Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8891 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-19-2019 5:59 PM
158 online now:
AZPaul3, RAZD, Tangle, Theodoric (4 members, 154 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,698 Year: 2,735/19,786 Month: 817/1,918 Week: 104/301 Day: 22/54 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5Next
Author Topic:   The Bible 2003 Edition by God et al.
nator
Member (Idle past 216 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 46 of 64 (35146)
03-24-2003 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Joralex
03-24-2003 2:05 PM


Re: Religion & Science
quote:
If "naturalism requires explanations based upon accessible evidence" then where is this "accessible evidence" to uphold that space, time, matter and energy are able to account for everything including life and consciousness?

Where is your evidence that God is required?

There are some questions that science may never find the answers to, but just because we don't know something doesn't mean "Godidit."

quote:
Where is the "accessible evidence" that shows that matter-energy is able to start on its own and that life is then able to start from nothing but this raw matter-energy?

Are you debating evolution or abiogenesis? They are two seperate theories.

quote:
If you are to be truthful then you will have to admit that this "accessible evidence" doesn't exist except in the minds of the faithful believers. This is a religious attitude, not a scientific one.

So, do your beliefs in God change when evidence that contradicts your belief is discovered?

That's the kind of "belief" scientists have in scientific concepts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Joralex, posted 03-24-2003 2:05 PM Joralex has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Joralex, posted 03-25-2003 2:45 PM nator has responded

    
John
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 64 (35152)
03-24-2003 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Joralex
03-24-2003 2:05 PM


Re: Religion & Science
quote:
But extrapolations that extend far beyond what the data allows are usually not acceptable in science.

The problem with your analysis is that it minimizes the gobs of evidence that evolution has in its favor. Scientists do not extrapolate from 'micro-changes' to Mozart. You could fill libraries with the information used to make those extrapolations. To wit: the extrapolation does not extend further than the data allows. This is why most scientists support and defend the theory.

quote:
People who believe that this degree of extrapolation is justifiable (and evolution advocates do) practice a kind of "science" that I never once learned or practiced (and for good reason).

You might also think about ditching astronomy and, say, the last hundred years of physics. Evolution has far more evidence than has either of these fields.

quote:
However, aside from the 'science' of evolution there does exist the evolutionary paradigm which IS a metaphysic.

Aha... So there is a new character in the play. Exactly what is the evolutionary paradigm? Can you describe this metaphysic?

quote:
I rest my case.

Do you now?

I am not a materialist. Which part of the enchilada is that?

quote:
Evolution justifies naturalism by providing an intellectually defensible position against creationism.

hmmm.... creationism isn't intellectually defensible, so why would one need an intellectually defensible position against it? Does one need a defensible position against the idea of pink elephants? Not hardly.

The goal is to find an intellectually defensible position-- period.

quote:
Just ask Richard Dawkins.

If I could only express how little I care what Dawkins has to say...

quote:
If, as you say, naturalism doesn't require the ToE then what else would naturalism suggest as its explanation for earth's ultracomplex biota?

There doesn't have to be an answer. Like when your wife asks "Where are my keys?" and you reply "I don't know." Or, less trivially, when someone asks "Why does God allow suffering?" and you respond "I don't know."

quote:
If "naturalism requires explanations based upon accessible evidence" then where is this "accessible evidence" to uphold that space, time, matter and energy are able to account for everything including life and consciousness?

There isn't any, but you are missing the point. Asking the wrong question, I think.

If we reason not upon accessible evidence, then we reason based upon what? INaccessible evidence? Evidence we don't have? Information we don't know? Data that does not exist? Naturalism, as I see it, is the not unreasonable idea that we work with what we've got rather than what we don't. The assumption is that anything of importance will influence our experience, our perceptions, including of course inferences we can make. Or, conversely, why bother with what might exist but does not influence the world we inhabit? Notice that God and the supernatural is not excluded, assuming that God influences the world we inhabit. I looked it up in my Encyclopedia of Philosophy and this view is supported therein. Maybe there is a copy online somewhere, but I haven't looked.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Joralex, posted 03-24-2003 2:05 PM Joralex has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Joralex, posted 03-25-2003 1:49 PM John has not yet responded
 Message 49 by Coragyps, posted 03-25-2003 2:36 PM John has responded

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 64 (35234)
03-25-2003 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by John
03-24-2003 5:25 PM


Trying again...
"The problem with your analysis is that it minimizes the gobs of evidence that evolution has in its favor."

