Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

[Jan Volkes]

Please forgive me for stating the obvious but the Christian worldview is not consistent in the way you mean it at all,
for a start Christians do not all worship the same God in fact all Christians worship their own idea of what a God is, they have been told there is a God somewhere in the realms of some fantasy place called the supernatural where God is said to live,
they are told to fear this God so they end up fearing the God they themselves have conjured up in their heads, I suppose it could be argued that this is consistent in as much as every Christian does the same thing, I also suppose that's where the idea of a "personal God" comes from because every Christian worships a God of their own making, that's why your God doesn't die when I die, mine does but yours doesn't, in that way Gods live forever or at least until that God goes out of fashion or people just stop believing in them like Thor, Zeus or thousands of other once worshipped Gods.

Yes, Christians all worship the same God.

I fail to see how that can be possible when you don't know which God all the others worship unless it's the name you worship?
You all have different imagined images in your minds so how can you worship someone else's mental image?
It must be the name that everyone thinks of when they think of God, yes it's definitely the name otherwise just thinking of God might mean the Muslim God, that must be why all the Gods have different names to stop people praying to the wrong God.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I fail to see how that can be possible when you don't know which God all the others worship unless it's the name you worship?
You all have different imagined images in your minds so how can you worship someone else's mental image?
It must be the name that everyone thinks of when they think of God, yes it's definitely the name otherwise just thinking of God might mean the Muslim God, that must be why all the Gods have different names to stop people praying to the wrong God.

You fail to understand God, Christians and religion as a whole. Your anti-religious bias is dogmatic and insulting and I really don't feel conversation with you is constructive on any level.

 

[Jan Volkes]

You fail to understand God, Christians and religion as a whole. Your anti-religious bias is dogmatic and insulting and I really don't feel conversation with you is constructive on any level.

I fail to understand God because no one can tell me anything about God because no one seems to know, all they have is vague ideas and they are all different, for something everyone claims is real they sure are vague about it.

I think that's because you are dogmatic, I suggest something and you dismiss it out of hand, I think it's because you refuse to confront what I am saying.
You have your way of thinking and that's the end of the conversation, I guess that's because you are not quite sure what it is you believe in and the last thing you want is to be made to think about it.
Please forget we even had this conversation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I fail to understand God because no one can tell me anything about God because no one seems to know, all they have is vague ideas and they are all different, for something everyone claims is real they sure are vague about it.

I think that's because you are dogmatic, I suggest something and you dismiss it out of hand, I think because you refuse to confront what I am saying.
You have your way of thinking and that's the end of the conversation, I guess that's because you are not quite sure what it is you believe in and the last thing you want is to be made to think about it.
Please forget we even had this conversation.

I could say the same of you. You believe what you dogmatically believe and you dismiss everything else out of hand.

 

[Jan Volkes]

I could say the same of you. You believe what you dogmatically believe and you dismiss everything else out of hand.

If you could show me just ONE thing I would change my mind in a heartbeat, is there anything and I mean anything that would change YOUR mind? you and I both know the answer to that is a very simple and a quietly said no.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you could show me just ONE thing I would change my mind in a heartbeat, is there anything and I mean anything that would change YOUR mind? you and I both know the answer to that is a very simple and a quietly said no.

First of all there is not one thing I could show you that would change your mind. You claim to be open minded but you aren't in the least. Secondly, I don't have to have a quiet no...A very bold and completely assured NO will suffice. Seriously, the only thing that would change my mind is if someone could show me that the entity that claims to be the Christian God is something that can have access to my mind, has power over the natural world and has the motive to claim they or it was the Christian God.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

What are you arguing? Do you disagree with the notion that if we are just a sac of chemicals that we do not have free will?

I'm not really arguing anything at this point except that you don't have any basis for saying materialism is inconsistent with reality. That claim can be nothing more than assertion if you can't at least explain how to distinguish between free will and a complex chemical reaction that seems like free will.

And are those other Penfield citations that support your position forthcoming?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm not really arguing anything at this point except that you don't have any basis for saying materialism is inconsistent with reality. That claim can be nothing more than assertion if you can't at least explain how to distinguish between free will and a complex chemical reaction that seems like free will.

And are those other Penfield citations that support your position forthcoming?

Here are some items that you can read from Wilder Penfield.

