One less reason to despise evolution

[juvenissun]

Given that you've already admitted to not knowing how evolution works, I hardly think you are in a position to imply that trained scientists accept evolution on faith alone.
In fact, the opposite is true. Since you admit your lack of understanding when it comes to evolution, you take it on faith that it doesn't happen. So please don't insult the intelligence of those of us who have put in the time, effort, and money to learn about evolutionary theory by insinuating that we haven't done our homework and hide, instead, behind a fear of losing our jobs.

Based on what you said, I don't think you are honest on your profession. I don't know evolution. That is true. I do not know rocks, which is my specialty. That is also true. But I also know that nobody knows anything about this universe. And you certainly do not know the real nature of your work.

If you think you know something, then you are no different from a 3-year old child. I do not know what are you. But I do not care. You need to grow up.

 

[Mallon]

Based on what you said, I don't think you are honest on your profession.

Why not?

I don't know evolution. That is true. I do not know rocks, which is my specialty. That is also true. But I also know that nobody knows anything about this universe. And you certainly do not know the real nature of your work.

If you think you know something, then you are no different from a 3-year old child. I do not know what are you. But I do not care. You need to grow up.

I see what you're doing here. You've admitted twice now that you don't understand evolution, and in order to level the playing field again, you're trying to imply that I don't know anything about evolution either.
And you think I need to grow up?
I certainly don't know everything, and I can appreciate the tentative nature of science, but to say that we don't know anything about the universe is pretty silly. Surely you must know something about the geology you profess to study (otherwise you wouldn't have challenged to me to ask you "rock problems" earlier). Similarly, I know something about evolution that you don't, and it's on this basis that I think you are being quick to rule out what you don't understand. To say you do not understand something yet still deem it to be wrong is, well, ignorant.

 

[juvenissun]

Why not?


I see what you're doing here. You've admitted twice now that you don't understand evolution, and in order to level the playing field again, you're trying to imply that I don't know anything about evolution either.
And you think I need to grow up?
I certainly don't know everything, and I can appreciate the tentative nature of science, but to say that we don't know anything about the universe is pretty silly. Surely you must know something about the geology you profess to study (otherwise you wouldn't have challenged to me to ask you "rock problems" earlier). Similarly, I know something about evolution that you don't, and it's on this basis that I think you are being quick to rule out what you don't understand. To say you do not understand something yet still deem it to be wrong is, well, ignorant.

Meaningless discussion/argument.
Since we are talking about understandings of different levels.
This line of argument is simply a logic chaos.
I quit on this thread.

 

[shernren]

Based on what you said, I don't think you are honest on your profession. I don't know evolution. That is true. I do not know rocks, which is my specialty. That is also true. But I also know that nobody knows anything about this universe. And you certainly do not know the real nature of your work.

If you think you know something, then you are no different from a 3-year old child. I do not know what are you. But I do not care. You need to grow up.

Well, I also know that nobody knows everything about this universe.

But to say that nobody knows anything about this universe is an insult to the community of science which has been built over many millenia by many great minds, many of whom worshiped the same God you do, a few of whom I have the great privilege of knowing in some limited personal capacity, almost all of whom were convinced that what they were doing was genuinely knowing something about the universe. It is an insult to the people who invented your computer, the brick of your house, the electrical power grid that spans your great nation, your clean running water, car, lawn (if you have one), windows, etc. Need I go on? That those people did not know everything is certain. That those people did not know anything is ridiculous.

Furthermore, I consider it a statement in ignorance of, if not in insult towards, our great God who made a universe that is fundamentally knowable and that has been shown to be so for millenia. If you wrote a book and someone claimed it was unreadable - if you coded a program and someone claimed it was unusable - if you invented a device and someone claimed it was unfeasible - would you not feel affronted? True, it is the job of people to show that the universe is fundamentally knowable. And exalting that might seem like exalting those people in the face of God who made the universe. But to say that the universe cannot be known, in other words that nobody knows anything about the universe, is to render invalid any judgment that it was created knowable - a judgment about the job God did.

Do you really know what you're talking about?

 

[juvenissun]

Well, I also know that nobody knows everything about this universe.

But to say that nobody knows anything about this universe is an insult to the community of science which has been built over many millenia by many great minds, many of whom worshiped the same God you do, a few of whom I have the great privilege of knowing in some limited personal capacity, almost all of whom were convinced that what they were doing was genuinely knowing something about the universe. It is an insult to the people who invented your computer, the brick of your house, the electrical power grid that spans your great nation, your clean running water, car, lawn (if you have one), windows, etc. Need I go on? That those people did not know everything is certain. That those people did not know anything is ridiculous.

Furthermore, I consider it a statement in ignorance of, if not in insult towards, our great God who made a universe that is fundamentally knowable and that has been shown to be so for millenia. If you wrote a book and someone claimed it was unreadable - if you coded a program and someone claimed it was unusable - if you invented a device and someone claimed it was unfeasible - would you not feel affronted? True, it is the job of people to show that the universe is fundamentally knowable. And exalting that might seem like exalting those people in the face of God who made the universe. But to say that the universe cannot be known, in other words that nobody knows anything about the universe, is to render invalid any judgment that it was created knowable - a judgment about the job God did.

Do you really know what you're talking about?

You seems to be a person who has a good sense of logic. So here I am again.

You don't think I know what I was I talking about. But when I talked, I thought I knew what was I doing. This is a good example of that we, in fact, do now know anything, include what we think we know.

You have a steak in the last dinner and you thought it is good to you. But, do you really know that? No, you don't.

We discovered a strange galaxy, or a quasar somewhere. Do we really know the nature of these objects? No. we don't.

I provided an explanation to my "Science in Bible 03" post. Do I really know what I was talking about? May be I do now. But 20 years later, people would say I really do not.

