The plank in the materialist's eye

Originally posted by npetreley
I'm not sure what you mean by abandoning materialism. I am not advocating that anyone stop investigating material causes, but that they cease to assume that only material causes exist.

Click to expand...

Why do you care about anyone's personal assumptions? This is a science thread: it is not a matter of whether we assume there is no supernatural, it is a matter of whether we postulate the supernatural in our theories that explain the natural world. To do so is to abondon materialism. To abandon materialism is to throw a monkey wrench into the methods of science.

Saying you will not consider the possibility of supernatural causes in science sounds to me like saying you refuse to deal with imaginary numbers in math simply because they don't exist. You can certainly do that if you like, but it seems rather ignorant to me.

Click to expand...

Math is not an empirical science. Does what this "sounds like" or "seems like" to you find its basis in a reasoned understanding of both disciplines, or is it an intuition?

No numbers "exist" as part of the real world. The imaginary numbers are so-called because they represent unique solutions to problems that cannot have a real-number answer.

Since we use imaginary numbers in math, should we, for the sake of completeness, use imaginary leprauchans in Botany (for instance)?

If creation is true, then you DO have knowledge of a supernatural event.

Click to expand...

No, we only have knowledge of the natural results of that supernatural event. Having that knowledge, we can establish that whether or not there was a supernatural cause, at one point there was very simple life on earth. Having that knowledge we can establish that, whether or not there was a supernatural cause, that life evolved through descent with modification and natural selection into the total of life that exists on earth today.

If the earth had been 6000 years old, and all life had appeared on it at once, with one great flood that destroyed all life except a handful in the Middle east, etc.... then we would have knowledge of that, whether or not there was a supernatural cause.

Most of us would privately conclude that some variant of supernatural creation were true, though this would not be a scientific conclusion. Scientist would probably dig around looking for more scientific answers, but coming against the brick wall of the supernatural would find none, and take their efforts elsewhere.

1. You may be right that you cannot prove scientifically that the event (creation or the tree) was supernatural.

Click to expand...

Further, we cannot know whether the sudden appearanc of the tree was indeed "creation" and indeed "supernatural". Because the supernatural does not succumb to the scientific method.

So what?

Click to expand...

So we don't postulate the supernatural as an explanation if we are planning to do science.

Can you prove evolution scientifically?

Click to expand...

Been done already.

You may think you can, but you can't without a time machine.

Click to expand...

Been done without a time machine.. We probably couldn't prove it to you even with a time machine. I'm not sure that we could prove it to you even with a time machine and a Burning Bush telling you exactly how it all happened. You are hyperskeptical of evolution and hypo-skeptical of third sets of teeth and other such... what gives?

So does that mean you should give up studying evolution?

Click to expand...

No, science has no commitment to avoiding the hard stuff. It only has a commitment to materialism.

2. Given the supernatural placement of the tree: Suppose we do it your way and conclude that science cannot deal with the supernatural, so scientists must always look for natural causes.

Great. You can now spend the rest of your life looking for natural ways the tree could have appeared the way it did. You will waste all of your time and never reach the correct conclusion.

Click to expand...

It is an article of faith that nature will continue to yield under scientific scrutiny. If, one day, it should stop - if trees started appearing from no-where and no amount of investigation could yield a natural cause for it, science would eventually lose its appeal. For now, that hasn't happened.

Is wasting time and being wrong somehow supposed to be a "good thing" simply because you believe that's how science should work?

Click to expand...

No, it isn't a good thing. It is just how we think science should work. If you don't like it, just sit back & watch the scientists look silly and laugh at them. And they will probably be a good sport about it and let you continue to use their automobiles, airplanes, computers, telephones, agricultural products, pharmaceuticals, and digital watches.

Originally posted by npetreley


Well, that's how it's been working, so you're doing what you set out to do.



Been doing that for quite some time now.



Oh gosh, but what if one day they refuse to let me get on their airplanes? Oh fear, oh fret.

Click to expand...

Nick, I hope you realize how unstable and non-responsive your posts have become. Do you understand what Jerry and I have been saying? Science works (or do you think this incorrect) because it does not include the supernatural (just as your computer code does not include the supernatural) and has been very successful (your airplane comment is bit worrisome). If science included the supernatural it would fall apart (it would not be science actually).

What do you think enough () for one paragraph?

Donald, you guys are a big joke. Inventions and such have nothing to do with evolution, and though you press to associate evolutionism with science, it has not been science historically, and is the weakest of scientific rigor today, and is much debated whether evolutionists stick to hard science at all.

For instance, evolutionists just like creationists have a very flexible model, more so than creationists actually, and assume that evolution is how things happen, and try to force all the evidence to fit into evolutionary scenarios through extensive imaginary scenarios, and then go off, and say the evidence is consistent with evolution, and then go as far as to state that the evidence more or less proves evolution.

For example, you will hear evolutionists state evolution is true because it predicted say a fossil to be found at such strata, but in reality, evolutionary models have failed miserably in their predictions relative to the fossil record, and some evolutionists have thus changed their models away from pure gradualism into Punctuated Equilibrium.

Why the change? Simple because the predicted data did not line up, and hey, that is fine until you go around and pretend that evolutionary models correctly predicted thing when they did not. What they have done is adapt to more data, and contain such flexibility that there is no data that could possibly occur that evolutionism cannot account for.

Basically, it is totally unverifiable.

Let's say we found human remains inside of a dinorsuar's belly. Would that mean evolutionists would abandon their theory? Nope.
All they would do is revise the way they beleive evolution occurred.
Suppose we prove, which has been done by the way, that there are mystical or spiritual forces by double-blind studies in long distance prayer, and any number of things.

Would that induce evolutionists to consider spiritual forces to possibly play a role?
Heck no, they would spit out the same party line.
Basically, there is a way for the imagination to make evolution fit no matter what, and yet you call it science.

Maybe it is, but if that is the case, then so is creationism. Regardless, it has little to do with scientific advancement.

Originally posted by randman
Donald, you guys are a big joke.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Inventions and such have nothing to do with evolution, and though you press to associate evolutionism with science, it has not been science historically, and is the weakest of scientific rigor today, and is much debated whether evolutionists stick to hard science at all.

Click to expand...

You need to check your history --- and much debated by WHOM, precisely??

For instance, evolutionists just like creationists have a very flexible model, more so than creationists actually, and assume that evolution is how things happen, and try to force all the evidence to fit into evolutionary scenarios through extensive imaginary scenarios, and then go off, and say the evidence is consistent with evolution, and then go as far as to state that the evidence more or less proves evolution.

Click to expand...

OK! You've made the accusations, now you get to back them up with details. I can start you a new thread, you can use this one, or use the one I custom-made for Nick.

Take any of the specific evidence used in support of the fossil record (not hand-waving generalities), explain in the terms that you have had it explained to you just exactly why it represents evidence to us - and show why we are wrong. Do this, or leave off with the groundless accusations, whether you meant them to be of stupidity, or of incompetence, or of dishonesty.

For example, you will hear evolutionists state evolution is true because it predicted say a fossil to be found at such strata, but in reality, evolutionary models have failed miserably in their predictions relative to the fossil record, and some evolutionists have thus changed their models away from pure gradualism into Punctuated Equilibrium.

Click to expand...

Show how any specific prediction has failed "miserably" relative to the fossil record. Show how any predictions have failed at all. Explain Punctuated Equilibrium in scientific terms. Use the terms as understood by the people who postulated Punctuated Equilibrium. Show what the inconsistency is between a Punctuated Equilibrium model and the standard neo-Darwinian model. Show EXACTLY what the differences in the two are. No quote-mining. Find out what the theory means & report.

Why the change? Simple because the predicted data did not line up, and hey, that is fine until you go around and pretend that evolutionary models correctly predicted thing when they did not.

Click to expand...

Show the pretense. If it is there, you post the examples.

What they have done is adapt to more data, and contain such flexibility that there is no data that could possibly occur that evolutionism cannot account for.

Basically, it is totally unverifiable.

Let's say we found human remains inside of a dinorsuar's belly. Would that mean evolutionists would abandon their theory? Nope.
All they would do is revise the way they beleive evolution occurred.
Suppose we prove, which has been done by the way, that there are mystical or spiritual forces by double-blind studies in long distance prayer, and any number of things.

Click to expand...

Human remains even in the same STRATUM as dinosaur remains would falsify evolution. Action at a distance has no bearing on evolution. I think you are aware of what would falsify evolution. I think you know that nothing has been found that would do the trick, but I think you know that there is plenty of evidence that would falsify evolution if it were found. Like a mammal-bird transition, chimpanzees in the Cambrian, a random distribution between left-hand and right-handed DNA, just for a few.

Would that induce evolutionists to consider spiritual forces to possibly play a role?
Heck no, they would spit out the same party line.
Basically, there is a way for the imagination to make evolution fit no matter what, and yet you call it science.

Click to expand...

Many evolutionists already believe that spiritual forces play a role. I am not one of them, but it doesn't matter - that has nothing to do with the science of evolution - that is a very different kind of speculation.

Maybe it is, but if that is the case, then so is creationism. Regardless, it has little to do with scientific advancement.

Click to expand...

Your attempt to put science and religion in the same category and to treat them as the same discipline - it will fail.

"Your attempt to put science and religion in the same category and to treat them as the same discipline - it will fail"

agreed. evolution and creationism issues will not be solved by us in this lifetime.

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Your attempt to put science and religion in the same category and to treat them as the same discipline - it will fail"

agreed. evolution and creationism issues will not be solved by us in this lifetime.

Click to expand...

Actually the issue was resolved 150 years ago except for a few religious fundementalists. Evolution is science supported by the facts. Creationism is religion supported by faith (although many chirstains disagree with this). Evolution should be taught in science class and creationism should be taught in the church of your choice.

Originally posted by npetreley

My airplane comment was simply a response to your outrageous comment that implies airplanes BELONG to scientists simply because they were designed based on scientific principles or, worse, implies that all scientists think the way you do.

