Bible-Creation-Evolution (2)

[AV1611VET]

Been done, AV. Creationism is wrong. Are you confusing creation with creationism?

No -- you must be.

Creationism is belief in the Creation event, in whatever flavor it happens to come in.

In my case, I'm a literalist, so I believe it is a literal six-day creation week; thus creationism = belief in a literal six-day creation week.

 

[lucaspa]

Yes it is myopic.

The definition of myopic you are using is:
" a lack of foresight or discernment : a narrow view of something"

Science doesn't have a narrow view of material causes. It does that very well. Also, there may not be any supernatural component. You and I believe there is, but science won't tell us that, either.

No

Which is why I refused permission. You would never agree you were twisting my meaning.

Try 'privation'.

The definition you are using must be:
"lack of what is needed for existence "

Science doesn't need this for existence. So it's limitation.

And in so doing, errs from the Truth.

Science is very careful not to commit such an error. Since it can't comment on this, it doesn't. That's not committing an error; it's acknowledging limits and where it cannot speak.

 

[lucaspa]

I'm not the one who made this 'mistake':

Or was it a faux pas?

I'm quoting someone else. You did see the quotation marks, didn't you? That's how that person said it.

 

[lucaspa]

I think the problem I have with it is that it originates not from observations or evidence, but from a preconceived notion.

MOST scientific hypotheses/theories originate in what you call a "preconceived notion." You are thinking that hypotheses are digests of observations. That's how Aristotle and some inductionists like Adam Sedgwick viewed them. Sedgwick criticized Darwin, incidentally, on the same grounds.

However, in reality hypotheses are leaps of the imagination. We make the hypothesis first, then go looking for observations to test it.

"I thought that scientific theories were not the digest of observations, but that they were inventions -- conjectures boldly put forward for trial, to be eliminated if they clashed with observations, with observations which were rarely accidental but as a rule undertaken with the definite intention of testing a theory by obtaining, if possible, a decisive refutation." Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, 1963 p 38.

I don't consider it a true scientific theory specifically because of this fact.

Then there are a lot of scientific theories you are going to have to reject. Punctuated equilibria for one. Multiverse and Relativity for another. Remember, Einstein had no observations when he published Special Relativity in 1905. Observation did not come until 1919.

Oh yes, you have to reject evolution! Darwin had no observation of one species turning into another. His theory of natural selection came from an imaginative leap when reading Malthus. It was only after he formulated the theory that he began research into pigeons and artificial selection to test it.

You are also going to have to get some Nobel Prizes returned:

Volume 13, #22 The Scientist November 8, 1999
Nobel Laureate Ready To Head Back to Lab - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences

Nobel Laureate Ready To Head Back to Lab
Author: Nadia S. Halim
Date: November 8, 1999
Courtesy of Rockefeller University

Nobel laureate Günter Blobel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Günter Blobel and David Sabatini first proposed the signal hypothesis in 1971, the whole thing was simply ignored. There was not a shred of evidence to support it.

Or, you could listen to the data and change your theory about how science is done.

Theories are explanations of natural observations and facts, creationism was an explanation from which people tried to find evidence for.

That's Aristotle's view: theories are digests of observations. It was also popular in the 19th century. Whewell used "consilience of induction" as a way to test theories. John Stuart Mill also favored the idea of induction as a means of formulating hypotheses.

But it just doesn't work that way. Most scientists are inspired by observations, but the hypothesis/theory is only tested against observation after it has been formulated.

So you can't reject creationism as a scientific theory on that basis without gutting science.

 

[lucaspa]

Darwin never presented himself as infallible and inspired by god.

if the bible isnt, then whats to believe other than as a somewhat historical magic reality work of fiction.?

The Bible isn't presented as infallible, either. Mark 10 and Matthew 14. Now, inspired by God doesn't mean infallible, because fallible men had to do the writing.

What Christians (as opposed to Fundamentalists) believe is that the Bible is theologically accurate.

Hespera, you are setting up a criteria that a text has to be infallible in order to believe any of it. But you can't apply that criteria just to the Bible without invoking Special Pleading. So, do we judge any other work the same way? Of course not. We take claims one at a time.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". That's a theological claim. Nothing in science to dispute that. What follows are 2 contradictory methods that God created by. If read literally. Now, the editor that put them together had to recognize that they contradicted. If that editor was inspired, then the message is: we are not supposed to read Genesis 1-3 as history. It's theology.

 

[lucaspa]

i always kind of thought a theory was what you come up with to explain data, and there is not never has ever been any data to support creationism.