What 'evolution' are you talking about? Yes, there is "gobs of evidence" for variation (changes) in organisms. But evidence for the earth's entire biota having a common, goo-like ancestor? Hardly! Hope, however, does spring eternal.

"Aha... So there is a new character in the play. Exactly what is the evolutionary paradigm? Can you describe this metaphysic?"

I wouldn't characterize the evolutionary paradigm as a "new character". In a nutshell : There is a start (Big Bang?)... raw matter evolves (condenses) into stars which then evolve (stellar sequences) heavier elements via nucleosynthesis... some stars explode releasing these heavier elements which then evolve (condense) into planetoids/planets... under the right conditions the matter on some of these systems generates life (abiogenesis) and this life then evolves into palm trees, penguins, whales, Einstein, et al. Seems to me like this "new character" has been around for a long time.

"I am not a materialist. Which part of the enchilada is that?"

Not a materialist? So, are you a theistic evolutionist, a progressive evolutionist, or some other?

"hmmm.... creationism isn't intellectually defensible, so why would one need an intellectually defensible position against it? Does one need a defensible position against the idea of pink elephants?"

Typical - ridicule that which is not understood.

There are many intelligent, well educated individuals that not only defend creationism intellectually, but are completely devoted to that task. They say creationism is defensible. You say it isn't. Now what?

"If I could only express how little I care what Dawkins has to say..."

Chalk one up in your favor. Mind you, I do listen to what people like Dawkins have to say since it reflects a part of the social conscience and also since people like Dawkins are (unfortunately) teaching the future generations.

"There doesn't have to be an answer. Like when your wife asks "Where are my keys?" and you reply "I don't know." Or, less trivially, when someone asks "Why does God allow suffering?" and you respond "I don't know." "

"Where are my keys?" is nowhere near "Why does God allow suffering?".
The first question is trivia. The second question is extremely profound and should interest anyone interested in the deeper things of life.

BTW, the answer to "why does God allow suffering?" is available to anyone that wants to listen.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If "naturalism requires explanations based upon accessible evidence" then where is this "accessible evidence" to uphold that space, time, matter and energy are able to account for everything including life and consciousness?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"There isn't any, but you are missing the point. Asking the wrong question, I think."

So, there "isn't any" (evidence) but I'm "missing the point". This I've got to hear!

"If we reason not upon accessible evidence, then we reason based upon what? INaccessible evidence? Evidence we don't have? Information we don't know? Data that does not exist? Naturalism, as I see it, is the not unreasonable idea that we work with what we've got rather than what we don't. The assumption is that anything of importance will influence our experience, our perceptions, including of course inferences we can make. Or, conversely, why bother with what might exist but does not influence the world we inhabit? Notice that God and the supernatural is not excluded, assuming that God influences the world we inhabit. I looked it up in my Encyclopedia of Philosophy and this view is supported therein. Maybe there is a copy online somewhere, but I haven't looked."

I thought so...
Dear John, it is thee that has missed the point. You do, however, bring up a valid point :

We can only go by what we do have - I totally agree. But then it becomes necessary to fill in whatever gaps we have in our knowledge. If we don't do this then we aren't able to "connect the dots" and formulate the integrating entity that we call a 'theory' or a 'law' or even a 'worldview'.

Now, just how is it that these gaps are filled? You have considered, I presume, that there first had to be something to evolve before it could evolve. So, where'd this 'something' come from?

Aside from fanciful/wishful theories and unrealistic experiments (e.g., Stanley Miller), there is nothing that tells us how evolution could have gotten its start. And so people like yourself are forced to say, "Well, we don't know how it got started but it did."
This isn't science, it's metaphysics.

I stand to be corrected on this last paragraph.

In Christ,
Joralex


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by John, posted 03-24-2003 5:25 PM John has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5376
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 49 of 64 (35235)
03-25-2003 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by John
03-24-2003 5:25 PM


Re: Religion & Science
Like when your wife asks "Where are my keys?" and you reply "I don't know." Or, less trivially, when someone asks "Why does God allow suffering?" and you respond "I don't know."

Less trivially? The second question is more akin to "Why did the Tooth Fairy only bring me a quarter?" The first might have consequences.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by John, posted 03-24-2003 5:25 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by John, posted 03-26-2003 4:32 PM Coragyps has not yet responded
 Message 62 by John, posted 03-27-2003 9:30 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 64 (35237)
03-25-2003 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by nator
03-24-2003 4:04 PM


One standard...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If "naturalism requires explanations based upon accessible evidence" then where is this "accessible evidence" to uphold that space, time, matter and energy are able to account for everything including life and consciousness?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Where is your evidence that God is required?

There are some questions that science may never find the answers to, but just because we don't know something doesn't mean "Godidit.""

Try following your own logic, please.

Just because we don't know something doesn't mean God did it.
But why must it mean that God didn't do it?
Better yet, why must it mean that "Naturedidit"?
Why is nature the de facto answer when things are unknown?

The answer to that last question is simple : because of a metaphysical (NOT scientific) commitment to naturalism.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is the "accessible evidence" that shows that matter-energy is able to start on its own and that life is then able to start from nothing but this raw matter-energy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Are you debating evolution or abiogenesis? They are two seperate theories."

Are you talking about evolution only or are you trying to insert materialistic naturalism through the basement? Methinks it be the latter.

'Evolution' is a fact - any knowledgeable creationist will state this. But the true issue here isn't 'changes in the allele frequencies in populations' now, is it? If it were then I doubt very much that there would be scores of sites debating the creation-evolution controversy. Waddaya think?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are to be truthful then you will have to admit that this "accessible evidence" doesn't exist except in the minds of the faithful believers. This is a religious attitude, not a scientific one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"So, do your beliefs in God change when evidence that contradicts your belief is discovered?"

No such 'evidence' has ever presented itself. Alleged 'evidence' has been proposed, that's all. Nothing ever presented (to me) has been compelling.

"That's the kind of "belief" scientists have in scientific concepts."

You jest, yes?

When the fossil evidence ran contrary or non-supportive to the expectations of evolution, did the "beliefs" of naturalists in evolution dwindle? Of course not! Suggestions such as Goldscmidt's Hopeful Monsters, Nilsson's Emication, Eldredge & Gould's Puntuated Equilibrium, and others emerged so as to explain/account for the discrepancies between observation and expectation. The theory (of evolution) was retained in spite of the evidence. This was done in a highly sophisticated way that allowed the community to retain "scientific" credibility.

When naturalists modify their theory (as they did with Punkeek) it's called "science". When we creationists modify our thinking it's called "fanaticism", "irrational" or "moving the goalposts".

Shall we have one standard, please?

In Christ,
Joralex


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by nator, posted 03-24-2003 4:04 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 03-25-2003 3:14 PM Joralex has not yet responded
 Message 53 by nator, posted 03-26-2003 6:43 AM Joralex has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18257
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 51 of 64 (35239)
03-25-2003 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Joralex
03-25-2003 2:45 PM


Re: One standard...
Joralex writes:

When naturalists modify their theory (as they did with Punkeek) it's called "science". When we creationists modify our thinking it's called "fanaticism", "irrational" or "moving the goalposts".

Shall we have one standard, please?

I don't know that you could have one standard for both science and religion. Science is tenative, and so when science modifies theory in reponse to new evidence and/or improved understanding, then yes, that is science. Religion, on the other hand, is usually represented as containing timeless truths, and so if it should change its views it would call this principle into question.

I understand that you're actually trying to cast this as a conflict between metaphysics and not between science and religion, but it seems to me that what you call metaphysics is actually just that which in your opinion is insufficiently supported by evidence.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Joralex, posted 03-25-2003 2:45 PM Joralex has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 03-26-2003 2:56 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14716
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 52 of 64 (35283)
03-26-2003 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Percy
03-25-2003 3:14 PM


Double standards
If you look back he was supposed to be justifying his criticisms of Mayr.

However the fact is that despite claiming that Mayr ought know that creationism versus evolution is not science versus religion but a "clash of metaphysics" and was probably following a "party line" - made in post 23. However on the basis of the discussion it appears that it is Joralex who was just following a party line - since he is completely unable to support his belief. It is also clear that Joralex
knows rather little and tries to bluff people into thinking he knows more than he does in an attempt to avoid having to explain the basis for his views (because in reality he does not know what he is talkign about - he tried the same trick in the "Was God designed" thread before running away).

