Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
73 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, kjsimons, Pollux, Tangle, Tanypteryx (6 members, 67 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,214 Year: 4,326/6,534 Month: 540/900 Week: 64/182 Day: 36/16 Hour: 3/1

Announcements: Security Update Coming Soon


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Guide to the tactics of Evolutionists
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 166 of 214 (378412)
01-20-2007 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Dr Adequate
01-20-2007 10:25 AM


Re: uh huh?
Basically you display a classic evo mentality. You assert your model as evidence in order to ignore actual evidence. The truth is you have failed to substantiate any equilibrium due to mutations whatsoever.

In fact, I don't think you even grasp intellectually the concept being discussed here. It's real simple. We observe genetic decreases via microevolutionary processes.

You and evos claim that mutations add up to create an equilibrium, but you have failed to demonstrate that. Moreover, it's not because there are no factual analysis where you could try. Evos have created models of mutation rates based on molecular clock concepts. You were asked to show that mutaton rates are sufficient to overcome the pressure towards limiting genetic diversity through microevolution.

Instead, you completely ignored that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2007 10:25 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-21-2007 8:55 PM randman has taken no action

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 167 of 214 (378428)
01-20-2007 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Dr Adequate
01-20-2007 11:52 AM


Re: good comment but...
DA, dictionary definitions are not the same as scientific definitions which can be tested and verifiable. That's a basic concept in science, which you seem unaware of by your response. When someone says there is no "definition", they are referring to a workable, scientific definition of a term that can be understood, verified or at least is theoritical.

The fact you failed to grasp that is the kind of thing why you were originally booted. You fail to see what the other side is saying.

For my threads here, one needs to be able to understand what is being stated, the arguments presented, so that your argument is fruitful. You don't have to agree, but if you don't seem able to even grasp why I or some other non-evo is stating, then you don't belong here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2007 11:52 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-21-2007 9:13 PM randman has taken no action

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 168 of 214 (378430)
01-20-2007 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Dr Adequate
01-20-2007 11:52 AM


an example of your childishness and ignorance
... and ignore the field of study that involves defining and exploring what constitutes the material world.

... the name of which you seem to have forgotten.

Once again, it is hard for me to accept you honestly believe this when I already named the field of study, quantum mechanics, that involves exploring what constitutes the material world in the sense of what is "material." What is the make-up of what we think of as material or physical.

It seems you prefer to try to score points rather than discuss the topic and so are willing to hurl childish insults and false accusations. That may work on the general forum, or maybe not, but it won't go here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2007 11:52 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-21-2007 8:46 PM randman has taken no action

Percy
Member
Posts: 20757
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 169 of 214 (378478)
01-20-2007 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by randman
01-20-2007 3:18 PM


Re: More Darwinian Tactics
Hi Randman,

I wasn't actually expecting a reply to an Admin post, but since you did and since you raised some interesting questions I think it's probably a good idea to respond, which I'll do as Percy.

Being a theist doesn't change the essential atheist perspective towards science of evos.

Some evolutionists are atheists, some aren't. Some scientists are atheists, some aren't. But evolution is not atheistic, and in broader terms science is not atheistic. Someone recently quoted Wittgenstein to me when I echoed his sentiments, but I like Wittgenstein's words better: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

In a scientific context this means that science cannot comment about things for which it has no evidence. Regarding God, in the absence of evidence science can say neither that God exists, nor that God does not exist. Science simply cannot say.

So when you go on to say:

So contrary to what you claim and regardless of whether an evolutionist is a believer, the simple fact is the field itself, mainstream evolutionism, is itself based on an atheist philosophy in terms of what it considers acceptable in the area of research.

It's simply untrue.

I think a lot of confusion revolves around different interpretations of what is natural and what is supernatural. There's no one right way of describing the proper realm of scientific study, but there are wrong ways and inconsistent ways. Let me try to offer one of the right ways.

