Why creationists can never convince me that evolution is false.

[HitchSlap]

Are we? Maybe we just believe we are here.
But if we actually are, that doesn't mean this version of reality always existed.

Doesn’t mean it didn’t.

 

[HitchSlap]

Everything physically is from the death of a star it’s not sci fi we are made up physically of star dirt.

Right. And humans are primarily carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus... not “dust of the earth.” Yet another instance of the bible being wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Right. And humans are primarily carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus... not “dust of the earth.” Yet another instance of the bible being wrong.

Really?

No pedospheres in your area?

 

[o_mlly]

Further to the above, I also observe fundamental gaps in the understanding of the purpose and function of science as a whole. If one rejects science in terms of epistemology ...

Of course we do not reject science as a means to come to know reality. However, knowing that the scientific method cannot prove the validity of the scientific method, we can and ought to use other means to come to know reality, especially where science is at an impasse, ie., abiogenesis. We do reject scientism.

 

[BeyondET]

Right. And humans are primarily carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus... not “dust of the earth.” Yet another instance of the bible being wrong.

The same elements in the dirt on earth , another instance you are wrong

 

[Oneiric1975]

Of course we do not reject science as a means to come to know reality. However, knowing that the scientific method cannot prove the validity of the scientific method, we can and ought to use other means to come to know reality, especially where science is at an impasse, ie., abiogenesis. We do reject scientism.

I don't understand your comment about the scientific method not being able to prove the validity of the scientific method. Are you trying to make some Godel Theorem point? I don't think it necessarily applies here.

Abiogenesis is hardly at an impasse. It just hasn't been sufficiently shown how it might work just yet but we have a lot of evidence that life arose from non-life because we use basic chemistry as living things which is chemistry and that is used by non-living things. We have non-living analogues to many of the compounds that make us up and we all appear to be part of a continuum.

 

[HitchSlap]

The same elements that can be found in dirt, another instance you are wrong

You should look into it.

 

[BeyondET]

You should look into it.

You should do you think those elements you mentioned are only in humans because that is what you are implying. your statement about elements in humans was illogical

 

[AV1611VET]

You should look into it.

QV please:

Whatever it is, it's easy to answer.

God took some dust of the earth, filtered out of it what He wanted, added into it what He wanted, then made Adam.

Just like a potter taking water and clay, adding water as necessary, removing clay as necessary, then making a pot.

 

[BeyondET]

.

 

[Estrid]

Of course we do not reject science as a means to come to know reality. However, knowing that the scientific method cannot prove the validity of the scientific method, we can and ought to use other means to come to know reality, especially where science is at an impasse, ie., abiogenesis. We do reject scientism.

Anyone with any sense rejects scientism.*
Even mentioning it in connection with science is
as off as bringing in scientology. You know?

As for proof in science, you may be a couple
of points off compass there.
Sure, no theory or law can be absolutely
proven, but they can be demonstrated to be
utterly reliable in every and all tests ever applied.

The validtity scientific method has proven - or demonstrated
if you prefer- as a means of learning about "reality" (whatever
that may be) far beyond the requirements of anyone remotely
reasonable, or even sane.
Mars is no longer known as the reddish speck representing the god
of war!

We are unaware of any achievements of any religion is
uncovering anything at all about physical "reality" tho
from various religions we do see a great array of nonsense
put forth as absolute reality.

We might suggest "religionism" as the counterpart for the
fools game of scientism. No religion has all the answers
about "reality" except in the imagination of religiomists.
Scientism is likewise for those who dwell in imagination
to the loss of good thinking.

Religions do tell us a lot about realities of the human mind,,
as do the arts such as music and poetry.

It won't help at all in resolving investigation into physics,
chemistry, geology, biology, regardless of how fervently
the flood enthusiasts, say, may denounce all the work of
geologists etc that serve to demonstrate that there was no flood.

As for abio, I'm inclined to just stand by and see what some or
other organic chemists may turn up, probably incidental to
any directed Quest for abio.

It's far too soon to say if it can or cannot be done in or
out of a lab.

Kind of like how in Captain Cooks time it was too soon
to say if there was a still great undiscovered southern continent.

*NOT "scientist" as my trusty spell changer had it.

 

[BeyondET]

Kind of like how in Captain Cooks time it was too soon
to say if there was a still great undiscovered southern continent.

