|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/26/2005 4:51:05 PM |
perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining to me the true meaning of the passage of the Septuagint that reads: "kai eipen o Theos Poieswmen anthrwpon kat eikona emeteran kai kath omoiwsiv kai apxetwsan twn ixthunv tns thalassis kai twn peteinwn tou ouranou kai twn ktinwn twn eppontwn epi tis yis"
Not a chance. That's all greek to me. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/26/2005 5:37:55 PM |
Another example of Tsur's mindset...
Enough already.
I think I'd be fairly accurate in saying, that most pro-evolution scientists, etc, and their 'followers' go into any debate with the preconceived notion that they are 100% right about the whole fallable theory
I'd agree that a good number of the "followers" do, but, as has been pointed out, many of those (on both sides of the debate) who are not aware of the facts that bear on the argument do tend to rather blindly believe.
So, who are 'they' (pro-evolutionists) to judge the Creationists for such strong opinions at times, when they themselves exhibit such behaviours,...
Exactly. Which is why I try not to inject any value judgements, and also why I tend to strenuously oppose attempts to do so.
...often times way moreso than the Creationists they accuse of being the same.
And, while I realise this is a subjective statement made from your own viewpoint, I would have to disagree. In my experience, the "often times" and the "moreso" would tend to be reversed, however, on this forum there have been plenty of "ad hominem" attacks and mudslinging in both directions.
If you change the speed of light, you change, for starters, radioactive decay rates. You change E=mc^2. You change all sorts of things *that we could detect*.
You'd think so, wouldn't you? However, I wasn't referring to the accepted standard constant that we take for granted as the "speed of light." What I was trying to point out was that, assuming an omnipotent supernatural creator, the miraculous acceleration of the light particle/waves emitted by fantastically distant objects is well within the realm of the possible. Ultimately, the argument that I'm making, has little if anything to do with the physics, and more to do with the intentions you had ascribed to the creator. If I were to "sneak" a gift into a friend's housewith the intent that he should find and enjoy its benefits, I would probably be chagrined, if not offended, if he were to accuse me of placing it there in an attempt to deceive him into believing that he'd been in possession of it the whole time. The interpretation's what I'm talking about.
When we see things from a certain perspective they may appear to be true. When seen from another perspective they can be something entirely different from our initial preception. For example. Flat earth, it wasn't till man started sailing beyond the horizon that they discovered the difference. also the earth being the center of the universe.
Wasn't it already pointed out that the flat earth hypothesis had been tested and discarded by sedentary Greeks, based on math and logic, rather than "sailing beyond the sunset?"
So to assume that all belief systems are exactly as we see them is foolish and arrogant.
Good thing for me that's not what I'm doing, eh?
Science is a belief system. This is not to imply the duck theory is incorrect, (walks like a duck, quacks like a duck) just that the assumtion that we have seen things from all sides is a little premature.
First off, I disagree. Science (at least the method) is a tool, from which people learn things upon which to base belief. Hence, the fact that, in accordance with the scientific method, nothing is taken as truth, since the tool itself acknowledges the inability to see things from all sides (Heisenberg, et al.).
Hmmmm... then in this forum one would be left to not express their faith? That seems the logical conclusion here...
I disagree here, too. It's not logical, unless you're taking from-the-hip gut-reaction to be logic. I agree with Wonka (as far as his post) in that I, for one, am "strong enough in my faith" to be able to defend it when someone comes along to call it into question. I've thought through the aspects and implications of what I believe, and I am fully capable of rationally discussing both the tenets of my belief and the implications they have on me and my world. The point Wonka is making is that it's pointless to walk into a discussion involving widely differing viewpoints, only to say, "this is what I think" without the capacity to answer when someone says, "why?"
Then why am I paying so much for gasoline? I can just whip some up in the back yard!
From what I've read it is possible to chemically synthesise the molecular structure and composition of oil, but, as Raziel pointed out, it can't be done on the scale of an oil-field. It's prohibitively expensive to synthesise even the smallest quantity, which is one reason that fossil fuel keeps getting more expensive as the supply dwindles. | |
|
| |
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/26/2005 7:39:24 PM | Feral -with all due respect , I am sure you can see the validity in why someone would make the following statement:
"Hmmmm... then in this forum one would be left to not express their faith? That seems the logical conclusion here..."
It shouldn't matter if a poster's beliefs coincide with another person's interpretation of facts. Everyone should have the right to post their opinion, regardless if they are a creationist or evolutionist, They should NOT be ridiculed becuase their data doesn't coincide with someone elses, or if one person thinks that their own beliefs are superior to that of someone else's, that gives them justification to belittle others.