This was supposed to be a side thread taking up no more than ten posts. Yet I count Joralex as making six posts (23, 25, 30, 33, 36, 40) before even making an attempt at a real argument for his assertion - and that one involved an obvious self-contradiction (post 41). If he had attempted to make his case at the start rather than running a self-aggrandizing bluff it might have come in under the limit. Or better, since it turns out that he did not have a case, he should never have made the false accusation against Mayr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 03-25-2003 3:14 PM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Admin, posted 03-26-2003 8:36 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 216 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 53 of 64 (35288)
03-26-2003 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Joralex
03-25-2003 2:45 PM


Re: One standard...
quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If "naturalism requires explanations based upon accessible evidence" then where is this "accessible evidence" to uphold that space, time, matter and energy are able to account for everything including life and consciousness?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Where is your evidence that God is required?

There are some questions that science may never find the answers to, but just because we don't know something doesn't mean "Godidit.""


quote:
Try following your own logic, please.

Just because we don't know something doesn't mean God did it.
But why must it mean that God didn't do it?


It doesn't mean God didn't do it.

However, if we are to be doing science, it is conducted using evidence from nature that anyone can observe (not just those of a certain faith).

quote:
Better yet, why must it mean that "Naturedidit"?
Why is nature the de facto answer when things are unknown?

Because science is the study of nature using evidence that anyone can observe.

If you would like science to include "Godidit" any time it couldn't explain something, inquiry would be at a standstill.

Indeed, it was only when science was freed from the religious constraints which dictated what Galileo and others were "allowed" to discover about nature that scientific inquiry flourished.

If you are suggesting that "Godidit" be allowed back into scientific exlanations, please explain how this "answer" is a benefit to inquiry and of understanding nature.

quote:
The answer to that last question is simple : because of a metaphysical (NOT scientific) commitment to naturalism.

You have a strange idea of how science is done, I think.

quote:
Where is the "accessible evidence" that shows that matter-energy is able to start on its own and that life is then able to start from nothing but this raw matter-energy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Are you debating evolution or abiogenesis? They are two seperate theories."


quote:
Are you talking about evolution only or are you trying to insert materialistic naturalism through the basement? Methinks it be the latter.

Look, you are the one bringing up the start of life from non-life, not me.

quote:
'Evolution' is a fact - any knowledgeable creationist will state this.

This has not always been the case. For years, the leading creationists refused to accept speciation. It was only after years of ridicule that many decided to change their tune.

quote:
But the true issue here isn't 'changes in the allele frequencies in populations' now, is it? If it were then I doubt very much that there would be scores of sites debating the creation-evolution controversy. Waddaya think?

I agree.

The true issue for me is the fact that Creationists are pushing to get their religious views taught as science in public school classrooms.

quote:
If you are to be truthful then you will have to admit that this "accessible evidence" doesn't exist except in the minds of the faithful believers. This is a religious attitude, not a scientific one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"So, do your beliefs in God change when evidence that contradicts your belief is discovered?"


quote:
No such 'evidence' has ever presented itself. Alleged 'evidence' has been proposed, that's all. Nothing ever presented (to me) has been compelling.

But would you, in theory, be willing to change your beliefs in the light of evidence?

quote:
"That's the kind of "belief" scientists have in scientific concepts."

You jest, yes?


No, not in the least.

I am talking about the concept of "tentativity" which is a vital part of scientific inquiry. Nothing is ever 100% proven in science. Evidence could always be found at a later time which could contradict current understanding.

quote:
When the fossil evidence ran contrary or non-supportive to the expectations of evolution, did the "beliefs" of naturalists in evolution dwindle? Of course not! Suggestions such as Goldscmidt's Hopeful Monsters, Nilsson's Emication, Eldredge & Gould's Puntuated Equilibrium, and others emerged so as to explain/account for the discrepancies between observation and expectation. The theory (of evolution) was retained in spite of the evidence.

Evolutionary theory was not completely thrown out because much of it was still valid, as the new field of genetics has shown. It was altered in the light of new evidence, however, as are all scientific theories.

Do you fault Physics because we did not throw out Newtonian theory when Einstein showed that it broke down in certain circumstances? No, we continue to use Newtonian theory because it works, and we use Relativity when it applies.

quote:
This was done in a highly sophisticated way that allowed the community to retain "scientific" credibility.

