Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Brightmoon]

You mean other than the fact the universe and life exist, and no other alternative is proven.

That’s not evidence, ya know, that’s just an observation . No other alternative about how life appears, other than being created by a deity, is a silly and baseless lie

 

[inquiring mind]

While as a Christian I believe that, the problem is that Science has no room for unverified or unverifiable beliefs . Those are called fantasies.

You’re not arguing science and religion, you’re rejecting one religion, claiming it has no merit, and arguing your case with another one, philosophical naturalism (a “belief” that the natural world is all that exists, which has no proof either). The belief that a natural world is all that exists is not only unverified, but it is unverifiable as well... a fantasy according to your definition.

 

[inquiring mind]

That’s not evidence, ya know, that’s just an observation .

You do know by definition that “observation” is a big part of true science???

No other alternative about how life appears, other than being created by a deity, is a silly and baseless lie

Sounds like a “liar, liar, pants on fire” strategy to me. What is your alternative about how life appears?

 

[Speedwell]

You’re not arguing science and religion, you’re rejecting one religion, claiming it has no merit, and arguing your case with another one, philosophical naturalism (a “belief” that the natural world is all that exists, which has no proof either). The belief that a natural world is all that exists is not only unverified, but it is unverifiable as well... a fantasy according to your definition.

An odd sort of accusation to make about a Christian. I take it you are not familiar with the distinction between the philosophical naturalism of atheism and the methodological naturalism of science.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Ummm! creationists ! Just answering that question

Ummm, show me.

 

[inquiring mind]

An odd sort of accusation to make about a Christian. I take it you are not familiar with the distinction between the philosophical naturalism of atheism and the methodological naturalism of science.

My apologies to you and Brightmoon. I was addressing this part of the statement "the problem is that Science has no room for unverified or unverifiable beliefs."

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then I'd say you got yourself a problem there in convincing anyone other than the most gullible.

If by "gullible" you mean anyone who is actually scientifically literate and understands scientific principles and the scientific process, sure.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Lets see if I got this right, your present definition of dishonest is that I don't believe science proves nothing?

Not sure how you could misunderstand what I said, it seems pretty straightforward.

You demand X. People explain to you that "X" is not how it works. You then again demand X.
Either you don't understand basic english, or you are being dishonest. Or trolling, off course.

 

[Brightmoon]

You’re not arguing science and religion, you’re rejecting one religion, claiming it has no merit, and arguing your case with another one, philosophical naturalism (a “belief” that the natural world is all that exists, which has no proof either). The belief that a natural world is all that exists is not only unverified, but it is unverifiable as well... a fantasy according to your definition.

. As a previous poster said , there’s a difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. Methodological naturalism is used used by scientists to get accurate information from the natural world. Philosophical naturalism is a belief structure.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You’re not arguing science and religion, you’re rejecting one religion, claiming it has no merit, and arguing your case with another one, philosophical naturalism (a “belief” that the natural world is all that exists, which has no proof either). The belief that a natural world is all that exists is not only unverified, but it is unverifiable as well... a fantasy according to your definition.

First of all, I will say that I don't subscribe to such a belief - I agree that it is an undemonstrable thing. In it, after all, is a somewhat hidden negative claim (like "the supernatural does not exist"). Such negative claims can't be demonstrated, because the supernatural might exist while we simply haven't found it yet.

However, I'ld say that such a belief is a lot more rational then for example the belief that the supernatural DOES exist.

For the simple reason that the natural world demonstrably exists - we are a part of it, after all.
While the supernatural isn't showing up anywhere - and humans have been trying very hard to find it for millenia now.

So, the belief of philosophical naturalism does NOT require assuming the existance of undemonstrable entities or forces.

The belief that the supernatural, for example, does exist... DOES require assuming the existance of undemonstrable entities or forces.

So right out of the gates, for that reason alone, philosophical naturalism is way more rational as opposed to theism.


But, just to make it extra clear, I don't subscribe to such a belief. I think it's a waste of time and energy to ponder over things that can't be demonstrated anyway. Yes, for all practical intents and purposes, I live my life as if the supernatural (or any other thing that can't be demonstrated) does not exist, sure.