I wasn't going to make a post about this , but.......... in liu of msg 2554 it just seemed apropriate. ****role the tape Hal.****
#2554--
1)You're dealing with a garden variety Creationist. One that doesn't understand the arguments in the various articles they're posting, and so can't understand when you point out critical errors in their claims. Even something basic as 'the source you cite doesn't support your argument' gets ignored. You could post something by Einstein on the speed of light, and the Creationist would say 'that's just his opinion'. They're idiots.
It's only a very, very rare Creationist that has the intelligence and honesty to actually read and then think about any post that disagrees with their pre-conceived ideas - I've met a few, and they're really rare.
Beyond a point, and I'm probably guilty of this 10x as much as anyone, you just end up enjoying pointing out how stupid they look when they say this sort of stuff. Once they reach the 'stupid saturation point' as this one has, really it just becomes a sort of sport to point out their latest particular bonehead statements, which they seldom (if ever) correct.
If they were smart, they wouldn't be Creationists, after all, would they?
--R.
2) What sort of idiot falls for this sort of mindless insane crap theology?
Oh, wait, we know that one. No names, but his initials are G.G. - and, sorry Prof. Dimitrevsky, he's not 'just being cute'.
--R.
3) I'll just sit back and wait for the next round of Creationist spam from the Usual Suspects. It'll come, in a wave of 'cut and paste'. They're like clowns, who only know one routine - falling flat on their faces.
--R.
4) The problem here is that the poster you're replying to doesn't understand basic science, never mind basic Thermodynamics. I leave the door open as to 'too stupid' or 'too lazy' to note that they have been repeatedly corrected on this point. They clearly don't care to learn anything about the subject, but it could be for either reason.
5) You just have to laugh at the idiot. Still waiting for 'oxygen kills life' or some of the other previously Creationist lies to get regurgitated again by the same poster. Should we start a pool on which particular one will be next?
--R.
6) Guess_who:
I'm sorry, I don't choose to debate mentally deranged people
7)
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/16/2005 9:35:30 AM
trewq36 please edit your post to fix quoting? you make it look like Ms. Looney Tunes said the latter part.
8) Why do Creationists make these sort of claims up? Do they know no science so they think it's all one big mishmash? Biology/evolution... physics/cosmology.... two different fields.... hello! wake up! learn something!
The people who should take offence are those who tried to teach you science in school. Or maybe the ones who paid their salaries.
--R
9) Just stop trying to stick your religion into science, thanks. You look like idiots when you try.
--R.
10) .Oh, goody, more Creationist quotes. Let's see how many are false or misquotes, shall we?
And when you make return insinuations about CR, it's S-C-H-I-Z-O, clear?
--R.
11) They're *your* "grossly misinformed, misleading and unsubstantiated opinions".
Another poster has urged me to stop responding to your increasingly erratic rants, since he/she thinks you're mentally unstable. I concur, so this will probably be my last reply to you (or your aliases).
--R.
12) If you don't want to be attacked for what you post, don't post false statements. Learn something about the subject beyond empty repetition you don't understand. You're not being attacked for being a Christian, you're being attacked for being ignorant about what you're saying, and then ignoring the people pointing out your constant errors of fact.
You're a very ordinary, run-of-the-mill, boring Creationist who has read a few Creationist books and websites and nothing more. Scientists have pointed out the errors in these claims by Creationists, but oddly the Creationists (including you) seem oblivious to them.
--R
13) I don't know if the people who ignore counterevidence are lazy, stupid, liars, or not. I do know they're not interested in sincere debate since they aren't interested in whether their claims are true or not.
--R.
14) I hope you feel better after getting that anti-science rant out.
--R.
15) Darwin observed evolution in organisms, and posited his theory based on that evidence. You might consider actually learning something about what he wrote some day. But I doubt you're interested in reality when you can just make stuff up like you do.
16) You really are completely ignorant of the actual science, it's brutally clear. You just parrot Creationist sources (usually garbled) without understanding their errors.
--R.
17) Guess_who plays the credentials card and flunks:
I'm happy you know some high-school chemistry (that's where I first learned it). Your grasp on science and the scientific method, however, clearly lacks opposable thumbs. Just because you don't understand evolution, you think it's false.
--R.
18) You know, a simple web search would have spared you the need to look so clueless
But you're not really interested in learning any actual science, are you?
--R.