Ah, yes, the conspiracy theory finally comes out. There always is one with Creationists.

quote:
When naturalists modify their theory (as they did with Punkeek) it's called "science".

Science changes in the light of new evidence. Otherwise, we would have rejected Einstein. Do you suggest that it was wrong of us to have accepted his Relativity Theory?

quote:
When we creationists modify our thinking it's called "fanaticism", "irrational" or "moving the goalposts".

It depends upon what basis you have of changing your thinking.

Scientific thought is changed slowly and tentatively (there's that word again), with a strong evidenciary support from several sources, including different fields if possible.

By contrast, Creationism is relavatory in nature rather than evidenciary. It doesn't matter what the evidence is if it can be supplanted by doctrine from scripture, and this is exactly what the stated method is for all of the major Creationists organizations including the ICR, AiG, and the CRS.

quote:
Shall we have one standard, please?

Why should science and religion have the same standard if they deal with different realms?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Joralex, posted 03-25-2003 2:45 PM Joralex has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12578
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 54 of 64 (35305)
03-26-2003 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by PaulK
03-26-2003 2:56 AM


Topic Drift Warning
The diversion from the main topic is noted. The Ernst Mayr/metaphysic topic should move to a new thread.

------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by PaulK, posted 03-26-2003 2:56 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Joralex, posted 03-26-2003 1:42 PM Admin has not yet responded

    
David unfamous
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 64 (35340)
03-26-2003 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Joralex
03-20-2003 1:40 PM


Re: One reason, coming right up!
1. Tell me, do you claim to know and understand this "scrappy, thrown together book"?
Yes

2. Do you know what God's purpose was in giving us this "scrappy, thrown together book"?
I know what purpose those who claim the Bible to be the word of a God would have me understand it to be.

3. Do you know why He included some things while leaving others out of this "scrappy, thrown together book"?
I know that fallible humans and history have determined the completeness of the Bible.

I for one would like to know the answers to these questions.
My pleasure.

Piece of cake? Yes! Fulfilling His purpose? No!
Surely the purpose is to communicate a message. After the alleged Babel incident, you'd think master copies in all languages would be on the cards.

New version not necessary - original version is perfectly fine for its intended purpose.
And what exactly what do you think the intended purpose is?

As for the 'verifiable' part - what is it you want to 'verify'?
Um .... the actual existence of Jesus maybe. The global flood. Little things.

When would you feel completely satisfied that you've 'verified it'?
The answers in the question.

Also, tell me, do you pretend to know more than : "... the most powerful being in existence..." (your words)?
If I said 'yes' you wouldn't believe me, so why ask the question?

You are neglecting the purpose of the Book.
Which is ... ?

A while back I wrote a brief book review on Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is. In that book review I didn't include a discussion on Fermat's Last Theorem. So?
Where are you going with this?

The "perfectly good reason" is that these things that you would like are completely unnecessary/irrelevant/contrary towards accomplishing the objective that God intended. He had a purpose... the Bible as it is accomplishes that purpose... and that is the end of the story.
How do you know that the purpose of the Bible is for us to question faith? Only then can we prove to one another that we have absolute freedom of thought and expression, or free will? That it is God that despairs at those who follow blindly?

Complaints against this policy may be voiced against the Author Himself on Judgment Day.
Maybe on judgement day you'll learn that it was you who got it all wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Joralex, posted 03-20-2003 1:40 PM Joralex has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 03-26-2003 12:10 PM David unfamous has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14716
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 56 of 64 (35342)
03-26-2003 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by David unfamous
03-26-2003 11:52 AM


One more question...
...for anyone who believes that God is the literal Author of the Bible.

If the author of a book in the Bible refers to himself in the first person can I assume that it means God ? If not then why not ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by David unfamous, posted 03-26-2003 11:52 AM David unfamous has not yet responded

    
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 64 (35344)
03-26-2003 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Admin
03-26-2003 8:36 AM


My last post on account of...
... Admin's warning on 'drifting topic'.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better yet, why must it mean that "Naturedidit"?
Why is nature the de facto answer when things are unknown?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Because science is the study of nature using evidence that anyone can observe."

Really? So, when was the last time that you observed abiogenesis?

"If you would like science to include "Godidit" any time it couldn't explain something, inquiry would be at a standstill.