We have a lot of data about the sun, the Mars, etc. We also have many models for them. Do we really know anything for sure? No. We don't.

Use one of your example, we think the earth is spherical. Do we really think it is true? No. we don't.

What is to "know"? It is not the data we gathered. It is the interpretation. So, we do not really know, even we can do this or do that.

I am not insulting anyone. What I said is the ultimate nature of our scientific understanding. And I think it is also a correct attitude toward any of God's creation.

 

[IndyPirate]

You seems to be a person who has a good sense of logic. So here I am again.

You don't think I know what I was I talking about. But when I talked, I thought I knew what was I doing. This is a good example of that we, in fact, do now know anything, include what we think we know.

You have a steak in the last dinner and you thought it is good to you. But, do you really know that? No, you don't.

We discovered a strange galaxy, or a quasar somewhere. Do we really know the nature of these objects? No. we don't.

I provided an explanation to my "Science in Bible 03" post. Do I really know what I was talking about? May be I do now. But 20 years later, people would say I really do not.

We have a lot of data about the sun, the Mars, etc. We also have many models for them. Do we really know anything for sure? No. We don't.

Use one of your example, we think the earth is spherical. Do we really think it is true? No. we don't.

What is to "know"? It is not the data we gathered. It is the interpretation. So, we do not really know, even we can do this or do that.

I am not insulting anyone. What I said is the ultimate nature of our scientific understanding. And I think it is also a correct attitude toward any of God's creation.

Solipsism is an almost worthless philosophy that tells us nothing about the outside world. If we can't trust our own senses and rationale, then we might as well give up on science altogether.

 

[juvenissun]

Solipsism is an almost worthless philosophy that tells us nothing about the outside world. If we can't trust our own senses and rationale, then we might as well give up on science altogether.

You trust your rationale (even it is logically true)? Do you ever repeat your mistakes? If you trust yourself, you do not need God.

 

[gluadys]

You trust your rationale (even it is logically true)? Do you ever repeat your mistakes? If you trust yourself, you do not need God.

Trusting our sense and reason is not abandoning trust in God. It is God who gave us the power of perception and the faculty of reason. We can trust them BECAUSE we trust in God.

Basic Descartes.

 

[IndyPirate]

You trust your rationale (even it is logically true)? Do you ever repeat your mistakes? If you trust yourself, you do not need God.

I will admit to making mistakes. I am, afterall, human. Science, however, is dependent on things like repeatablility and peer review. That tends to weed out any large conspiracy theories that get tossed about. I guess the only other option would be mass delusion on a grand scale. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of people over about 2 centuries all having the exact same delusion. I don't think even Satan is that powerful.

I'm not sure how Naturalism came to be such a dirty word in the first place. Science has been very effective at describing the universe and making accurate predictions? Why should we throw out those methods when they contradict with our personal interpretation of God's Word. As you alluded to in your post, we are humans who are prone to making mistakes.

 

[juvenissun]

I will admit to making mistakes. I am, afterall, human. Science, however, is dependent on things like repeatablility and peer review. .

One could repeat an experiment 100 times and the same thing happened 100 times. However, one till could make a totally wrong explanation about the experiment.

 

[artybloke]

One could read the Bible 100 times and the same words happened 100 times. However, one still could make a totally wrong explanation about the interpretation.

 

[Paul365]

I don't know evolution. That is true. I do not know rocks, which is my specialty. That is also true. But I also know that nobody knows anything about this universe. And you certainly do not know the real nature of your work.

If you think you know something, then you are no different from a 3-year old child. I do not know what are you. But I do not care. You need to grow up.

If I understand this right, you are defending your arguments by saying that no one knows anything anyway, therefore it does not matter that you don't know the subject of your arguments.

However, if no one would know anything, there were no difference between right and wrong or truth and myth.

God gave us a brain to think, to learn, and to gain knowledge. Even if this can hurt Creationism.

 

[juvenissun]

If I understand this right, you are defending your arguments by saying that no one knows anything anyway, therefore it does not matter that you don't know the subject of your arguments.

The part after "therefore" is not logically correct. So it is not true.

Let me complete the sentence: Therefore, do not be so sure (proud of) on what you think you know.

 

[gluadys]

The part after "therefore" is not logically correct. So it is not true.

Let me complete the sentence: Therefore, do not be so sure (proud of) on what you think you know.

To know that one knows is not in itself a matter of pride. It may simply be a matter of fact.

To assume that a person is doing more than stating a fact when they say "I know ..." is both making an unfair accusation and a red herring.

The issue is not whether they are proud of what they know, but that they know what they know.

 

[juvenissun]

To know that one knows is not in itself a matter of pride. It may simply be a matter of fact.

To assume that a person is doing more than stating a fact when they say "I know ..." is both making an unfair accusation and a red herring.

The issue is not whether they are proud of what they know, but that they know what they know.

I strongly feel that if one said: I know it without any reservation, then it has a sense of pride in it. Chances (>90% or even >99.9%) are, the person does NOT completely know.

 

[Mallon]

Chances (>90% or even >99.9%) are, the person does NOT completely know.

Do you say that with conviction?

 

[holdon]

It is God who gave us the power of perception and the faculty of reason.

And I thought you thought we "evolved" that way?

 

[Tinker Grey]

And I thought you thought we "evolved" that way?

It isn't a dichotomy.

 

[juvenissun]

Do you say that with conviction?

That is why I never use 100% for anything, include this one. I know I could never be sure on anything. "May be" except my faith to HIM (I never know until the very moment).

In fact, I think it is a cultured attitude to all geologists.

 

[gluadys]

And I thought you thought we "evolved" that way?

As Tinker Gray says, it is not a dichotomy.

Both statements can be simultaneously true.