When I jump from a building, I fully expect to get hurt hard or killed when smacking down against the concrete. I don't assume that a supernatural entity will appear to break my fall or to stop gravity from accelerating my body by 9.81 meters per second per second (minus atmospheric resistance).

When driving on the freeway, I don't assume that an undetectable supernatural rock is blocking my way... so I don't hit my breaks for no apparant reason.

When trapped in a fire in some building, I won't assume that some angel will make the flames go away allowing me to exit unharmed.

Why would I assuming otherwise?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You do know by definition that “observation” is a big part of true science???


Sounds like a “liar, liar, pants on fire” strategy to me. What is your alternative about how life appears?

You ask for an "alternative". By using that word, you imply that what you are proposing, is actually a valid option. But in reality, it isn't valid at all.

We don't require an "alternative" to something that is indistinguishable from something that was just invented out of thin air for no particular reason.

Let's just assume for a moment that any and all scientists are virtually clueless about how life could arise. That's not the case of course, but let's assume it is for the sake of argument.


That doesn't make your religious belief somehow valid. Your particular bare claim isn't valid simply because science doesn't have the answer. What makes your claim (in)valid, is entirely dependend on your particular claim and the evidence in support of it.

Your claim falls and stands on its own merrit... Not on the merrit, or even validity, of other competing claims.

You need to actually bring evidence FOR your case. IN SUPPORT of your case.
Point to other cases (or the lack thereof), doesn't matter to the validity or credibility of YOUR case.

 

[Kenny'sID]

If by "gullible" you mean anyone who is actually scientifically literate and understands scientific principles and the scientific process, sure.

Not sure how you could misunderstand what I said, it seems pretty straightforward.

You demand X. People explain to you that "X" is not how it works. You then again demand X.
Either you don't understand basic english, or you are being dishonest. Or trolling, off course.

Still with the "because I said so", or "I'm literate on something that doesn't even exist." Not much sense in even arguing with someone who actually claims they cannot prove what they say is true, and who only keep insinuating, I should believe them without proof.

Nothing new here. You've given me absolutely no logical reason to believe you...none.

 

[xianghua]

Note the bolded part. That's a negation.

To say "prove the earth is NOT flat", actually means "DISPROVE the eart is flat".
Science is very much able to DISPROVE positive assertions, if those assertions are wrong.

Lawrence Krauss once said it quite clearly: "Science isn't in the business of proving things. Rather, science is more in the business of disproving things. Science as such can not tell you what is abolutely correct. But it CAN tell you what is absolutely wrong!"

What you just said about a flat earth, is not positively proving something correct.
It is, disproving a positive assertion. That assertion being "the earth is flat". Negating the assertion and then removing the "dis" from "disproving", does not change that.

so science cant prove the earth is a round?

 

[xianghua]

First, There is no way to measure ”design”.

so you cant detect design when you see a car?

 

[Speedwell]

Still with the "because I said so", or "I'm literate on something that doesn't even exist." Not much sense in even arguing with someone who actually claims they cannot prove what they say is true, and who only keep insinuating, I should believe them without proof.

But not without some confirming evidence.

Nothing new here. You've given me absolutely no logical reason to believe you...none.

So what? You're not required to accept the theory of evolution.

 

[xianghua]

No. It's based on your limited imagination.

realy? are you saying that a truck doesnt have bigger wheels?

 

[xianghua]

What is the method by which design can be objectively detected?

lets see: how you detect design when you see a car?

 

[Speedwell]

so you cant detect design when you see a car?

Design can never be detected directly, it must be inferred. As a practical matter we assume the cars we see are designed because we have no experience of cars which are not man-made. If there were cars which were not man-made along with cars which were man-made then we would have to examine them more carefully to determine which cars could be said to be designed, and which ones we couldn't come to a decision about.

Man-made => designed

Not man-made => no conclusion possible.

 

[xianghua]

Cats wouldn't evolve into dogs or squirrels. Not in 1000 years, not in millions of years, not in billions of years. Simply never.

so you dont believe that a cat can evolve into a dog even if we will have billions of years? are you sure you arent a creationist?

 

[Kenny'sID]

But not without some confirming evidence.

So what? You're not required to accept the theory of evolution.

None of that made any sense, can you explain? "Not" without confirming evidence for what?

Why would you think that I think I'm required??