19) In reference to a former pof member:"Guess_who_the_sockpuppet wrote"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this is just for this month. CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution I never said that Adam and Eve weren't people...I only said the Bible does not
Posted: 11/26/2005 8:16:47 PM |
Well I believe that the bible represents adam as the beginning of humanity not the first people. Is that what you believe also? just wonderin?
I am not certain what I believe on this point...but this is what the Bible says. Genesis speaks of people (or humanity) being created, then of an "opposite helper" being created. After the "opposite helper" (Eve) is created is the first time the Bible speaks of Adam as an individual. (all prior references generally mistranslated as 'man' or 'Adam' actually simply say people or humanity).
Here is a decent link on it which shows not only the Greek but also the Hebrew.
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article9106.asp | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/26/2005 9:02:00 PM | "Wonka - My good man, you keep trying to put me in a box and catagorize me."
Yikes! That's what you were doing to me! That's why I figure that our positions might be less at odds than either of us seems to think.
"Eventually we need to digest all these theories and create one for ourselves"
 Yay! we are in complete agreement.
"instead of dropping names"
Silivros- that's not fair. I am not dropping names; I'm giving due homage to the people who developed some of the ideas we are discussing. It's important to know what was written before us in order to be a philosopher in our own right, otherwise one might waste a lot of time just rewriting Aristotle instead of expanding on it- shoulders of giants and all that. Just because you're not familiar with Kuhn doesn't mean you haven't been indirectly influenced by his ideas. You're familiar with the use of the term paradigm right? Then you indirectly are familiar with Kuhn. If I recommend you read Kuhn and Popper are you going to take that as my trying to drop names too? Seriously Silivros, I was just starting to enjoy a discourse with you when you come out and accuse me of dropping names, instead of listening to the content of the post. Whatever. When you read Popper, you will see that he "drops a few names too," as do all philosophers in their treatises. You think he was just trying to inflate his ego by slyly letting the reader know he has read Kant, or perhaps, just perhaps, some of Kant's ideas were relevant to his thesis. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/26/2005 10:24:03 PM |
Silivros- that's not fair.
You're right. Twas out of line, my appologize Wonka.
And thank you. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/26/2005 10:45:23 PM |
Wasn't it already pointed out that the flat earth hypothesis had been tested and discarded by sedentary Greeks, based on math and logic, rather than "sailing beyond the sunset?"
Oie! Ferel, It's the point my good man
So to assume that all belief systems are exactly as we see them is foolish and arrogant.
Good thing for me that's not what I'm doing, eh?
Science is a belief system. This is not to imply the duck theory is incorrect, (walks like a duck, quacks like a duck) just that the assumtion that we have seen things from all sides is a little premature.
First off, I disagree. Science (at least the method) is a tool, from which people learn things upon which to base belief. Hence, the fact that, in accordance with the scientific method, nothing is taken as truth, since the tool itself acknowledges the inability to see things from all sides (Heisenberg, et al.).
1) If you read these postings in the context in which they are applied, my exhuberant fellow, you might not have needed to spend your time on this post. This has been an ongoing conversation, which I'm assuming from your diligence on past postings (notice the scientific method) that had you read them, obviously you haven't. That quote you are replying to, is in reference to the interpretations of the methodology and the zealots who weild them about with such fanatical zeal.
2) read closely, my quote and your reply. One might think you're grasping at straws.
3) Science as a tool - That sounds vaguely familiar. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/26/2005 11:51:02 PM | Back after Thanksgiving - I think the first that I didn't overstuff myself 
Belated congratulations Trewq - and thanks for an interesting thread topic.
Not sure how Grod doesn't understand his cat not driving. My cat took a position very similar to Grod's. He just could understand why all other creatures weren't as evolved as cats. My cat once explained to me. It's not that cats can't drive, earn a living etc. It's simply that they don't need to. They have lesser creatures do that stuff for them so they can get some extra catnaps and quality thinking time. Then he shook his head and told me it was time to clean his litter box. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/26/2005 11:57:49 PM | | Cats, masters of the universe. I think schroedingers cat was the first to drive a car, but everytime I looked in the box the cat just smiled and denied everything...typical..I'm sure i could smell exhaust | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/27/2005 12:49:37 AM | Feral -with all due respect , I am sure you can see the validity in why someone would make the following statement:
"Hmmmm... then in this forum one would be left to not express their faith? That seems the logical conclusion here..."
It shouldn't matter if a poster's beliefs coincide with another person's interpretation of facts. Everyone should have the right to post their opinion, regardless if they are a creationist or evolutionist, They should NOT be ridiculed becuase their data doesn't coincide with someone elses, or if one person thinks that their own beliefs are superior to that of someone else's, that gives them justification to belittle others.
