believe in more than nature.

The very same form of naturalism is used by everyone, including creationists, in their day-to-day lives. People literally could not survive without making naturalistic assumptions. Creationism itself is based on the naturalistic assumption that the Bible has not changed since the last time it was read.

Naturalism works. By assuming methodological naturalism, we have made tremendous advances in industry, medicine, agriculture, and many other fields. Supernaturalism has never led anywhere. Newton, for example, wrote far more on theology than he did on physics, but his theological work is largely forgotten because there has been no reason to remember it other than for historical curiosity.

Supernaturalism is contentious. Scientific findings are based on hard evidence, and scientists can point at the evidence to resolve disputes. People tend to have different and incompatible ideas of what form supernatural influences take, and all too often the only effective way they have found for reaching a consensus is by killing each other.


CA301: Science and naturalism


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4977
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 17 of 30 (875723)
05-04-2020 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Richard L. Wang
05-03-2020 4:36 PM


Re: Science reveals the creation of God
because the Big Bang theory shows that the universe had a beginning and a Creator.

You let your scholarship slip a bit, Richard.

The big bang hypothesizes the universe may have had a beginning but the hypothesis certainly doesn't "show" or even hypothesize a creator involved in the universe. I think your religious proclivities have clouded your scientific rigour.

I hope this isn't a sign of the discussion to come.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-03-2020 4:36 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(3)
Message 18 of 30 (875726)
05-04-2020 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Tangle
05-03-2020 5:28 PM


Re: Science reveals the creation of God
I'm not dead yet ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Tangle, posted 05-03-2020 5:28 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Richard L. Wang
Member
Posts: 49
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 19 of 30 (875734)
05-04-2020 3:54 PM


This topic – EvC or NvC – is over
It seems that almost all posts of this topic agree that the opponent of Creationism is Naturalism not Evolution, so this topic can be ended. Tomorrow, I’ll propose the first topic for our NvC debate. In order to facilitate people’s tracking and participation in this NvC debate, I will divide the debate into several small topics and number them with NvC-n.

Thanks to the Administration of this Forum and all the participants on this topic.


Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 05-04-2020 4:01 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Tangle, posted 05-04-2020 4:36 PM Richard L. Wang has responded
 Message 25 by AZPaul3, posted 05-05-2020 10:16 AM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16184
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 20 of 30 (875735)
05-04-2020 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Richard L. Wang
05-04-2020 3:54 PM


Re: This topic – EvC or NvC – is over
quote:
It seems that almost all posts of this topic agree that the opponent of Creationism is Naturalism not Evolution...

More accurately we’re prepared to accept that what you are calling Creationism is opposed to Naturalism rather than Evolution. In the more usual formulation Creationism is opposed to even Theistic Evolution, despite the latter’s rejection of Naturalism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-04-2020 3:54 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7614
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 21 of 30 (875736)
05-04-2020 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Richard L. Wang
05-04-2020 3:54 PM


Re: This topic – EvC or NvC – is over
RLW writes:

It seems that almost all posts of this topic agree that the opponent of Creationism is Naturalism not Evolution, so this topic can be ended.

Is this the way it's going to be? You declare what we have agreed while ignoring what we've said?

If so, it won't go well for you here.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-04-2020 3:54 PM Richard L. Wang has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-04-2020 4:51 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Richard L. Wang
Member
Posts: 49
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


Message 22 of 30 (875737)
05-04-2020 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Tangle
05-04-2020 4:36 PM


Tangle – Sorry. We should go ahead. I like to discuss scientific issues, not philosophical concepts. In tomorrow’s post, I write that “I like to simplify things, so I’m going not to talk about methodological naturalism, I don’t like to have many philosophical concepts involved.”

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Tangle, posted 05-04-2020 4:36 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by dwise1, posted 05-05-2020 1:40 AM Richard L. Wang has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4163
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 23 of 30 (875743)
05-05-2020 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Richard L. Wang
05-03-2020 4:36 PM


Re: Science reveals the creation of God
Sad to say, you are off to a very bad start. You are proceeding from some seriously false premises which end up destroying your position.

From basic formal logic, all logical arguments start from a set of premises to proceeds to reason out conclusions based on those premises. The validity of a logical argument depends on the structure of the argument. The truth of a logical argument depends on applying true premises to a valid argument.. The only way to arrive at true conclusions is to apply true premises to a valid argument. In all other cases, you are unable to determine the truth of the conclusions; doesn't prove the conclusions false, but you cannot trust them to be true and they are very likely to be false.