I can see it now. I step up to the gate and the person who takes my ticket asks, "Do you believe in the possibility that supernatural events occur?"

"Yes, sir."

"Sorry, since planes are designed by people who do not believe in the supernatural, you have no right to fly on them. You'll have to go by horse, instead, since horses were created by supernatural causes."

Click to expand...

My point with the airplane example was that the technology you use today was made possible by science: the exact same science that you criticize so frequently, and which equates to "coming to the wrong conclusions", which has the materialist commitment and doesn't waste its time chasing ghosts.

Of course the technology belongs to the people who develop it and build and sell or buy the machines. I was just pointing out to you that for someone so critical of the scientific method, you don't seem to have much problem enjoying its fruits.

So which would you rather have survive -- the scientific method as you personally perceive it, or truth?

Click to expand...

You can kill the truth? The scientific method as it is employed by scientists, and yes - as I understand it - is the only method that I know of that gives us any window onto the truth.

Don't bother answering. It's a rhetorical question. You and many others would obviously prefer to be wrong about your conclusions than consider other possibile explanations than material ones.

Click to expand...

The simple fact is that sitting on your duff and "considering" "possible" "explanations" is a pointless endeavor - unless you can go about checking whether the explanation is good or not.

Of course we would rather not waste our time with idle speculation. We might do this in our off time, but when doing science, one must do science. That is where the airplanes come from. So your rhetorical question is answered, but not with the words you would like to put in our mouths.

Hey, whatever floats your boat.

Click to expand...

The evidence says buoyancy in water, but I am open to the possibility that it is Mermaids pushing up with their tales.

Originally posted by npetreley


My airplane comment was simply a response to your outrageous comment that implies airplanes BELONG to scientists simply because they were designed based on scientific principles or, worse, implies that all scientists think the way you do.

I can see it now. I step up to the gate and the person who takes my ticket asks, "Do you believe in the possibility that supernatural events occur?"

"Yes, sir."

"Sorry, since planes are designed by people who do not believe in the supernatural, you have no right to fly on them. You'll have to go by horse, instead, since horses were created by supernatural causes."



So which would you rather have survive -- the scientific method as you personally perceive it, or truth? Don't bother answering. It's a rhetorical question. You and many others would obviously prefer to be wrong about your conclusions than consider other possibile explanations than material ones.

Hey, whatever floats your boat.

Click to expand...

My comment was more along the lines of you accepting the results of science (technology -- airplanes) but you seem not to accept the methodology.

Hey if you can come up with a methodology better than science that allows us to get at more of the truth I would love to hear about it. Actually, I think science has been pretty successful so far. We have a fairly good understanding of the world around us -- we no longer burn witches at the stake or sacrifice animals to the gods.

Why do you think the catholic church has accepted evolution (along with many other denominations? Do you think they are part of the conspiracy? Or do you think they don't want to look foolish in front of the whole world?

"Evolution is science supported by the facts."

If that was so D then people in the scientific community wouldn't doubt the model or theory..but they do.

Please provide some cites from scientists who doubt the theory. Not the specifics, as in the graduated vs. punctual equilbrium debate, but let's see scientists who doubt that evolution ever happened in the first place. And how many of those scientists are not affiliated with the ICR?

-Chris

sure check here for starters

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

Originally posted by LouisBooth
sure check here for starters

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

Click to expand...

This page is useful for its insight into the creationists' methods. For example, note that the list at the end includes da Vinci. Perhaps since da Vinci didn't believe in protons, we can take this as evidence that some scientists don't "believe in protonism?"

Originally posted by npetreley
Yeouch! IMO you stepped in it, now. This is a no-win proposition for you.

If you CAN'T find any scientists who question the theory of evolution, you have clearly demonstrated that scientists examine the evidence from the a-priori position that their conclusion is true, and the theory is therefore not getting tested vigorously enough to find out if it IS true. Which is what I've said from the start.

Click to expand...

This is like saying that if no scientist doubts that the Earth is (roughly) an ellipsoid, then you have clearly demonstrated that this ellipsoid-Earth theory is not getting tested vigorously.

If every scientist examined evidence and believed with all their hearts that the current theory was da Truth, then science would never change. However, science does advance, throwing away disproven theories in favor of ones with more explanatory power.

Originally posted by npetreley
Bat doody. You can examine the earth exactly the way it is today. You can't examine the most primitive life form evolving into a man.

Click to expand...

Stop trying to evade the issue. You weren't talking about the difference of examining current shapes and examining past processes, you were talking about how consensus among scientists means that this consensus is unfounded.

You're clearly having a problem with what the meaning of "is" is.

Click to expand...

Ah, the last resort of npetreley: insults.

The earth is shaped thus. Evolution on the scale that is contested by most creationists was something that evolutionists suppose happened in the past. You can't test it the same way you can test the shape of the earth.

Click to expand...

So? I don't test the growth rate of a tree in 1999 in the same way that I can test the shape of the Earth. This doesn't make either test impossible.