Science is the study of natural phenomena. A natural phenomena is anything that we can detect, whether by direct means (see it, hear it, etc.) or indirect means (microscope, telescope, thermometer, etc.).

Technological restrictions are not a consideration in this regard. An example is radio waves. Radio waves did not suddenly become natural phenomena only after we developed the ability to detect and broadcast them. Radio waves were always natural. All that changed was our awareness of this natural phenomena due to improving science and technology.

But consider if back in, say, the year 1000 some monk had come up with a theory about radio waves. What would the science of the time, such as it was, have to say about radio waves? Well, with no actual evidence of radio waves, and assuming he didn't duplicate Maxwell's work 900 years early in order to provide a theoretical foundation, science could only remain silent. Science could say neither that radio waves existed, nor that they did not exist. Science simply couldn't say. But that doesn't make the science of that time a-radiowave-istic.

It is the same way today with science regarding God. In the absence of evidence science can say nothing about the existence or non-existence of God. Science simply cannot say. Science is not atheistic. Science isn't theistic. It is neither. If/when evidence of God is uncovered then that could change, but until such a time science just has nothing to say about God.

Where we certainly disagree is about whether evidence of God has been found. Science can be likened to a growing apple where the core and the fruit represent established science while the skin represents the expanding frontiers of science where most of the debates about evidence and theories and most of the vicious arguments over credit and precedence take place. I understand that you truly believe that scientific evidence of God has already been found, and if you want to call those scientists who disagree liars and frauds and cheats, well, I guess sometimes scientists use those names on each other as well.

But I think it would be much more productive to take a positive outlook by simply recognizing that even if you really do have evidence of God that you're still on the scientific frontiers, and that acceptance of your evidence will happen much more quickly through concerted successful research efforts conducted under the auspices of mainstream science than by name-calling, the founding of independent organizations unaffiliated with established scientific institutions, and lobbying of school boards, text book publishers and state legislatures. These are quite recognizably the efforts of people who sincerely believe in God the creator, but is not recognizable as science by most in the scientific establishment.

In fact, much of it appears anti-science, particularly the Discovery Institute's wedge document stating the undermining of naturalism as one of its goals. You know how members of professional sports teams are cautioned not to provide upcoming opponents with bulletin board material? Well, the wedge document is major bulletin board material. The scientific community in general wasn't too concerned about organizations like ICR and CRS, it all seemed so pathetic scientifically, but the activities of the Discovery Institute has the scientific community alarmed, particularly since our country's success in the world community is tightly bound to our scientific expertise, and the secular community is marshaling against creationism and ID at a level of energy totally surprising from the perspective of just a few years ago.

Arguably and you know I also point this out, theistic evolutionists should rightly be in the ID camp because once you say God designed the universe, you have to admit that by extension God designed life as we know it.

We can argue about this some other time, I'll just point out that one doesn't follow deterministically from the other.

No, I think your interpretation of data is skewed by a philosophy which is at it's core atheistic (EVEN WHEN BELIEVERS ASCRIBE TO IT).

I already explained why science is not atheistic above.

In short, evos are generally subjected to a brainwashing process in how the material is presented and believed.

That's your theory? Brainwashing on a massive scale? Millions of people over a hundred and fifty years? No supporting data, we just believe it because we were told it? No successful research, just secret meetings of the evolutionist cabal's leaders once a year to agree on what new developments are going to happen? No genius evolutionist ever uncovered the secret, not renegade evolutionist ever let out the truth?

Please.

Look, even if you believe we're all a bunch of brainwashed, lying, cheating atheists, try to keep these thoughts to yourself and just have a nice civil rational discussion for a change.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by randman, posted 01-20-2007 3:18 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by randman, posted 01-20-2007 8:19 PM Percy has replied
 Message 177 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-21-2007 5:06 PM Percy has taken no action

Admin
Director
Posts: 12788
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 170 of 214 (378480)
01-20-2007 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by randman
01-20-2007 3:04 PM


Admin Decision
randman writes:

Not sure if I should answer your posts anyway, maybe a little unfair, as I am booting you off...