  Valid Argument Invalid Argument
True Premises Conclusions are True Unable to determine truth
False Premises Unable to determine truth Unable to determine truth

You are proceeding from false premises, which compromises your entire position and your conclusions.

 
To begin with, in the OP (ie, "OPening message", Message 1) you create a false dichotomy (AKA "false dilemma"; ie, falsely reducing an argument to "either-or" (eg, the "Two Model Approach" central to "creation science") in which explanations must be either "Atheistic" or "Theistic". That is a fallacy (ie, use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument) which renders your argument invalid. There is a third option which you completely ignore: Non-theistic. The opposite of "Theistic" is not "Atheistic", but rather could be either "Atheistic" or "Non-Theistic".
And that third option of "Non-theistic" will be the choice in the vast majority of cases, including in all aspects of science. And engineering. And banking. And construction. And almost every aspect of life.

I am a retired software engineer. When I write code and explain that code, is my explanation Atheistic or Theistic? Neither, my explanation is non-theistic. Questions about the gods have absolutely nothing to do with my code! And the same applies to explaining how a car engine works, how a TV works (and used to work), how gravity works, etc.

Your ignoring of non-theistic explanations is causing you to falsely apply your false dichotomy of Theism vs. Atheism to science, which practices Non-theistic approaches, not Atheistic, methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism. You end up proceeding from false premises and an invalid argument, which invalidates your position in so many ways. This is also refered to as "shooting yourself in the foot."

In philosophy, Godless Atheists can think that Theism is wrong, not reality, or even anti-science, but it is Theism vs. Atheism, not Theism vs. reality or science. Similarly, in science, it is Creationism vs. Naturalism, not Creationism vs. reality or science. (Please don’t use Evil to describe Creationists; maybe I understand English too formally, for me, the meaning of the word evil very negative.)

"In philosophy, ... " "In philosophy, ... " Why are you ignoring your own words? "In philosophy, ... "

In science, it's about creationists of both YEC and ID stripes (such as yourself, we now see) trying to inject the supernatural where it clearly does not belong. It's not a matter of Atheistic vs. Theistic explanations, but rather the absolute need in science for Non-theistic explanations. The very existence of which you are ignoring.

 
And, sorry, but the anti-evolution movement Creationists are evil. Yes, the meaning of that word is very negative, but it does describe creationists.
They practice lies and deception as standing operation procedure in promoting their sectarian religious agenda. They attack and seek to destroy science education using whatever thoroughly dishonest means they can. And they seek to lie to and deceive everybody they can.

One form of creationist deception is for a creationist to enter a forum pretending to be a very reasonable person who just wants to compare both sides of the "issue" (which is manufactured purely by creationists and by creationists alone). Even when we take them at face value, they can never maintain their pretense for long and they will finally reveal themselves to be nothing other than typical evil young-earth creationists trying to deceive us.

Is that what you are doing here? Though I would take you for a deceptive IDist than a YEC (pretty much the only difference between those two is the question of biblical literalism; their goals of destroying science are the same).

The description of naturalism - given by the Oxford English Dictionary Online that naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world." - is in philosophy.

"In philosophy, ... " "In philosophy, ... " Why are you ignoring your own words? "In philosophy, ... "

Why did I repeat that? Because you keep ignoring it. Because you ignored it the first time, the second time, the third time, etc.

In fact, this is a scientific statement, so I take it as the description of naturalism in science as well.

Not in the least! That is a completely and utterly false statement! And since it has been explained to you more than once, you should know that it is a completely and utterly false statement. Yet you keep making it. Are you lying to us now? Because that's how it's starting to feel.

The methodological naturalism that science uses and depends on is very different from the philosophical naturalism that you keep talking about. While philosophical naturalism can indeed be considered atheistic, the methodological naturalism of science is absolutely not atheistic, but rather it is non-theistic.

Please stop mischaracterizing science as being atheist instead of non-theistic. Or at the very least address the question and present a valid argument supporting your position that science is atheistic instead of non-theistic.

As I pointed out, the opponent of Creationism is Naturalism rather than Evolution. Therefore, Creationists need not challenge evolution. In my opinion, one can challenge evolution by raising this or that issue, but it is impossible to refute evolution. However, Creationism can refute Naturalism.

Just what the hell are you talking about? In all discussions, it is most imperative to define the terms and to agree on those definitions. Otherwise, reasonable discussion is rendered virtually impossible, plus it opens the door for one side to engage in deception. It is common creationist practice to redefine and misrepresent terms and ideas and to practice deception, all part of what makes them so evil.