I wasn't going to make a post about this , but.......... in liu of msg 2554 it just seemed apropriate. ****role the tape Hal.****
#2554--
1)You're dealing with a garden variety Creationist. One that doesn't understand the arguments in the various articles they're posting, and so can't understand when you point out critical errors in their claims. Even something basic as 'the source you cite doesn't support your argument' gets ignored. You could post something by Einstein on the speed of light, and the Creationist would say 'that's just his opinion'. They're idiots.
It's only a very, very rare Creationist that has the intelligence and honesty to actually read and then think about any post that disagrees with their pre-conceived ideas - I've met a few, and they're really rare.
Beyond a point, and I'm probably guilty of this 10x as much as anyone, you just end up enjoying pointing out how stupid they look when they say this sort of stuff. Once they reach the 'stupid saturation point' as this one has, really it just becomes a sort of sport to point out their latest particular bonehead statements, which they seldom (if ever) correct.
If they were smart, they wouldn't be Creationists, after all, would they?
--R.
2) What sort of idiot falls for this sort of mindless insane crap theology?
Oh, wait, we know that one. No names, but his initials are G.G. - and, sorry Prof. Dimitrevsky, he's not 'just being cute'.
--R.
3) I'll just sit back and wait for the next round of Creationist spam from the Usual Suspects. It'll come, in a wave of 'cut and paste'. They're like clowns, who only know one routine - falling flat on their faces.
--R.
4) The problem here is that the poster you're replying to doesn't understand basic science, never mind basic Thermodynamics. I leave the door open as to 'too stupid' or 'too lazy' to note that they have been repeatedly corrected on this point. They clearly don't care to learn anything about the subject, but it could be for either reason.
5) You just have to laugh at the idiot. Still waiting for 'oxygen kills life' or some of the other previously Creationist lies to get regurgitated again by the same poster. Should we start a pool on which particular one will be next?
--R.
6) Guess_who:
I'm sorry, I don't choose to debate mentally deranged people
7)
Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/16/2005 9:35:30 AM
trewq36 please edit your post to fix quoting? you make it look like Ms. Looney Tunes said the latter part.
8) Why do Creationists make these sort of claims up? Do they know no science so they think it's all one big mishmash? Biology/evolution... physics/cosmology.... two different fields.... hello! wake up! learn something!
The people who should take offence are those who tried to teach you science in school. Or maybe the ones who paid their salaries.
--R
9) Just stop trying to stick your religion into science, thanks. You look like idiots when you try.
--R.
10) .Oh, goody, more Creationist quotes. Let's see how many are false or misquotes, shall we?
And when you make return insinuations about CR, it's S-C-H-I-Z-O, clear?
--R.
11) They're *your* "grossly misinformed, misleading and unsubstantiated opinions".
Another poster has urged me to stop responding to your increasingly erratic rants, since he/she thinks you're mentally unstable. I concur, so this will probably be my last reply to you (or your aliases).
--R.
12) If you don't want to be attacked for what you post, don't post false statements. Learn something about the subject beyond empty repetition you don't understand. You're not being attacked for being a Christian, you're being attacked for being ignorant about what you're saying, and then ignoring the people pointing out your constant errors of fact.
You're a very ordinary, run-of-the-mill, boring Creationist who has read a few Creationist books and websites and nothing more. Scientists have pointed out the errors in these claims by Creationists, but oddly the Creationists (including you) seem oblivious to them.
--R
13) I don't know if the people who ignore counterevidence are lazy, stupid, liars, or not. I do know they're not interested in sincere debate since they aren't interested in whether their claims are true or not.
--R.
14) I hope you feel better after getting that anti-science rant out.
--R.
15) Darwin observed evolution in organisms, and posited his theory based on that evidence. You might consider actually learning something about what he wrote some day. But I doubt you're interested in reality when you can just make stuff up like you do.
16) You really are completely ignorant of the actual science, it's brutally clear. You just parrot Creationist sources (usually garbled) without understanding their errors.
--R.
17) Guess_who plays the credentials card and flunks:
I'm happy you know some high-school chemistry (that's where I first learned it). Your grasp on science and the scientific method, however, clearly lacks opposable thumbs. Just because you don't understand evolution, you think it's false.
--R.
18) You know, a simple web search would have spared you the need to look so clueless
But you're not really interested in learning any actual science, are you?
--R.