You have the same mistaken notion of how science works as rjc. But, it's also not true that there had never been any data to support creationism. As Popper also noted:
"1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory -- if we look for confirmations."

IOW, you can always find data FOR a theory, no matter what the theory is.

In the period 1000 AD to 1780 AD, evidence "for" creationism was:
1. Each species is separate. There are no connections between species.
2. No observation of any species becoming a new species.
3. What little of the fossil record known did not show any transition of species either. Yes, there were different types of animals than present ones, but nothing to show that there was transformation.

You need to go back and read Whiston, Burnet and others. They do list evidence for creationism. What we do now is explain that data by other hypotheses. You might find the book The Biblical Flood: A Case History of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence by Davis A. Young. He summarizes a lot of the work where people found evidence for the Flood and creationism.

 

[Hespera]

The Bible isn't presented as infallible, either. Mark 10 and Matthew 14. Now, inspired by God doesn't mean infallible, because fallible men had to do the writing.

What Christians (as opposed to Fundamentalists) believe is that the Bible is theologically accurate.

Hespera, you are setting up a criteria that a text has to be infallible in order to believe any of it. But you can't apply that criteria just to the Bible without invoking Special Pleading. So, do we judge any other work the same way? Of course not. We take claims one at a time.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". That's a theological claim. Nothing in science to dispute that. What follows are 2 contradictory methods that God created by. If read literally. Now, the editor that put them together had to recognize that they contradicted. If that editor was inspired, then the message is: we are not supposed to read Genesis 1-3 as history. It's theology.

Hespera, you are setting up a criteria that a text has to be infallible in order to believe any of i

t

No I am not, i specifically said its one reason i dont believe any of it.

Now, inspired by God doesn't mean infallible, because fallible men had to do the writing

.

inspired to make up entire stories of things that didnt happen?

how wrong does it need to be before you just say its nonsense thru and thru?

prease exprain.

believe is that the Bible is theologically accurate.

I have heard that "theologically accurate' before, mabye you could explain it in a way that would be reasonable. To me it sounds like " Its true even tho it didnt happen".

i thought the bible said you arent supposed to be go figuring out your own interpretations of it? What is that verse?

I dont read the bible as history, i see it as semi historical at least in places, tho not in any of the supernatural stuff.

we are not supposed to read Genesis 1-3 as history. It's theology

But other parts are supposed to be read as history? How do you know which is which?


I know its theology, but without the narrative, then what is it?

 

[lucaspa]

I don't believe most of what was written in Origin of Species. It's a century and a half old, and while an absolutely astounding example of scientific brilliance, it barely resembles anything in the modern theory of evolution.

You don't believe something because it is 150 years old? Ever taken calculus, algebra, or geometry. Most of what you learn in geometry is 2200 years old. So you don't believe it?

In science you don't "believe", you accept or reject. The only reason you would reject what is in Origin is if later data contradicted it. Since much of Origin is data, you should accept it.

Give me an example of what is in Origin that you think "barely resembles anything in the modern theory of evolution"? BTW, have you bothered to read an evolutionary biology textbook?

 

[lucaspa]

The thing you say about god applies equally to atlantis and nessie.

Nessie is a hypothesized large animal living in a loch in Scotland. Atlantis is a piece of land described by Plato. How do either one factor into MM?

Now, if you change the characteristics of either one to match the proposed characteristics of God, then all you've done is substitute another name, not changed anything. Why would you think that these dissimilar entities would have any bearing on the discussion.

Science is good at falsifying a bad theory, but that is not remotely the same thing as proving a negative as in 'prove there no god" / no alien base in the bermuda triangle.

Science has proved that a flat earth doesn't exist. Or that proteins are the hereditary material. In that sense science does "prove a negative".

Instead, you have hypotheses that cannot be disproven by science. In the case of "alien base in the Bermuda Triangle", the failure is that all the places that an alien base can be have not been searched. When that is done, then that is disproved. In the case of God, it's because of the limitation of science. So neither one are the general case of "not being able to prove a negative" that you think they are.

Show evidence, data for the hypothesis, and I will get interested. god of triangle, either one.

Why do atheists always get around to the idea that I am trying to get them interested or convince them deity exists? ALL I'm doing is showing that science cannot be used as evidence against the existence of deity. By showing you the limitation of MM.