Uh, yeah, probably a bit unfair given the number of replies to Dr A. I see you posted. I think you have to let him respond and we'll see how it goes.

I'd like to see you both work at a civil and constructive discussion that reflects a desire on both your parts to seek common ground and an understanding of each others' viewpoint.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by randman, posted 01-20-2007 3:04 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by randman, posted 01-20-2007 8:24 PM Admin has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 171 of 214 (378483)
01-20-2007 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Percy
01-20-2007 7:56 PM


Re: More Darwinian Tactics
But evolution is not atheistic, and in broader terms science is not atheistic. Someone recently quoted Wittgenstein to me when I echoed his sentiments, but I like Wittgenstein's words better: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

In a scientific context this means that science cannot comment about things for which it has no evidence. Regarding God, in the absence of evidence science can say neither that God exists, nor that God does not exist. Science simply cannot say.

You and I going to just have to disagree. First, there is overwhelming evidence of God. The reason evos reject this evidence and denigrate Intelligent Design is not due to a lack of evidence but because evolutionism defines as outside of the boundaries of science any evidence pointing to God automatically. That is the way it is an atheist philosophy.

In other words, if God does do something, evo's view of science dictates that God cannot be considered as a reasonable cause for something. Likewise, we can study what spiritual traditions have said about reality and the relationship with the physical and what was called spiritual, and we see that quantum mechanics confirms what these spiritual traditions have maintained for thousands of years.

However, the atheist philosophy of evos such as yourself refuses a priori to consider that as valid evidence because your definition of science excludes the acceptance and study of the spiritual world altother (by definition).

I think a lot of confusion revolves around different interpretations of what is natural and what is supernatural.

I think the confusion is that the atheistic philosophical approach to science is to create an artificial boundary between natural and spiritual and/or supernatural. These terms are only valid for discussions outside of science. Everything is natural within science. God is natural, at least the concept of God is, because if something is real, then it is by definition natural from a science perspective.

A natural phenomena is anything that we can detect, whether by direct means (see it, hear it, etc.) or indirect means (microscope, telescope, thermometer, etc.).

Since then people have been detecting God for thousands of years, you must admit that by your definition God is natural, correct? Now, you could say that these folks are mistaken, and that's fine even though I disagree, but the concept of God people are dealing with is a concept of Someone and Something that is detectable, very much so, by them. The simple fact technology has not yet advanced enough to detect God in a lab, or perhaps it has, but regardless, that alone does not make something not real or natural. We could not detect microbes either for a long time with technology, but they were natural and detected by us as people, though we didn't understand that detection.

Technological restrictions are not a consideration in this regard. An example is radio waves. Radio waves did not suddenly become natural phenomena only after we developed the ability to detect and broadcast them. Radio waves were always natural. All that changed was our awareness of this natural phenomena due to improving science and technology.

Agreed.

But consider if back in, say, the year 1000 some monk had come up with a theory about radio waves. What would the science of the time, such as it was, have to say about radio waves? Well, with no actual evidence of radio waves, and assuming he didn't duplicate Maxwell's work 900 years early in order to provide a theoretical foundation, science could only remain silent.

Actually, that's not true. Science could try to come up with ways to detect radio waves. Also, unlike radio waves, we have had evidence of God in our lives for a very long time.

It is the same way today with science regarding God. In the absence of evidence science can say nothing about the existence or non-existence of God.

What you are leaving out is that we do have evidence of God. You just choose not to accept what we see and experience as evidence of God. It's a matter of interpretation. You look at the facts and start out saying we have no evidence of God and so if someone like an IDer comes along and says these facts can best understood as evidence of God, you claim that he cannot do that because you say he has no evidence. In other words, you choose to reject the evidence, not that there isn't any, and you do so based on circular reasoning.

On the tactics of the Discovery Institute, I am not affiliated with them, nor did I get my ideas from them. So your comment really isn't germane to discussing the topic, imo.

No genius evolutionist ever uncovered the secret, not renegade evolutionist ever let out the truth?

Actually, there have been quite a few. You guys just don't listen to them. Let me just close with reminding you it is human nature for whole groups of people, soceities, to create and believe in myths. Evolutionism is a modern myth. It's not even that surprising so many have bought into it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Percy, posted 01-20-2007 7:56 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Percy, posted 01-21-2007 9:16 AM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 172 of 214 (378484)
01-20-2007 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Admin
01-20-2007 8:00 PM


Re: Admin Decision
I think you have to let him respond and we'll see how it goes.

Nah....not if you are following your own rules. Now, if you want to let me respond to all the times I was banned and people kept responding, and how people still refer to me, and yet I cannot respond, then fine.

If not, play fair and maintain the rules you laid down. Otherwise, grant me permission to respond anytime refers to me, or responds to a post I have made.

Fair?

I'd like to see you both work at a civil and constructive discussion that reflects a desire on both your parts to seek common ground and an understanding of each others' viewpoint.

I would too, but DA is not interested, and I think that's not me making something up. You guys think I am bad. This guy is absurdly over the top and has clearly indicated he didn't want the kind of discussion, even remotely, that you suggested.

Sorry but I have to ask you to follow the rules you laid down.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Admin, posted 01-20-2007 8:00 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Admin, posted 01-21-2007 9:24 AM randman has replied
 Message 182 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-21-2007 8:57 PM randman has taken no action

Percy
Member
Posts: 20757
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 173 of 214 (378581)
01-21-2007 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by randman
01-20-2007 8:19 PM


Re: More Darwinian Tactics
randman writes:

The reason evos reject this evidence and denigrate Intelligent Design is not due to a lack of evidence but because evolutionism defines as outside of the boundaries of science any evidence pointing to God automatically. That is the way it is an atheist philosophy...etc...

This is just a lengthy redeclaration of your initial premise that science is atheistic, and I already provided rebuttal of this premise in Message 169. I'd be happy to respond if you'd like to address something I actually said, but my response to a repetition of the initial premise would just repeat my rebuttal, and there seems little point in doing that since it appears just above.

God is natural, at least the concept of God is, because if something is real, then it is by definition natural from a science perspective.

Yes, this is the way I see it.

Since then people have been detecting God for thousands of years, you must admit that by your definition God is natural, correct? Now, you could say that these folks are mistaken, and that's fine even though I disagree, but the concept of God people are dealing with is a concept of Someone and Something that is detectable, very much so, by them. The simple fact technology has not yet advanced enough to detect God in a lab, or perhaps it has, but regardless, that alone does not make something not real or natural. We could not detect microbes either for a long time with technology, but they were natural and detected by us as people, though we didn't understand that detection.

If you're going to call people's detection of God real, then you also have to allow as real people's detection of Thor and Zeus and unicorns and dragons and speaking with the dead and ESP and UFOs.

Obviously not everything people have "detected" is real. Science is a way of separating the wheat from the chaff. While certainly information from myths about Troy and Scylla and Charybdis can provide the impetus for investigation of the possible truths of these myths, the mere existence of the myths themselves is not the kind of evidence upon which science can build consensus and theory.

Actually, that's not true. Science could try to come up with ways to detect radio waves. Also, unlike radio waves, we have had evidence of God in our lives for a very long time.

I was presuming that the monk who theorized about radio waves attempted to detect them and was unable to find evidence of them, but let us instead presume that a concerted scientific effort was made over several hundred years from 1000-1300 to detect evidence of radio waves, and the effort came up short. What could science then conclude about radio waves? Well, it could not conclude that radio waves existed, and it could not conclude that radio waves did not exist. It simply couldn't reach any conclusions either way. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

What you are leaving out is that we do have evidence of God. You just choose not to accept what we see and experience as evidence of God. It's a matter of interpretation.

I think it's more a matter of extremely fuzzy thinking on your part. You don't really care about science or the advancement of knowledge, you really only care about the advancement of your own ideas. If you cared about science then such fuzzy thinking would be anathema to you.

Let us say there is a religion that believes in a cosmic turtle as the creator of the universe. The cosmic turtle appears to believers giving them advice and reassurances about their daily lives. Believers testify to their experiences with other believers and to anyone else who will listen. Is this to you acceptable scientific evidence of the cosmic turtle that science should accept? Hopefully the answer is no.

Now let's say there's a believer in the cosmic turtle who is deathly ill and the doctors are sure he will die. But his friends and family pray to the cosmic turtle to spare his life and he miraculously recovers. Is this then acceptable scientific evidence of the cosmic turtle? In this case the answer is "possibly", but only if the prayer were conducted as part of a double-blind study or some other scientifically structured research.

You see, the evidence of God that you want science to accept is of the same unscientific quality as evidence of many other beliefs that would contradict your belief in God. What you consider evidence of God is just as easily evidence of Allah or Vishnu or nirvana or the cosmic turtle.

On the tactics of the Discovery Institute, I am not affiliated with them, nor did I get my ideas from them. So your comment really isn't germane to discussing the topic, imo.

I mentioned Discovery Institute because of their stated desire to undermine naturalism, which I thought was a position you agreed with. If not then forget I brought it up. But if I actually did correctly perceive the undermining of naturalism as something you advocate then I thought you would be interested to know that views like this are beginning to cause a significant reaction from the secular scientific community.

Let me just close with reminding you it is human nature for whole groups of people, soceities, to create and believe in myths. Evolutionism is a modern myth. It's not even that surprising so many have bought into it.

This is like a mantra that you just keep repeating to yourself. It is religion, not science, that is based upon myth, as exemplified by the fragmentation of religious belief into tens of religions and hundreds of sects. For every religious person who believes as you do, there are far more who do not. The common element in religion is disagreement.

Science is the opposite of religion because it is based upon evidence instead of faith. It is why those who accept the theory of evolution all believe in the same theory of evolution. It is because of the evidence that science has not fractured into many different theories of evolution in the way that religion does, as is reflected in the many different beliefs residing under the creationist umbrella.

Other than reaffirming your belief that evolution is really just a massive brainwashing conspiracy, you've offered no substantiation whatsoever. Conspiracies that last over a hundred years and involve millions of people cannot remain secret, and to think so is the height of irrationalism.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by randman, posted 01-20-2007 8:19 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by randman, posted 01-21-2007 4:13 PM Percy has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12788
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 174 of 214 (378584)
01-21-2007 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by randman
01-20-2007 8:24 PM


Re: Admin Decision
randman writes:

Sorry but I have to ask you to follow the rules you laid down.

Yeah, well, I just don't see it the same way. When you're suspended by a moderator and other members reply to you anyway, that is not the same thing as you demanding someone be removed from Showcase and then you respond anyway, especially after you noting right up front the unfairness of it. And I don't see the point of setting up a situation where he posts in a public thread and you post here, or you debate each other in the moderation thread.

But I'll try to meet you in the middle. If Dr A. returns here and cannot comport himself in a manner consistent with the Forum Guidelines, then not only will his Showcase permissions be removed, he'll be suspended for a week. I feel like I've given him enough warnings, and you're not the only one running out of patience.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by randman, posted 01-20-2007 8:24 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by randman, posted 01-21-2007 3:35 PM Admin has taken no action

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 175 of 214 (378712)
01-21-2007 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Admin
01-21-2007 9:24 AM


Re: Admin Decision
Uh huh....seems like DA posted a good 10-20 times, calling me a liar, falsely I might add since I explained to him fully what I meant by refusing to debate, and yet he was just warned, and now banned for a day or something.

I don't think there is an IDer or creationist on this board that could get away with doing that.

Heck, jar and others called me a liar essentially for a very long time, and then I respond back, not too often either, and point out where I don't think he was truthful, and wholla, I am banned.

But I do see where others didn't just a get a warning.....I think their general attitude is always present, and always wrong, and whether the word "liar" comes up, that many evos assume the reason people disagree with them is because they are "lying for Jesus."

I'll be gone 10 days or so after today anyway....in case anyone wonders...I'll check back then, but have little hope DA will address the topic, nor refrain from immediately trying to be insulting. He's learned that ridicule and abuse is acceptable within limits at EvC, and that the other side cannot do the same, and so he finds himself perplexed that at Showcase the same doesn't hold.....imho.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Admin, posted 01-21-2007 9:24 AM Admin has taken no action

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4135 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 176 of 214 (378733)
01-21-2007 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Percy
01-21-2007 9:16 AM


Re: More Darwinian Tactics
If you're going to call people's detection of God real, then you also have to allow as real people's detection of Thor and Zeus and unicorns and dragons and speaking with the dead and ESP and UFOs.

Obviously not everything people have "detected" is real.

Yes and no. You admit that God as a concept is natural and so within the realm of science, correct?

All of those things as concepts are real. They may not be real, just as the Biogenetic Law of recapitulation wasn't real :p, but they are real or natural in the sense that if they are true, they are natural and real. Even within science, there is room for theories about what something is. Some fossils are found and thought to be of one species and then they are later considered to be of another, but the fossils are real. People are detecting something in the spiritual arena. You can argue it's just emotions, or you can argue it's Jesus or whatever, but that doesn't mean the thing itself is by definition outside the realm of science and nature.

I think we are in agreement there now, which is significant.

You don't really care about science or the advancement of knowledge, you really only care about the advancement of your own ideas. If you cared about science then such fuzzy thinking would be anathema to you.

But here you slip back into the old evo way.....smearing your critics' motives falsely (your smear is a lie by the way), and also providing false data to somehow back up your claim. Your false data is the absurd notion I prefer fuzzy thinking. Heck, I spend enormous amounts of time trying to correct the fuzzy thinking of evos like yourself (Take a look at the TalkOrigins thread for example, or trying to at least get across the concept to you that Spinoza was a theologian).

The cosmic turtle appears to believers giving them advice and reassurances about their daily lives. Believers testify to their experiences with other believers and to anyone else who will listen. Is this to you acceptable scientific evidence of the cosmic turtle that science should accept? Hopefully the answer is no.

However, it is evidence of something going on. There is a phenomena, whether real or imagined, and that is an area science could presumably investigate, and so taking an ID approach to see if the data fits is 100% proper.

You see, the evidence of God that you want science to accept is of the same unscientific quality as evidence of many other beliefs that would contradict your belief in God.

Another false smear on your part, and a dumb smear on that, not worthy of a response. Name the evidence I have discussed in a science forum that qualifies as unscientific quality.

Prove your point or withdraw it and apologize, please.

How is discussing Pakicetus, the fossil record, whale fossils, genetics, mutation, definitions of evolution and randomness, Haeckel, peppered moths, quantum physics, etc, etc,.....discussions of unscientific evidence?

Moreover, though I do discuss how some of the Bible dovetails with factual findings, the simple truth is ID does not make a statement about the nature of the Designer, but is restricted to the concept itself, not theological speculations of what the Designer should and should not do, as evos do all the time. So a Hindu, Muslim, Spinozan, Christian, whoever could all be IDers without ever advancing their particular religion. I would have thought you garnered this much by now, but evidently you failed to read and listen and so continually misrepresent what I have posted.

Is it deliberate on your part?

Science is the opposite of religion because it is based upon evidence instead of faith.