19) In reference to a former pof member:"Guess_who_the_sockpuppet wrote"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this is just for this month. CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?
"Oh Look"...
Someone else who sees the rude, callous, hostile, infantile, personal attacks that others rail against Creationists...
(Thanks Micxster!) 
And, this below bears worth repeating AGAIN:
Feral -with all due respect , I am sure you can see the validity in why someone would make the following statement:
"Hmmmm... then in this forum one would be left to not express their faith? That seems the logical conclusion here..."
It shouldn't matter if a poster's beliefs coincide with another person's interpretation of facts. Everyone should have the right to post their opinion, regardless if they are a creationist or evolutionist, They should NOT be ridiculed because their data doesn't coincide with someone elses, or if one person thinks that their own beliefs are superior to that of someone else's, that gives them justification to belittle others.
| |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/27/2005 6:04:53 AM |
Feral -with all due respect , I am sure you can see the validity in why someone would make the following statement:
"Hmmmm... then in this forum one would be left to not express their faith? That seems the logical conclusion here..."
Okay, Mic, here's the score. I don't think I got my point across, and I think folks are misinterpreting Wonka's original point. Let's revisit:
I tend to think that if one can't rationally defend a belief, perhaps they shouldn't vocalize it in the first place.
I think this was the "offending" passage. What I believe was being said here is that, while, yes, everyone has a right to their opinion, they should be able to support it. Failing that, they're just asking for grief if they spout off and have no response for someone else asking questions. You're right that it makes no difference whose views correspond to others, and that everyone has the right to express themselves. I'm afraid I don't see where I commented otherwise.
And, yes, ridicule, mudslinging, misrepresentation and deliberate misinterpretation of another's position, rudeness, arrogance, and intolerance are reprehensible and have no place. That should be a given, regardless of the behaviour of some of the posters here.
Getting back to the point, though, it's not logical at all to assume that asking someone to be ready to defend or support their belief or opinion would naturally lead to the conclusion that people are being discouraged to express their faith. I've left mine out of it because it has no place in the debate, but those who have a logic (read: internal consistency) to their beliefs really should post, absolutely, because they're likely to have something to contribute to the discussion.
For my part, I believe an offended response tends to come from one of two places: Either the person getting offended did not understand or legitimately misread/was confused by the original post and has every right to take umbrage at the accidental offense and ask for clarification. End result, someone clarifies, and the offense is forgotten, since it was unintentional. On the other hand, however, there's also the mindset that seeks out things over which to get offended. Occasionally, there are those who, for whatever reason, intentionally misread the intent of someone else's statement and jump to conclusions.
I don't believe that's what happened here, but it's common enough in my experience that people will toss out the victim card and attempt to martyr themselves in an attempt to derail an argument, so much so that I sometimes forget that the first is also an option. I was extending the benefit of the doubt and attempting to clarify what I believed Wonka was saying, so any offense would be moot. In the end, yes, I can see validity in someone's response, and I thought I had made that clear while at the same time trying to also make clear what I believed was the intent of the original comment, as well as my agreement with it.
It's important to know what was written before us in order to be a philosopher in our own right, otherwise one might waste a lot of time just rewriting Aristotle instead of expanding on it- shoulders of giants and all that.
Wonka, you'll have to tell me how. I've even read it, but I still find myself just repeatedly revisiting all of Descartes' stuff. "I think, therefore I am, I think." More recursion, AAAARRGGHH!! 
1) If you read these postings in the context in which they are applied, my exhuberant fellow, you might not have needed to spend your time on this post. This has been an ongoing conversation, which I'm assuming from your diligence on past postings (notice the scientific method) that had you read them, obviously you haven't. That quote you are replying to, is in reference to the interpretations of the methodology and the zealots who weild them about with such fanatical zeal.
2) read closely, my quote and your reply. One might think you're grasping at straws.
3) Science as a tool - That sounds vaguely familiar.
Okay, let's play. 1) Very little is obvious, and I don't appreciate the implication. The ongoing conversation, from what I can recall, has to do with whether or not science can be used to determine the state of things in the past. We can, yes, reach logical conclusions based on accepted assumptions and rational observations, and I don't believe we disagree on this. As far as the "zealots" are concerned, I feel I've made clear my position on this, but I'll try again. Yes, there are those who take facts as truth, but that doesn't mean that they are.
2) I don't need straws. The simple point I'm making is that you were misinterpreting science (the concept) as a belief system, and I was pointing out that people use it as the tool it is to bolster their beliefs, rather than actually worshiping the method itself.
3) Yes, it does. There's a reason for this. Because it's the way it works. The method itself is used as a logical tool to "separate the wheat from the chaff" in observational situations. While many allegories can be drawn using inductive logic to understand the state of a system, the scientific method provides a powerful deductive plan for understanding causality. The use of the method and the establishment of axioms that bear out in multiple instances is what is collectively known as science. Beyond that, the conclusions drawn for use in daily life tend to be the focus for belief and are generally the point that I believe folks are referring to when they claim that science is being used as a faith. The distinction is important, however, and I'd hoped I'd gotten that across previously. Apparently not.
Msg 2569
CR, I covered this, so I won't go back into it. I am curious as to why you felt it necessary to post the entire thing again, and yes, particularly regarding my comment twice. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/27/2005 9:35:10 AM | I make no bones about it - I don't criticize anyone's religious beliefs. If someone wants to claim that the Earth is 10,000 years old, and they base that on faith, that's fine with me. I will point out that their beliefs conflict with actual physical evidence as understood by geology or biology.
The problem is that people want to be able to claim their religion is somehow supported by science. So then we can get into a discussion of evidence, like Gentry's Polonium halos. Now, Gentry wrote his claims over 30 years ago, and there's been quite a bit of criticism of his ideas. But your typical Creationist - and note that 'Creationist' is short for 'Scientific Creationist', as opposed to 'creationist' who simply claims God somehow created us, without getting into science - has done no actual reading on the subject apart from the particular book or website they found the claim on, such as the ICR or AIG websites, or in some book they read.
Now, I don't have a problem with people who are lacking information about something - goodness knows I spent a lot of time and effort to learn about the Evo/Cre debate over the last decade or more. So if the person I'm debating has an open mind, and is open to checking out sources that conflict with their position, and evaluate them fairly, I don't have a problem. Doug Cox and I had a debate (in another place) a decade ago about plate tectonics, and Doug was open to considering counterarguments, to checking out articles and books that disagreed with him. I respected Doug for that, even when other people made fun of his ideas (about mid-ocean ridges among other things).
What I do not respect, is close-minded or anti-science people who simply parrot claims that they clearly don't understand. When you point out their claims are seriously flawed, they simply go into a sort of cognitive disconnect. They are not open to any possible counterargument or evidence, or to having basic errors or logic pointed out. The person(s) who I frequently mock here have made serious, basic errors in their arguments, such as claiming sources support them (when any actual checking would have shown that they do not), to making blatantly untrue statements about their sources ('this wasn't from a Christian publication') to use of widely-discredited misquotes of scientists (too many to count, seriously). Not checking your sources, in science, is lazy or stupid, or both. It's that simple. Using misquotes is simply lying. Plagiarism is theft. That's how it's seen in science. You would think that, once caught using fabricated quotes (even if fabricated by someone else), the posters would be more careful and try to make sure their sources were trustworthy, but they don't. And then they'll even repeat the misquotes or bogus citations. Maybe you used a bogus quote once in ignorance - okay. But to use it again after someone has pointed out it's bogus, makes it *your* lie. I mean, AIG even has a 'Arguments We Think Creationists Should NOT Use' page - can't Creationists even read that before posting something?
The poster has nothing to add to any serious discussion of science - and make no mistake, when you say 'evolution violates the 2LoT' you're not making a religious statement any more, you're playing in the fields of science. Anyone who wants to discuss scientific evidence openly and honestly will get openness and honesty back from me - anyone who, frankly, repeatedly lies and distorts scientific facts, and who simply ignores any viewpoints that disagree with theirs, gets the ridicule they deserve for trying to play in a game they don't even understand the rules of.
I don't mock CR for their faith in God. I mock them for their ignorance of basic science, and of logic and reasoning. That their theology also implies certain things for their view of religion, I also comment on - the idea that God made the universe 'look' 10 billion years old has disturbing implications, for example, complete with faked supernovae, planted bogus fossils, and a completely faked geological record... a God that tries to fool us is *not* the God of the Bible.
"Speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee."
God put the Earth here, and we *have* learned from it. Most of us, at least.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/27/2005 10:18:16 AM | | "The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." - Cardinal Baronius (1598), a quote cited by Galileo. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/27/2005 10:20:42 AM | I can't believe after the comment I made that seems to be getting everyone ruffled, and after myself, Feral, and, indirectly, Tsur have all explained what I meant by it, that people still don't get it. Apparently they missed my own qualification of the statement a few posts later, so I'll re-post the quote-
"That's not the logical conclusion at all. Express away. I would only prefer that arguments avoided logical fallacies, misstatements of fact and misrepresentations of the opponents side."