We know that you define "Naturalism" as being "philosophical naturalism" and that you extend that definition to meanings of "naturalism" where it clearly does not apply, such as to the non-theistic "methodological naturalism" of science. Therefore, we already know that you are misdefining that term.

What do you mean by "Creationism"? It appears that you understand that there are many different kinds of creationism, but you have yet to inform us of what kind you are referring to by that term, "Creationism". Hiding what they mean by the terms that they use is a standard form of creationist deception.

And what do you mean by "Evolution"? Creationists redefine and misrepresent that term more than any other and they refuse to tell any outsider what they mean by it. When we use that term, we are talking about the science of biological evolution. What are you talking about?

Contrary to most people’s view, science is on the side of Creationism not Naturalism.

Wrong, so very wrong.

Science does not take sides in the issue of Creation (a supernaturalistic concept which science cannot make any statements about) versus "philosophical naturalism" (which makes a philosophical statement about the existence of the supernatural, which science cannot make any statements about).

Yet again (in the hope that you will eventually realize it) science uses "methodological naturalism" which is (are you ready? Wait for it ... wait for it ... ) non-theistic.

Science reveals the creation of God.

That is a theological/philosophical statement as well as a statement of personal belief.

It is not a scientific statement. Science does not make such statements. Being non-theistic, science does not get involved in theological statements nor in statements of faith.

I’m going to propose a series of topics. The answer for each topic is YES or NO. If YES, I won the debate on that topic; if NO, I lost, and I would state I was wrong.

OK, the red flags (ie, warning signals) have just gone up.

First, meaningful discussion is not a matter of winning or losing.

Second, questions that require either a yes or no answer and does not allow for qualifications are prime fodder for the practice of deception. The classic question that illustrates that point is the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no!" If you answer "no", then you are admitting to beating your wife and continuing that practice. If you answer "yes", then you are admitting that you have beaten your wife. You are not allowed to answer to the effect that you have never beaten your wife.

The stench of deception is becoming noticable.

Edited by dwise1, : duplicate paragraph removed ("I am a retired software engineer...")


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-03-2020 4:36 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4163
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 24 of 30 (875744)
05-05-2020 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Richard L. Wang
05-04-2020 4:51 PM


Tangle – Sorry. We should go ahead. I like to discuss scientific issues, not philosophical concepts. In tomorrow’s post, I write that “I like to simplify things, so I’m going not to talk about methodological naturalism, I don’t like to have many philosophical concepts involved.”

Then it is your intent to practice deception.

Typical dishonest creationist! Didn't take you long to show your stripes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-04-2020 4:51 PM Richard L. Wang has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-05-2020 12:49 PM dwise1 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4977
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 25 of 30 (875751)
05-05-2020 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Richard L. Wang
05-04-2020 3:54 PM


Re: This topic – EvC or NvC – is over
It seems that almost all posts of this topic agree that the opponent of Creationism is Naturalism not Evolution

Really? Where? Who?

What most have agreed to is that the contention that evolution = atheism is false. I haven't even seen any substantial agreement on a definition of naturalism.

I challenge your statement.

Don't bother going on until you have supported this contention. Show your facts.


Factio Republicana delenda est.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-04-2020 3:54 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
Richard L. Wang
Member
Posts: 49
From: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Joined: 04-27-2020


(1)
Message 26 of 30 (875759)
05-05-2020 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by dwise1
05-05-2020 1:40 AM


Please keep discussion civil
The debate I’m going to put forward focuses on Atheism vs. Theism in science, especially in biology, or Naturalism vs. Creationism, where Naturalism represents believing in Naturalism rather than using it as a method, or usually called as philosophical naturalism. In short, this debate will discuss whether the existence of God needs to be considered in the interpretation of the world. This is the main theme of this Forum and of interest to most participants. This debate does exclude all non-theistic things, such as methodological naturalism, writing code, car engineering, beating wife, etc. You can consider to propose such topic elsewhere if you like.

Your posts have some good points, you mentioned Premise. My first proposal topic is about Premise.

Unfortunately, although I ask to stop using very negative words, you even use more very negative words, and in some cases, you put these very negative worlds directly on me without any evidence. What you have done violates the Rules of this Forum: 4. Points should be supported with evidence …; and 10. ... Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.