If you don't believe in deity, then don't. Aren't you comfortable doing that? Do you feel insecure in your belief? If you think you have to have scientific backing for your belief, then you have a problem. Because science is agnostic and is going to remain neutral in the theism vs atheism debate. Hopefully, you have other valid reasons for believing as you do.

What science can do, and all it can do, is tell us that God did not create that way. IOW, God didn't create the way creationism says He did. Did God create? Maybe. MM says that God could have created using the processes discovered by science. MM says that God could be necessary for any of the material processes to work. Maybe. Maybe not. Agnostic.




one reason we refer to the equivocation fallacy so often.[/quote]

 

[rjc34]

Then someone might want to let Wikipedia know:
SOURCE

Thanks AV, you saved me the time of posting this myself

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do atheists always get around to the idea that I am trying to get them interested or convince them deity exists?

Maybe they confuse you with having a part in the Great Commission.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Maybe they confuse you with having a part in the Great Commission.

Funny how, even unintentionally, he does a far better job at it than many of those who actively take up the Commission.

 

[AV1611VET]

Funny how, even unintentionally, he does a far better job at it than many of those who actively take up the Commission.

I haven't see you change your icon lately.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I haven't see you change your icon lately.

lucaspa doesn't post here often enough -- I'm stuck dealing with the likes of you.

 

[AV1611VET]

lucaspa doesn't post here often enough -- I'm stuck dealing with the likes of you.

I'm sure if I wasn't here you'd find another host.

 

[rjc34]

MOST scientific hypotheses/theories originate in what you call a "preconceived notion." You are thinking that hypotheses are digests of observations. That's how Aristotle and some inductionists like Adam Sedgwick viewed them. Sedgwick criticized Darwin, incidentally, on the same grounds.

However, in reality hypotheses are leaps of the imagination. We make the hypothesis first, then go looking for observations to test it.

Eh, I know what you're saying, but most hypotheses come out of at least some basic observation that needs explaining. For example was Darwin's original hypothesis not seeded by the observation of the Finches on the Galapagos islands?

Then there are a lot of scientific theories you are going to have to reject. Punctuated equilibria for one.

Was punctuated equilibria not originally conjectured due to observations about the fossil record?

Multiverse and Relativity for another. Remember, Einstein had no observations when he published Special Relativity in 1905. Observation did not come until 1919.

I'm going to say that theoretical physics is a whole different ball game here. I think we're both right in different ways. I think most hypotheses, especially in the life sciences, are at least seeded by some kind of initial unexplained observation.

Oh yes, you have to reject evolution! Darwin had no observation of one species turning into another. His theory of natural selection came from an imaginative leap when reading Malthus. It was only after he formulated the theory that he began research into pigeons and artificial selection to test it.

Not true, due to my statement above. Yes, when he formulated his whole hypothesis there was very little in terms of observational evidence, but it was seeded by the wonder at the Galapagos finches.

But it just doesn't work that way. Most scientists are inspired by observations, but the hypothesis/theory is only tested against observation after it has been formulated.

We both agree on this.

So you can't reject creationism as a scientific theory on that basis without gutting science.

Alright, I concede the point.

Thinking about it a little bit further, I realized that creation has been theorized by cultures for millenia as an explanation for the origins of life. I was just getting caught up in the Christian creation narrative in particular.

Thanks for the good conversation!

 

[rjc34]

You don't believe something because it is 150 years old? Ever taken calculus, algebra, or geometry. Most of what you learn in geometry is 2200 years old. So you don't believe it?

It's not the age of an idea, it's the validity of it. Yes, his outline and evidence for the theory of evolution are solid, but a lot of the explanations he came up with have been modified and changed since he proposed them. What I meant was that modern evolutionary theory is exponentially more advanced that anything in Origin of Species, and to read it expecting to get a good basis in evolution today is foolish.

Give me an example of what is in Origin that you think "barely resembles anything in the modern theory of evolution"? BTW, have you bothered to read an evolutionary biology textbook?

See above for my expansion on my point.

And yes, as an honours biology student I have.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'm sure if I wasn't here you'd find another host.

I don't suppose you'd be interested in testing that hypothesis?

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't suppose you'd be interested in testing that hypothesis?

-- I honestly didn't think you could top that --

 

[rjc34]

In fact, you must believe that to be an atheist (one reason atheism is a faith)

Hah. And double Hah.

This only applies to strong atheists who assert there is no god. Too bad that's like... 0.1% of us, maybe.

As an ignostic atheist I'm not required to believe anything of the sort, as I make no claims about it. I just reject all of the currently proposed theistic systems on various grounds.