• Epilepsy and Cerebral Localization: A Study of the Mechanism, Treatment and Prevention of Epileptic Seizures. Penfield, W., and Theodore C. Erickson. Charles C Thomas, 1941.
• Epilepsy and the Functional Anatomy of the Human Brain. 2nd edition. Jasper, H., and Penfield, W. Little, Brown and Co., 1954. ISBN 0-316-69833-4
• The Torch. Penfield, W. Little, Brown and Co.; 1960. ISBN 1-299-80119-6. "A story of love, treachery, and the battle for truth in ancient Greece."
• The Mystery of the Mind : A Critical Study of Consciousness and the Human Brain. Penfield, Wilder. Princeton University Press, 1975. ISBN 0-691-02360-3
• No Man Alone: A Surgeon's Life, Little, Brown and Co., 1977. ISBN 0-316-69839-3. Penfield's autobiography.
• Something hidden : a biography of Wilder Penfield . Jefferson Lewis, Doubleday and Co., 1981. ISBN 0-385-17696-1.
• Speech and Brain Mechanisms, Penfield, Wilder and Roberts, Lamar, Princeton University Press, 1959.

When a brain experiment is taking place and stimulus is induced a part of the brain my light up in response. A scientist can map out this type of thing but nothing can be known about the "mind" from this mapping. There is no map for liking rocky road ice cream over vanilla. There is no mapping of anything that goes on "in" the mind. A scientist must ask the patient if he wants to know anything about the mind.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Seriously, the only thing that would change my mind is if someone could show me that the entity that claims to be the Christian God is something that can have access to my mind, has power over the natural world and has the motive to claim they or it was the Christian God.

Every religions believers say exactly the same thing, you are just another believer in just another God and there are hundreds of millions just like you and hundreds of Gods all over the world.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Every religions believers say exactly the same thing, you are just another believer in just another God and there are hundreds of millions just like you and hundreds of Gods all over the world.

You are just an unbeliever who says exactly the same thing. You have opinions just like millions and millions of others. The Christian worldview is internally and externally cohesive with reality.

 

[Zosimus]

Oh? You mean that scientific inquiry had nothing to do with the computer you're posting these messages on? What, do you think the scientists prayed to Jesus and the answers popped into their heads? No! They worked using the scientific method to engineer smaller and cheaper microprocessors to the point where consumer grade computer electronics were a good option! Without the knowledge that science has brought you, I know for a fact that almost no part of my life would exist. My hobbies, my job, my means of transportation, all of those only exist due to relatively recent scientific advances.

Wait a minute... if science hadn't brought ME knowledge, no part of YOUR life would exist?

Congratulations for making a completely incomparable statement. It is taken on faith that God is responsible for the world; it is not proven. The scientific method is demonstrably responsible for the advances in modern society that we have today.

Ah, yes. The scientific method. Isn't it amazing what naive belief in the power of repeated logical fallacies can convince people of?

 

[Armoured]

Wait a minute... if science hadn't brought ME knowledge, no part of YOUR life would exist?


Ah, yes. The scientific method. Isn't it amazing what naive belief in the power of repeated logical fallacies can convince people of?

The scientific method is a logical fallacy now?

 

[AV1611VET]

The scientific method is a logical fallacy now?

The first and foremost approach of the Zetetic method of science is not to block anything that would prevent inquiry.

 

[Zosimus]

The scientific method is a logical fallacy now?

Were you unaware?

Which of the multiple logical fallacies shall we investigate?

Or shall it be the confirmation procedure of the scientific method? It is a classic example of the affirming the consequent logical fallacy.

 

[Armoured]

Were you unaware?

Which of the multiple logical fallacies shall we investigate?

Or shall it be the confirmation procedure of the scientific method? It is a classic example of the affirming the consequent logical fallacy.

How about one. Pick one logical fallacy on which the scientific method relies, and explain how, in your own words. That would be a great place to start.

 

[Zosimus]

How about one. Pick one logical fallacy on which the scientific method relies, and explain how, in your own words. That would be a great place to start.

All right. Let's imagine that we perform experiment X and get result Y. Then we do the experiment again with the same result. Then our colleagues do it and come up with result Y. Again and again, we always get result Y. At some point we want to say that:

1. Experiment X always results in Y.
or
2. The next time I do experiment X, I will get result Y.

So this is easy enough to do. We can say:

"Since I have repeatedly gotten result Y from experiment X in the past, I will always (or the next time) get result Y from experiment X."

The problem with this is that the premises do not entail the conclusion. We know this because there are words in the conclusion that are not mentioned in any of the premises. Depending on whether we are using the strong or the weak claim, we are either using the word "always" or the phrase "the next time" in the conclusion when it is not justified by the premises.

So there is another premise... a missing premise. We call this premise the assumption. By explicitly stating the assumption, our argument becomes logically valid.

P1. I have performed experiment X in the past and gotten result Y.
P2. The past is a good guide to the future.
C. Therefore, I will get result Y in the future when I do experiment X.