In order to keep discussion civil, please stop doing so again. If you insist on doing so, I can only ignore all your posts, even if there are good ideas.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by dwise1, posted 05-05-2020 1:40 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 05-05-2020 1:45 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Tangle, posted 05-05-2020 2:17 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 29 by dwise1, posted 05-05-2020 10:05 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded
 Message 30 by Capt Stormfield, posted 05-06-2020 12:16 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16184
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 27 of 30 (875766)
05-05-2020 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Richard L. Wang
05-05-2020 12:49 PM


Re: Please keep discussion civil
quote:
The debate I’m going to put forward focuses on Atheism vs. Theism in science, especially in biology, or Naturalism vs. Creationism, where Naturalism represents believing in Naturalism rather than using it as a method, or usually called as philosophical naturalism. In short, this debate will discuss whether the existence of God needs to be considered in the interpretation of the world.

That seems to be contradictory. If you say that God needs to be considered in scientific interpretation of the world you are expressly taking a stand against methodological naturalism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-05-2020 12:49 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7614
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 28 of 30 (875768)
05-05-2020 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Richard L. Wang
05-05-2020 12:49 PM


Re: Please keep discussion civil
RLW writes:

In short, this debate will discuss whether the existence of God needs to be considered in the interpretation of the world.

It's either going to be a very short debate - science can consider anything that impinges on reality, including god(s) if they'd like to do a bit of impinging - or a very long one - if we spend forever quibbling about definitions.

Even so, you DO need be more careful with your terminology. So far you've been muddled, inexact and unspecific - naturalism has several meanings, you need to be specific. Neo-Darwinism is not atheism - it's biology. Science is not only done by atheists, not even mostly, and most atheists are not scientists (because most people are not scientists).

It's probably best if you put your cards on the table and tell us what you actually believe and want to say rather than mess about like this.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-05-2020 12:49 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4163
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 29 of 30 (875778)
05-05-2020 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Richard L. Wang
05-05-2020 12:49 PM


Re: Please keep discussion civil
In the message that you "replied" to (Message 24), I pointed out that you had just expressed your intention to use lies and practice deception. So now you are doubling down (gambling terminology: you have made a bet, it looks like a losing bet, but you wager the same amount on that original bet -- in social/political terms, it means that you are holding a losing position, but you continue to play it).

Unfortunately, although I ask to stop using very negative words, you even use more very negative words, and in some cases, you put these very negative worlds directly on me without any evidence. What you have done violates the Rules of this Forum: 4. Points should be supported with evidence …; and 10. ... Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.

Your first post left me hopeful that we could finally have civil and constructive discussion with a reasonable creationist. But then your subsequent posts dashed our hopes as you indicated that you intend to lie to us and to practice deception. Your explicit refusal to even begin to consider ideas which are vitally relevant to any discussion of science (eg, methodological naturalism, non-theistic explanations) is further evidence of your intentions of practicing deception.

I very much want to have a civil discussion, but your implicit intentions to lie and to deceive will keep that from happening. The word you brought up, "evil", does indeed apply to those who lie and deceive in order to further their agenda, so then, yes, creationists are evil. You have indicated your intention to do evil. Please, turn away from that evil. Please!

And what you are proposing is not discussion, but rather debate. Why push for a debate at the expense of preventing discussion? In a debate, all you care about is winning in the Trumpian sense (ie, that the other side must lose). Because winning is so important, you will do everything and anything you can to win, including using any lie and any deception.

You ask me to argue the position, not the person. Well, that is exactly what I have been doing. I've been addressing your position and its serious problems, problems that would sabotage a discussion. Instead of addressing the issues I raise, you explicitly ignore them and express your intention to lie and deceive. Like a typical evil creationist.

In my first reply to you (Message 9), I brought up the fact that there is a very broad range of meanings for "creationist" which one particular small segment having usurped that title from all the rest. That small segment, which we can justifiably label as "evil", includes the young-earth creationists (YEC) and the "intelligent design" (ID) leadership (and much of their followers) who freely employ lies and deception in order to impose their ill-conceived religious agenda on the rest of society.

Part of the ID deception is to misrepresent science as using atheistic philosophical naturalism, instead of the non-theistic methodological naturalism that science actually uses. Sound familar? Isn't that the lie and deception that you have expressed the intention of employing here?

When we see evil, we will call it out as being evil. If you do not want to see that word used, then do no evil! If you persist in doing evil, then objecting to us calling it out is nothing but one of the worst forms of hypocrisy.

You call yourself creationist and you seemed to like that I pointed out how broadly defined that term is. But you have never revealed what kind of creationist you are. Indeed, you seem to have avoided that, which is typical of the evil sub-set of creationists. So then, just what kind of creationist are you?

Assuming that you will engage in typical evil creationist evasion, I will present what kind of creationist I think you are, based on the evidence.

You appear to be an ID creationist. Though immediately that bifurcates into two different camps (with some possible overlap):

  1. "ID Classic". The founders of this movement stressed that they opposed evolution for "philosophical reasons." One of the founders was lawyer Phillip Johnson. In an essay I once found by him, he stated that his reason for opposing evolution was because "it leaves God with nothing to do." That is almost as mind-boggling ignorant as his "Darwin On Trial" premise that science must be conducted using courtroom rules of evidence, whereas in reality science operates more like a police investigation (ie, following clues, forming hypotheses which help guide the search for new clues, testing and eliminating or keeping hypotheses based on the evidence gathered). Johnson's stated position is a statement of "God of the Gaps", the idea that God is hiding in the gaps in human knowledge (which makes their God impotent and fearful of the advance of knowledge). Many ID arguments, especially their probability and "irreducible complexity" ones, boil down to "Gee, we don't understand how that could work, therefore God." That is pure "God of the Gaps" which is one of the worst theologies out there. BTW, a corollary of "God of the Gaps" is the belief that if we find a naturalistic explanation for anything, then that counts as evidence against God (which is blazingly stupid and also false), but YECs especially and IDiots in part cleave to it.

    A vital part of ID Classic is their hatred for philosophical naturalism. Their Wedge Strategy (see also the document itself from the Discovery Institute) reveals their plan to insert God into the practice of science. To that end, they completely ignore the existence of methodological naturalism which is what science actually uses, instead choosing to lie about science and insist that it uses philosophical naturalism. Does that sound familiar?

  2. Ravening YEC wolves in ID clothing. In the 1970's, the YECs created "creation science" as a deliberate deception to circumvent the US court system and deceive public opinion in reaction to Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) finding the 1920's "monkey laws" and any purely religious reasons for barring the teaching of evolution to be unconstitutional. Eventually, one of the creationist "balanced treatment" state laws (LA) had perculated itself up to the US Supreme Court and in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) the entire US court system finally realized officially that "creation science" was nothing but a religious sham.

    In the popular vernacular, up to that point the creationists had been playing the game of "Hide the Bible", but now they had to play a new game: "Hide the Creationism". That phase of their game of deception was to adopt ID. Now they hide behind ID false claims and arguments. Claims of a young earth are extremely vulnerable, so they avoid those as much as possible in order to hide behind false ID probability claims.

The indications that I see are that you are that classic ID creationist who wants to lie about what science is and how it works. You want to insert your stupid god ideas into where it does not belong.

And you are willing to tell any lie and practice any deception you can in the pursuit of your idiotic theological ideas.

Why?

The debate I’m going to put forward focuses on Atheism vs. Theism in science, especially in biology, or Naturalism vs. Creationism, where Naturalism represents believing in Naturalism rather than using it as a method, or usually called as philosophical naturalism.

That is a complete and utter LIE!

Why are you so motivated to lie like that, unless you are an evil creationist? You have revealed yourself to us and we see you for what you actually are! And we are calling you out for what you have proven yourself to actually be.

"Atheism vs. Theism" has absolutely nothing to do with science, ("especially in biology"), you lying creationist! And as long as you insist on such lying, I will persist in calling you out for what you are actually doing.

Does that sound fair? It should, because it is entirely fair.

There is not just one single form of naturalism (despite your blatant and deliberate lies). The only one that I know of that ever considers the question of the existence of any gods is philosophical naturalism (which you refer to endlessly and exclusively). As far as I can tell, none of the other forms of naturalism (which you refuse to acknowledge in any way) ever address that question about the gods. I could be wrong, so do please correct me if you even can. And without lying to us.

Yet again, science is non-theistic, using methodological naturalism. It absolutely has nothing to do with any atheism-versus-theism discussions.

Stop lying about science!

Edited by Admin, : Fix message link.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-05-2020 12:49 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 409
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 30 of 30 (875795)
05-06-2020 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Richard L. Wang
05-05-2020 12:49 PM


Re: Please keep discussion civil
If you insist on doing so, I can only ignore all your posts, even if there are good ideas.

You are already ignoring content, so you might as well ignore posts too. Typical creationist/pseudo-scientist. Your internal monologue sounds mighty impressive to you, but kind of goes up on the rocks when exposed to people familiar with the subject. This results in ever more posturing and obfuscating and the ever-inevitable flouncing off.

Please save time and just flounce now.

Asshole.

KP

Edited by Capt Stormfield, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Richard L. Wang, posted 05-05-2020 12:49 PM Richard L. Wang has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020