And a Captain has to have faith they will not fall off the edge of the earth and discover a southern continent

 

[AV1611VET]

Anyone with any sense rejects scientist.

Don't be too hard on scientist.

Even I don't do that.

I use higher standards to accept scientist.

Namely:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

These are standards non-believers can't understand.

 

[Estrid]

And a Captain has to have faith they will not fall off the edge of the earth and discover a southern continent

Oh? Is this a necessary or relevant bit
of equivocation?

 

[o_mlly]

I don't understand your comment about the scientific method not being able to prove the validity of the scientific method.

Science inquiries are based on assumptions: that the entire universe is ordered and that order can be discerned by the human mind.

Validation of those assumptions cannot be given by a series descriptions about some part of nature. The answer to the question, "Why one should accept science as a method of inquiry?, cannot come from within science, otherwise it would beg the question. Ironically, this means that the epistemic imperatives professed by naturalists and positivists are, themselves, incapable of being justified through naturalistic means.

Relating this observation to the OP, creation is a supernatural event. By definition, naturalistic means are incapable of evidencing the supernatural. As for decreeing what does or can exist, there is nothing in scientific method that forbids anything to exist.

Abiogenesis is hardly at an impasse. It just hasn't been sufficiently shown how it might work just yet ...

It's been over 100 years since Huxley coined the term "abiogenesis" and, of course, we encourage the work to continue. But progress? No. Ironically, its the scientists faith in science that propels the work rather than progress:
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia
Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood.

 

[o_mlly]

Anyone with any sense rejects scientism.*
Even mentioning it in connection with science is
as off as bringing in scientology. You know?

To reject scientism implies one is open to alternative method to gain knowledge about reality. As a person with some sense, what other methods are you open to?

 

[Estrid]

Science inquiries are based on assumptions: that the entire universe is ordered and that order can be discerned by the human mind.

Validation of those assumptions cannot be given by a series descriptions about some part of nature. The answer to the question, "Why one should accept science as a method of inquiry?, cannot come from within science, otherwise it would beg the question. Ironically, this means that the epistemic imperatives professed by naturalists and positivists are, themselves, incapable of being justified through naturalistic means.

Relating this observation to the OP, creation is a supernatural event. By definition, naturalistic means are incapable of evidencing the supernatural. As for decreeing what does or can exist, there is nothing in scientific method that forbids anything to exist.


It's been over 100 years since Huxley coined the term "abiogenesis" and, of course, we encourage the work to continue. But progress? No. Ironically, its the scientists faith in science that propels the work rather than progress:
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia
Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood.

What makes you think that is a fundamental assumption
of science-? Reference? And if it is, so what?

Science ALWAYS is orovisional, statistical. Unlike
religions that pose as bastions of infallible Truth.

For all your quasi philosophical name - calling
about "epistemic...positivists", fact is that the thinking
and methods of science are not validated? What possible
standard is needed? Landing on Pluto, if Mars isn't enough?

"Creation is supernatural" is what we call a "fact not in evidence".
Science knows better than to just say things.
It's a good policy to emulate.

As for your last, the "poorly understood" is well applied to
your grasp of science. Note the above about just saying things.

 

[AV1611VET]

To reject scientism implies one is open to alternative method to gain knowledge about reality. As a person with some sense, what other methods are you open to?

Science can only deal with a small portion of reality.

The Bible gives gives a whole lot more.

 

[o_mlly]

What makes you think that is a fundamental assumption
of science-? Reference? And if it is, so what?

Science ALWAYS is orovisional, statistical. Unlike
religions that pose as bastions of infallible Truth.

For all your quasi philosophical name - calling
about "epistemic...positivists", fact is that the thinking
and methods of science are not validated? What possible
standard is needed? Landing on Pluto, if Mars isn't enough?

"Creation is supernatural" is what we call a "fact not in evidence".
Science knows better than to just say things.
It's a good policy to emulate.

As for your last, the "poorly understood" is well applied to
your grasp of science. Note the above about just saying things.

Somewhat incoherent. ? I suspect you're upset, sorry. When you gather yourself, please answer the question: What other modes than science to gain knowledge do you accept?

 

[AV1611VET]

"Creation is supernatural" is what we call a "fact not in evidence".

Facts not in evidence pertain to crimes.

Treating Creation like it is a crime is collegiate.