Now that we have a valid logical argument, we have to justify premise 2. How can we determine that the past is a good guide to the future? Some people may suggest that it is easy to do so. Someone might well say, "Since the past has been a good guide to the future in the past, it will continue to be a good guide to the future in the future." Whoops! That's circular logic, and what we call begging the question. This is a formal logical fallacy.

To date, there is no solution to the problem of induction. However, most scientists claim that Bayesian statistics resolves the problem. If you believe so, and if you think you can effectively argue that point, then I would greatly enjoy debating the matter with you. So far, I have found no takers.

 

[Armoured]

All right. Let's imagine that we perform experiment X and get result Y. Then we do the experiment again with the same result. Then our colleagues do it and come up with result Y. Again and again, we always get result Y. At some point we want to say that:

1. Experiment X always results in Y.
or
2. The next time I do experiment X, I will get result Y.

So this is easy enough to do. We can say:

"Since I have repeatedly gotten result Y from experiment X in the past, I will always (or the next time) get result Y from experiment X."

The problem with this is that the premises do not entail the conclusion. We know this because there are words in the conclusion that are not mentioned in any of the premises. Depending on whether we are using the strong or the weak claim, we are either using the word "always" or the phrase "the next time" in the conclusion when it is not justified by the premises.

So there is another premise... a missing premise. We call this premise the assumption. By explicitly stating the assumption, our argument becomes logically valid.

P1. I have performed experiment X in the past and gotten result Y.
P2. The past is a good guide to the future.
C. Therefore, I will get result Y in the future when I do experiment X.

Now that we have a valid logical argument, we have to justify premise 2. How can we determine that the past is a good guide to the future? Some people may suggest that it is easy to do so. Someone might well say, "Since the past has been a good guide to the future in the past, it will continue to be a good guide to the future in the future." Whoops! That's circular logic, and what we call begging the question. This is a formal logical fallacy.

To date, there is no solution to the problem of induction. However, most scientists claim that Bayesian statistics resolves the problem. If you believe so, and if you think you can effectively argue that point, then I would greatly enjoy debating the matter with you. So far, I have found no takers.

Except, of course, no one ever says "we always get result x". A correctly formulated scientific observation would be "all times observed resulted in x". There's always the possibility that next time you might get result q. However, making a prediction that you'll get x if the last million times you tried the experiment you got x is not unreasonable.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Here are some items that you can read from Wilder Penfield.

• Epilepsy and Cerebral Localization: A Study of the Mechanism, Treatment and Prevention of Epileptic Seizures. Penfield, W., and Theodore C. Erickson. Charles C Thomas, 1941.
• Epilepsy and the Functional Anatomy of the Human Brain. 2nd edition. Jasper, H., and Penfield, W. Little, Brown and Co., 1954. ISBN 0-316-69833-4
• The Torch. Penfield, W. Little, Brown and Co.; 1960. ISBN 1-299-80119-6. "A story of love, treachery, and the battle for truth in ancient Greece."
• The Mystery of the Mind : A Critical Study of Consciousness and the Human Brain. Penfield, Wilder. Princeton University Press, 1975. ISBN 0-691-02360-3
• No Man Alone: A Surgeon's Life, Little, Brown and Co., 1977. ISBN 0-316-69839-3. Penfield's autobiography.
• Something hidden : a biography of Wilder Penfield . Jefferson Lewis, Doubleday and Co., 1981. ISBN 0-385-17696-1.
• Speech and Brain Mechanisms, Penfield, Wilder and Roberts, Lamar, Princeton University Press, 1959.

When a brain experiment is taking place and stimulus is induced a part of the brain my light up in response. A scientist can map out this type of thing but nothing can be known about the "mind" from this mapping. There is no map for liking rocky road ice cream over vanilla. There is no mapping of anything that goes on "in" the mind. A scientist must ask the patient if he wants to know anything about the mind.

These aren't even links, much less quotes. You cited these other experiments as support for your position so presumably you own or have read them and can provide pertinent quotes.

You still haven't explained to me how you would tell the difference between free will and chemicareaction. How do you know your preference for rocky road is more than a complex chemical reaction?

 

[Zosimus]

Except, of course, no one ever says "we always get result x". A correctly formulated scientific observation would be "all times observed resulted in x". There's always the possibility that next time you might get result q. However, making a prediction that you'll get x if the last million times you tried the experiment you got x is not unreasonable.

So you figure it's reasonable to use logical fallacies.

 

[Armoured]

So you figure it's reasonable to use logical fallacies.

It's not a logical fallacy. Life couldn't function if we didn't base expectations on previous outcomes. You couldn't even walk. Or breath.