Indeed, it was only when science was freed from the religious constraints which dictated what Galileo and others were "allowed" to discover about nature that scientific inquiry flourished.

If you are suggesting that "Godidit" be allowed back into scientific exlanations, please explain how this "answer" is a benefit to inquiry and of understanding nature."

The above is a ridiculous and frequently parroted argument. That God created the universe in no way prevents us from examining how His universe operates. Newton and Maxwell, to name just a few, had absolutely no difficulty with "God did it" and then having extremely scientifically-productive lives studying how He did it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The answer to that last question is simple : because of a metaphysical (NOT scientific) commitment to naturalism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"You have a strange idea of how science is done, I think."

You are entitled to your opinion - an opinion that is groundless and counterfactual.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you talking about evolution only or are you trying to insert materialistic naturalism through the basement? Methinks it be the latter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Look, you are the one bringing up the start of life from non-life, not me."

In an earlier post I had asked a simple question : are you promoting only that evolution is the change in allele frequencies in populations or are you promoting the complete naturalistic package? If, as I suspect, you are promoting the complete package then it is YOU that brought up the start of life from non-life - or hadn't you noticed?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Evolution' is a fact - any knowledgeable creationist will state this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"This has not always been the case. For years, the leading creationists refused to accept speciation. It was only after years of ridicule that many decided to change their tune."

Yet another of those frequently parroted myths!
'Change' is a fact of life and for as long as I've known about creationism change has been considered a part of the natural and theological world.

'Speciation' is a whole other matter because it is a term that may be (and has been) defined/interpreted differently. What, after all, is a 'species'? Able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring? Once this was what you'd find as the definition. But then, coyotes, wolves and dogs are different species and yet they are able to interbreed and have fertile offspring. So the definition was "modified". The ol' malleable standard, once again.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the true issue here isn't 'changes in the allele frequencies in populations' now, is it? If it were then I doubt very much that there would be scores of sites debating the creation-evolution controversy. Waddaya think?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I agree.

The true issue for me is the fact that Creationists are pushing to get their religious views taught as science in public school classrooms."

Ah, some of the truth finally rears its head - how nice of you.

I would respond to your accusation by saying that the issue is that ONE religion (namely, materialistic naturalism) is being forced on our children while the only other possible metaphysic (this being that naturalism is NOT a sufficient explanation for the universe) is purposely kept from our kids.

Education means that all possibilities are presented... indoctrination means that only one view is presented. Our kids aren't being educated, they are being indoctrinated into materialistic naturalism. The only reason that people such as yourself don't see anything wrong with this is because materialistic naturalism is your religion and you are quite happy that your children are being indoctri... er... educated in that faith.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No such 'evidence' has ever presented itself. Alleged 'evidence' has been proposed, that's all. Nothing ever presented (to me) has been compelling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"But would you, in theory, be willing to change your beliefs in the light of evidence?"

I can answer that truthfully - YES, I would. Here's why : one characteristic of God is truth - truth above all. To oppose any truth is, in essence, to oppose God.

This having been said the question of 'evidence' needs to be understood. Allow me a simple example :

I tell you that I've been to Australia and as evidence of this I hand you some photos of the Great Barrier Reef (that I say to you I took while I was there). So, you have tangible evidence - do you "believe" my claim?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"That's the kind of "belief" scientists have in scientific concepts."
You jest, yes?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"No, not in the least.

I am talking about the concept of "tentativity" which is a vital part of scientific inquiry. Nothing is ever 100% proven in science. Evidence could always be found at a later time which could contradict current understanding."

You shouldn't confuse an "instance" with the "totality" - 'observable phenomena' with an 'interpretative paradigm'.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the fossil evidence ran contrary or non-supportive to the expectations of evolution, did the "beliefs" of naturalists in evolution dwindle? Of course not! Suggestions such as Goldscmidt's Hopeful Monsters, Nilsson's Emication, Eldredge & Gould's Puntuated Equilibrium, and others emerged so as to explain/account for the discrepancies between observation and expectation. The theory (of evolution) was retained in spite of the evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Evolutionary theory was not completely thrown out because much of it was still valid, as the new field of genetics has shown. It was altered in the light of new evidence, however, as are all scientific theories."

"Altered". Hmmm...

"Do you fault Physics because we did not throw out Newtonian theory when Einstein showed that it broke down in certain circumstances? No, we continue to use Newtonian theory because it works, and we use Relativity when it applies."

