a question for creationists...

gamespotter10 · Nov 13, 2007

Merlin said:
You see how hard it is for one who takes science on faith to acknowledge the faith.

so I need faith to believe that we can know the truth through evidence gathered, logic, reason, and critical analysis?

Merlin · Nov 13, 2007

gamespotter10 said:
evolution is based on evidence gathered, NOT faith, no matter how much you would like to believe it to be.

No, it is based on belief.
There is no evidence which mandates evolution as the one/only possibility.
The evidence shows a possibility, which is taken on faith as the one/only possibility.

Merlin · Nov 13, 2007

gamespotter10 said:
so I need faith to believe that we can know the truth through evidence gathered, logic, reason, and critical analysis?

You got it.

gamespotter10 · Nov 13, 2007

Merlin said:
No, it is based on belief.
There is no evidence which mandates evolution as the one/only possibility.
The evidence shows a possibility, which is taken on faith as the one/only possibility.

could you give me some other theories which explain the data?

thaumaturgy · Nov 13, 2007

Merlin said:
While I agree, I do not consider this forum the approprite place for such arguments.

I can think of no better forum. (Short of peer-reviewed science, but that ain't here).

As i've pointed out before,
everything does not fit in the current scientific paradigm box for testing.
I wish it did.

And how, exactly, would you know that everything doesn't fit in this box?

That seems like a bold statement, and one that falls awfully close to Post-Modernist garbage.

Whenever I hear someone claiming things don't fit into the "scientific paradigm" I assume they are either not particularly scientifically literate, or hoping for "special pleading" for their own pet beliefs that have no support.

I assume that since you are of a religious bent, that it is likely that you simply want people to leave your "god hypothesis" alone and get it off the hook for being in any way testable.

That's fine. It is religion and has nothing to do with science.

If your religion is something that you feel cannot stand up to scientific testing (and that would be all religions) then that's fine. It is religion. But by the same token, when religion tries to have a say in science, it opens itself up to being fit into the "scientific paradigm".

If it is science it fits into the scientific paradigm, (whatever that is).

Science isn't anything more than merely observing, testing, hypothesizing and reformulating toward a model that either predicts or explains the variability in the data by means of factors that all can agree on.

If something doesn't fit that "paradigm" then I have little use for it.

Pesto · Nov 13, 2007

Merlin, according to you, what beliefs are not based on faith?

Merlin · Nov 13, 2007

gamespotter10 said:
could you give me some other theories which explain the data?

No.
But I don't accept the 'all that can possibly be known is already known' paradgm.
I have no problem throwing out one model when a better model is shown. Regardless of the 'evidence'
Holding onto an older model would have rejected relativity.
and it was rejected by many who held onto their previlous beliefs .

Pesto · Nov 13, 2007

Merlin said:
But I don't accept the 'all that can possibly be known is already known' paradgm.

Neither does any scientist I'm aware of. That's quite a strawman you've set up.

Pete Harcoff · Nov 13, 2007

Merlin said:
I have no problem throwing out one model when a better model is shown.

You mean like how evolutionary theory has gained acceptance?

Merlin · Nov 13, 2007

thaumaturgy said:
And how, exactly, would you know that everything doesn't fit in this box?

That seems like a bold statement, and one that falls awfully close to Post-Modernist garbage.
Science isn't anything more than merely observing, testing, hypothesizing and reformulating toward a model that either predicts or explains the variability in the data by means of factors that all can agree on.

It should be.

If something doesn't fit that "paradigm" then I have little use for it.

Fine.
I said current scientific paradigm box.
Maybe one day it will change.

thaumaturgy · Nov 13, 2007

Merlin said:
No.
But I don't accept the 'all that can possibly be known is already known' paradgm.

Where did you get that one? I don't know any scientists who think that. Gosh. If someone told you that, then they weren't speaking from a scientific stance.

I have no problem throwing out one model when a better model is shown.

Yes, but could you identify the "better model"?

and it was rejected by many who held onto their previlous beliefs .

Indeed. Most scientific revolutions are slow to take hold. But when they do it's because they've been through the gauntlet and it has withstood amazingly strong attempts to overturn it.

So evolution made it where it is not because scientists are evil or stupid or just want to take your God away from you, no evolution made it to where it is today because it is a good model.

Certainly Creationists have never produced a better model.

All I ever see from creationists is just trying to poke holes, but never providing a better model. Just more stories about what their God did based on what their holy book tells them.

The very second a creationist does something of value it will be a great day. Until then all they do is look at the outliers in the data and try to claim this somehow undercuts the whole thing. Never once producing anything original of their own.

That's sad, but it's not wholly without merit, it's good to have challenges to address. Only problem is, none of them are doing it to find a better model, they are doing it solely to destroy the "evolution model".

Most creationists are too simple to understand that just destroying one model isn't sufficient to make their pet hypothesis the "ruling model". That's the hard work most creationists can't even start to do, let alone understand what is needed.

And finding data outliers isn't enough to destroy the model.

Data outliers are how we scientists know that 'all that can possibly be known is already known' is FALSE. And something no scientist would ever claim.

Merlin · Nov 13, 2007

Pete Harcoff said:
You mean like how evolutionary theory has gained acceptance?

Yup.
And if I thought it was a better model, i'd use it.

gamespotter10 · Nov 13, 2007

Merlin said:
Yup.
And if I thought it was a better model, i'd use it.

what model are you using?