That is what I meant by saying one should be able to rationally defend their position. Does anyone disagree with that? Is is really any person's argument that a rational debate should employ logical fallacies? Or misstatements of fact? Or, worst of all, misrepresentation of the opponents position, or what is called in logical parlance, the straw man logical fallacy? Is that really ANYONE'S position?
Silivros- it's all cool. Although influenced by the writings of others, the three definitions of truth are pretty much my construction. In fact, one positive outcome of posting on this forum is that I'm seriously considering writing my own philosophical treatise on the definition of science, so, since you didn't comment on it, I'm curious- do you agree with my assessment that the only functional definition of truth is comparative truth, or do you have any qualifications or disagreements?
Oh, and welcome back QJ. I was wondering where you were. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/27/2005 11:10:55 AM |
Cats, masters of the universe. I think schroedingers cat was the first to drive a car, but everytime I looked in the box the cat just smiled and denied everything...typical..I'm sure i could smell exhaust
LMFAO | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/27/2005 11:13:13 AM | one should be able to rationally defend their position. Does anyone disagree with that? How do you rationally defend a miracle, wonka? In many respects, this seems to be the crux of the problem. Science doesn't believe in miracles. Religion does. Unfortunately, though I've asked, no-one seems to have a good definition of a miracle, or how to distinguish between a true miracle and something ordinary for which science hasn't yet provided a rational explanation.
Not that Nature seems to have any issue with the irrational. Pi, the golden ratio, etc. are irrational yet quite commonly manifested in the world.
In support of your comment, it would be my impression that the issue is not with a rational defence of a position so much as the irrational attacks on the positions of others. The basis of this seems to be that things can't be true if individuals don't understand them. I'm not sure why this motivates people to come up with incorrect statements and poorly supported and researched arguments. But it clearly does. I suppose some would argue that the widespread scientific acceptance of evolution demonstrates the susceptibility of the scientific community to delusion and renders the results of scientific enquiry highly questionable. Any reliance on scientific reality should therefore be regarded with skepticism, so it's OK to totally disregard it. I'm not sure where this leaves us in terms of a basis for reality. It comes back to the question of whether I should believe anything that I observe, or that my brain concludes from those observations. Would that include also the written Word?
And yes, Feral. There is something weird about reposting a post which occurred just a few messages back. Especially a long post. Yuck! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/27/2005 11:42:27 AM | Hachi Machi what a can of worms that post is QJ. I don't even know where to begin. I'm bouncing in my seat.
"How do you rationally defend a miracle, wonka?"
Trust me I could formalize a rational defense of miracles. I could not provide a scientific defense of miracles, but I could offer a rational one. To be rational it merely needs to be consistent. In philosophy (and this is an absurd oversimplification, so I apologize in advance) rationalism is the case for the supremacy of deductive reasoning. Depending on my chosen axioms, I can rationally defend any number of positions. That's why the term "rationalism" has been defined in so many subtly different ways throughout the history of philosophy. You can use rationalism to disprove rationalism (in the larger philosophic meaning of the word.) When I call for a rational argument, I only mean consistent- free of fallacy and vigilant attention to facts. And just to head anyone off at the pass, by "fact" I don't mean "truth." Facts are demonstrable bits of data, or accurate references. I've never demanded that ones argument be exclusively scientific. What chaps my hide is when arguments that aren't scientific are argued to be so, as that violates what I do expect- a rational argument.
"Not that Nature seems to have any issue with the irrational. Pi, the golden ratio, etc. are irrational yet quite commonly manifested in the world."
This is a very different meaning of the word irrational. You are using it here in the mathematical sense of a number that cannot be expressed as a fraction of two integers. Philosophically, you are using the term in much the same way Pythagoras would have, but that reasoning is just a tad antiquated. I am using the term as applied to debate in this context, and if I use it in a larger content, it will be in the philosophic sense of the refutation of rationalism, for example the work of Henri Bergson.
"In support of your comment, it would be my impression that the issue is not with a rational defence of a position so much as the irrational attacks on the positions of others."
Absolutely.
"I suppose some would argue that the widespread scientific acceptance of evolution demonstrates the susceptibility of the scientific community to delusion and renders the results of scientific enquiry highly questionable."
Someone arguing this would be wrong for reasons that have been addressed so often that I'm loathe to repeat them.
"Any reliance on scientific reality should therefore be regarded with skepticism"
Yes it should, which is exactly the attitude of science. I don't trust science because I'm a skeptic. I'm a skeptic, because I trust science. Skepticism is an important component of the scientific method, an important reason why it is such a successful method of separating the wheat from the chafe. Anyone who doesn't see every day what a successful method it is must live in a grass hut in the tundra.
"so it's OK to totally disregard it."
Philosophically, yes. Scientifically, no.
"I'm not sure where this leaves us in terms of a basis for reality. It comes back to the question of whether I should believe anything that I observe, or that my brain concludes from those observations. Would that include also the written Word?"
Please go back and read my post on truth. It's about a page back. That is the only defensible basis for reality, but if you want to get into a substantive discussion on a basis for reality and the philosophy of empiricism then we had better start a new thread, because that's a loooooooonnnnnggggg discussion. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/27/2005 1:10:37 PM | | LOL, wonka. Sounds like I gave you a jolt. Don't fall off your seat now! Unfortunately, there isn't a tongue-in-cheek icon, so you took me a little too seriously. Mostly, I was trying to look at thing from the viewpoint of people who don't subscribe to the scientific method. I still don't think we have an acceptable basis of mutual understanding or definitions to debate this thread effectively. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/27/2005 4:34:49 PM | "Unfortunately, there isn't a tongue-in-cheek icon"
I know. I so often wonder if something I mean to be partly tongue in cheek is going to be misunderstood. I wonder how differently these discussions would go if we were all sitting in a circle together.
"I still don't think we have an acceptable basis of mutual understanding or definitions to debate this thread effectively."
I think my appeal for rational debate, coupled with the ability to recognize and admit where one may have strayed in an argument would be a good start. Everyone errs every now and then and slips in a fallacy of reasoning. When it's pointed out, the reaction should be one of gratefulness, so that the argument can now be rethought and represented in stronger terms, but someone who simply shrugs off the criticism and continues to employ the same fallacies not only has nothing substantive to offer to a debate, they also render themselves unable to learn. Maybe we should have a three strikes rule. If someone uses a logical fallacy, misstates a fact, or misrepresents their opponents view and is alerted to the fact and uses the exact same fallacy, misrepresentation or misstatement another two times with subsequent warnings, then perhaps all should just agree not to respond to that person. And simply saying "am not- you are," doesn't count. It seems some use the tactic of just parroting back the criticisms they are getting and pretending it applies to the opposition when it doesn't. That is a childish tactic. Just an idea, but, the truth is unfortunately there's no real way to get a consensus on how to debate. Some will use rules of logic and attention to fact, and others will say "I'm rubber and you're glue...." | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/27/2005 4:48:33 PM | I'll take Hume's comment on miracles...'that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish....'
The issue with people who don't subscribe to the scientific method is only a problem when they try and claim there's scientific evidence for their beliefs. Personally, I don't know how life arose on Earth - I don't think there's any sort of physical evidence that could possibly be found to support abiogenesis, so I remain open to either abiogenesis (which is certainly plausible) or a 'creation' event. It's really an open question, which may never be decided until we find a time machine. All we do know today is that once life arose (and the evidence is it did so quite quickly in Earth history) it has gone evolving it's merry way since then.
But if people want to claim God directs evolution I'm not going to disagree.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/27/2005 4:53:39 PM | "I don't think there's any sort of physical evidence that could possibly be found to support abiogenesis"
Wow, tsur; I think I have to disagree with this. You don't think it will ever be possible to provide compelling evidence that life can originate on it's own given the right initial conditions? Science deductively extrapolates all the time from testable hypotheses. Do you discount all cosmological theory on the premise of lacking a time machine? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 11/27/2005 6:28:25 PM | No, abiogenesis is certainly plausible. I just don't think there will be any traces of it preserved in the rocks, so even if we do manage to create primitive 'life' in the lab there won't really be any way to know if that's how it happened on Earth.
Assuming the 'RNA world' concept is true, any traces of the early replicators would have been destroyed long ago, for example. You may find rocks with isotope ratios indicating some sort of biological processes were going on, but that's possibly about it.
It's like the ancient stromatolite faunas being almost wiped out when organisms evolved to graze on them. Predation caused a lot of changes in the biota.
Do you see my point? Even if it happened, we may never know for sure how. So to me, it's really an open question, and one I don't feel any huge need to have answered 'yes it could have'.
But I don't approach the origin of life from a theological perspective. Life is here, it arose *somehow*, and we deal with the consequences.
--R. | |
|
|
| Page 102 of 156
|
88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 |
|
Home
login 