You do keep forgetting that F = ma does not in any way oppose a metaphysic (e.g., Christianity) while "our ancestors were primates" clashes directly with other metaphysics.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was done in a highly sophisticated way that allowed the community to retain "scientific" credibility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Ah, yes, the conspiracy theory finally comes out. There always is one with Creationists."

Think what you want. If evolution bites the dust, tell me, with what does materialistic naturalism replace it with? It is clear that evolution must be retained at all cost since the alternative is simply and completely unacceptable to the faithful naturalists.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When naturalists modify their theory (as they did with Punkeek) it's called "science".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Science changes in the light of new evidence. Otherwise, we would have rejected Einstein. Do you suggest that it was wrong of us to have accepted his Relativity Theory?"

Of course not and you're creating a strawman here.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When we creationists modify our thinking it's called "fanaticism", "irrational" or "moving the goalposts".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"It depends upon what basis you have of changing your thinking."

Same basis as everyone else - we learn something new and modify as deemed necessary.

"Scientific thought is changed slowly and tentatively (there's that word again), with a strong evidenciary support from several sources, including different fields if possible.

By contrast, Creationism is relavatory in nature rather than evidenciary. It doesn't matter what the evidence is if it can be supplanted by doctrine from scripture, and this is exactly what the stated method is for all of the major Creationists organizations including the ICR, AiG, and the CRS."

You're missing a huge part of the picture. While revelation is part of Christianity, any all all aspects of natural science must support this revelation - God cannot be a deceiver with His creation and a revealer with His revelation.

But then there's 'interpretation (there's that word again). If the observations are interpreted under a materialistic paradigm then these interpretations will undoubtedly support naturalism (and they do). But this is the ol' GIGO - hardly compelling.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shall we have one standard, please?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Why should science and religion have the same standard if they deal with different realms?"

F = ma applies equally whether you're dealing with ping-pong balls, locomotives, or the moon around the earth. Different realms doesn't imply that the "laws" must be different.

Likewise, fairness and scholarship dictates that if creationists modify certain positions as things are learned, that they be accorded the same flexibility as naturalists insist on having. Claiming that the latter are doing 'science' and that the former are engaged in 'fanatic goalpost moving' is... baloney.

Last post here as per Admin - you may start a new thread elsewhere if you wish.

In Christ,
Joralex


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Admin, posted 03-26-2003 8:36 AM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Gzus, posted 03-26-2003 4:58 PM Joralex has not yet responded
 Message 63 by nator, posted 03-27-2003 12:07 PM Joralex has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 64 (35349)
03-26-2003 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Coragyps
03-25-2003 2:36 PM


Re: Religion & Science
LOL... ok. You win.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Coragyps, posted 03-25-2003 2:36 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 64 (35353)
03-26-2003 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Joralex
03-26-2003 1:42 PM


Re: My last post on account of...
quote:
If you are suggesting that "Godidit" be allowed back into scientific exlanations, please explain how this "answer" is a benefit to inquiry and of understanding nature."


The above is a ridiculous and frequently parroted argument. That God created the universe in no way prevents us from examining how His universe operates. Newton and Maxwell, to name just a few, had absolutely no difficulty with "God did it" and then having extremely scientifically-productive lives studying how He did it.


Why say Godidit? Why not Satandidit or TheGodsdidit or Mydeadcatdidit or Buddhadidit or Allahdidit or it just happened for no apparent reason? Why God, specifically?

Your argument can be used to justify an infinite number of absurd statements. Scientists usually do the intelligent thing and say 'We don't know'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Joralex, posted 03-26-2003 1:42 PM Joralex has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by judge, posted 03-26-2003 10:31 PM Gzus has not yet responded

  
judge
Member (Idle past 4489 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 60 of 64 (35374)
03-26-2003 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Gzus
03-26-2003 4:58 PM


Good point
Why say Godidit? Why not Satandidit or TheGodsdidit or Mydeadcatdidit or Buddhadidit or Allahdidit or it just happened for no apparent reason? Why God, specifically?

Yeahhh......maybe your dead cat did it.
Hey i never thought of that but now that you mention it ..it actually explains a lot of of other stuff. Hmmmm...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Gzus, posted 03-26-2003 4:58 PM Gzus has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
5Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019