Which is why I am not an evo. Evo models do not match the facts, and evos have presented false data and analysis as facts when they were not, as well as false logic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Percy, posted 01-21-2007 9:16 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Percy, posted 01-21-2007 9:20 PM randman has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2284 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 177 of 214 (378752)
01-21-2007 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Percy
01-20-2007 7:56 PM


Re: More Darwinian Tactics
Some evolutionists are atheists, some aren't. Some scientists are atheists, some aren't. But evolution is not atheistic, and in broader terms science is not atheistic.

Evolution is an interpretation of scientific evidence favorable to the biases of the atheist worldview.

MN by presupposition excludes God as a possibility to explain physical reality = black and white atheism.

The only issue is why do persons who claim theism (Deity created world and is knowable; not to be confused with deism which believes Deity created world and is unknowable) agree with atheists (persons who deny supernatural deity exists) concerning ORIGINS?

Answer: Theists are not real theists?

In a scientific context this means that science cannot comment about things for which it has no evidence.

Only atheists and Darwinists believe there is no evidence of God in reality.

The world looks designed; from bat sonar to electric fish and so on. Logically, these realities correspond to the work of an invisible Designer unless atheistic needs are present. Darwinists like yourself insist that the same realities were produced by an antonymic process = gross illogic. I suggest that a basic litmus test for a theist is that one is as such if they accept the appearance of design as corresponding to the work of the Deity they believe in and not the imagination of atheists, this is logical.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Percy, posted 01-20-2007 7:56 PM Percy has taken no action

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 287 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 178 of 214 (378790)
01-21-2007 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Cold Foreign Object
01-20-2007 2:57 PM


Re: More Darwinian Tactics
Yes, etymology is very important, educated persons know this.

So, you have not answered my question. You say that "etymology is very important, educated persons know this".

So who invented the word "creationism"?

I asked you another question. Why does it matter who invented the word "Darwinism"? You didn't answer that. I don't care, but apparently you do. It was Huxley, you say. That sounds plausible. What is that to me?

Adequate then goes on to assert that ToE does not use Methodological Naturalism for its presuppositions.

No. I did not say that. I said that no-one claims that methodological naturalism is "true".

You said, and I quote:

Again, these same persons are also totally ignorant to the fact that ToE presupposes Methodological Naturalism as factually true:

This is false, and I rebuked your falsehood.

Why don't you argue with what I actually say? Why do you have to argue with imaginary statements of mine which I didn't say but which you made up in your head?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-20-2007 2:57 PM Cold Foreign Object has taken no action

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 287 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 179 of 214 (378792)
01-21-2007 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by randman
01-20-2007 3:04 PM


Re: good comment but...
This is sheer idiocy. You can claim a law arises via natural means, but to claim laws do not come from anywhere is frankly denying reality. You could claim what we call a law is a mere behavioural description and no law at all and try to argue that. But your stance is simply screaming nooooo without putting forward a real argument at all.

But this is a lie. I said nothing of the sort. This bears no relationship to anything I said. It's a lie. You're a liar. I did not say that. I did not say anything like that. You are a liar.

What I pointed out was that you were reifying the laws of nature, which is an error. I put forward an argument. When you claim that my "stance is simply screaming nooooo without putting forward a real argument at all", you are lying, and everyone who reads this thread can see that you are a liar.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by randman, posted 01-20-2007 3:04 PM randman has taken no action

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 287 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 180 of 214 (378794)
01-21-2007 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by randman
01-20-2007 5:30 PM


Re: an example of your childishness and ignorance
Once again, it is hard for me to accept you honestly believe this when I already named the field of study, quantum mechanics, that involves exploring what constitutes the material world in the sense of what is "material." What is the make-up of what we think of as material or physical.

I didn't realise that you were claiming that quantum mechanics is the same as ontology.

In fact, I can't see where you claimed that.

You didn't, did you?

I also can't see where you showed the relevance of either of these subjects to the theory of evolution, maybe you could start a thread on this subject?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by randman, posted 01-20-2007 5:30 PM randman has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022