Merlin · Nov 13, 2007

thaumaturgy said:
Where did you get that one? I don't know any scientists who think that. Gosh. If someone told you that, then they weren't speaking from a scientific stance.

Yes, but could you identify the "better model"?

Indeed. Most scientific revolutions are slow to take hold. But when they do it's because they've been through the gauntlet and it has withstood amazingly strong attempts to overturn it.

So evolution made it where it is not because scientists are evil or stupid or just want to take your God away from you, no evolution made it to where it is today because it is a good model.

Certainly Creationists have never produced a better model.

All I ever see from creationists is just trying to poke holes, but never providing a better model. Just more stories about what their God did based on what their holy book tells them.

The very second a creationist does something of value it will be a great day. Until then all they do is look at the outliers in the data and try to claim this somehow undercuts the whole thing. Never once producing anything original of their own.

That's sad, but it's not wholly without merit, it's good to have challenges to address. Only problem is, none of them are doing it to find a better model, they are doing it solely to destroy the "evolution model".

Most creationists are too simple to understand that just destroying one model isn't sufficient to make their pet hypothesis the "ruling model". That's the hard work most creationists can't even start to do, let alone understand what is needed.

And finding data outliers isn't enough to destroy the model.

Data outliers are how we scientists know that 'all that can possibly be known is already known' is FALSE. And something no scientist would ever claim.

Difficult to have much of a discussion at all when i'm
lumped in with beliefs about others.
Can you say prejudice?

Blayz · Nov 13, 2007

gamespotter10 said:
what model are you using?

And to add to gamespotter's question, in what context are you using it?

Don't come at us with a hand wavy qualitative ad-hoc and post-hoc explanation of how things are now. Those of us that actually do the scientific research need quantitative predictive models that look forward...and don't feel bad if this completely destroys your argument. Guzman pretends the question isn't there, Av1's idea of a predictive biological model is the prohpecy concerning the state of Israel, and Inan3 promises to reply and then reneges.

You'll be in great company if you cannot find an answer.

Pete Harcoff · Nov 13, 2007

gamespotter10 said:
what model are you using?

Yes, what model *are* you using?

thaumaturgy · Nov 13, 2007

Merlin said:
Difficult to have much of a discussion at all when i'm
lumped in with beliefs about others.
Can you say prejudice?

Did I lump you in with someone else's beliefs? Sorry. I am merely pointing out that when you talk about the "Scientific Paradigm" in the way you phrased it, then you sound "Po Mo". I was also using that to leverage my comments on Creationists, not necessarily you. I still find Creationism to be intellectually vacuous for the reasons I stated above. But that isn't necessarily talking about you.

I will also admit I made the assumption you were a creationist. But again, I possibly jumped to conclusions.
I was probably thrown off when you said:

Merlin said:
I do find it interesting that you would have a problem with God creating something, but no problem with virtual particles popping into existance, and dismissing it as just the way reality is.

So you aren't a creationist? And you find something about evolution that you disagree with?

Maybe you could refresh us all here, what you are talking about.

What is it about evolution you disagree with?

Is it the genetics you disagree with? Is it the fossil record you disagree with?

christtoevo · Nov 13, 2007

I use to be a creationist and i trusted all science except evolution.
I knew god was there, because i felt him there.
But even the bible tells you not to trust your heart, so...

Now days i cant help looking at some people and saying " he is definetly from an ape of some sort".

Loudmouth · Nov 14, 2007

Merlin said:
No, it is based on belief.
There is no evidence which mandates evolution as the one/only possibility.
The evidence shows a possibility, which is taken on faith as the one/only possibility.

The evidence is consistent with the predictions made by the theory of evolution. If you think there is another theory then please produce it and show us the predictions it makes. Until you do so there is only one scientific theory that explains modern biodiversity.

thaumaturgy · Nov 14, 2007

Loudmouth said:
The evidence is consistent with the predictions made by the theory of evolution. If you think there is another theory then please produce it and show us the predictions it makes. Until you do so there is only one scientific theory that explains modern biodiversity.

I will predict that Merlin will do no such thing. Merlin seems to be of the opinion that merely mentioning a few points around the science is sufficient.

I have yet to ever figure out her point in detail.

The usual Merlin Approach is to:

1. Make general statement against a scientific topic she disagrees with.

2. When challenged to flesh this out a bit more with detail, she might provide one or two more subtle points, but no details.

3. Then she will suggest that this is not the forum to discuss this, or it would be pointless because the discussion would be too in-depth for everyone else. (A subtle hint that she can, in fact, discuss it more deeply, without ever actually doing so).

4. Then followed by statements that since science doesn't know everything it might not be applicable to her disagreement or a discussion thereof.

It is a goal-post-shift move. When faced with scientists who would actually be able to engage her discussion she declares science no longer able to handle her disagreements.

Honestly, and I've said this in countless threads with her, I'd love to see what her science skills show. Honestly, every scientist loves that kind of stuff.

But with silence, after a while you have to make some assumptions about their claims.

a question for creationists...

Veteran

Paradigm Buster

Paradigm Buster

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Paradigm Buster

Senior Member

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Paradigm Buster

Well-Known Member

Paradigm Buster

Veteran

Paradigm Buster

Well-Known Member

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency