Creationists and research

toff · Jan 15, 2004

phaedrus said:
These people did empirical research and concluded that God made the heavens and the earth. Your conclusion on the other hand lacks any real substance.

Oops! Wrong, twice. No "empirical research" was done. And secondly, I have drawn no conclusions whatsoever in this thread about whether or not god made the heavens and the earth. Wanna try again? This time, try not to invent positions others don't hold.

Pete Harcoff · Jan 15, 2004

Unfortunately, napa, you seem to be demonstrating toff's point in this thread perfectly. For example,

napajohn said:
do they empasize the track record of evolutionists fraud in history: Haeckels drawings

This was an admitted case of fraud, although Haeckel's use of dog embreyos instead of human embreyos were a moot point since his recapitulation theory was wrong anyway. Regardless, it wasn't creationists who exposed the fraud in the first place.

the Horse series

Not a fraud.

cambrian explosion

Not a fraud.

the peppered-moth claims

Not a fraud.

that archaepterix is a bird

Archaeopteryx is not a modern bird by any stretch. That creationists claim it is, is a fraud on their part.

the lying in creating Piltdown man

A fraud perpetuated on scientists and debunked by scientists.

Nebraska man and so on..

Not a fraud.

that red blood cells have been found on some dinosaurs?

Actually, they haven't. This is a gross exaggeration on the part of creationists.

and i can go on and on...

And all you do is prove toff's point. You are doing far more to harm the image of YEC's than help them. You might want to start actually researching both sides of the issue before spouting off more nonsense.

what you fail to realize is that many who have become creationists once were staunch evolutionists..they know the evolutionary claims and evidence, DR Gary Parker, Behe, Morris were at at one time staunch evolutionists and have seen the arguments for evolution..

Behe accepts quite a bit of evolution (including common descent).

Morris and Parker are creationists who because creationists for theological reasons, not scientific ones.

phaedrus · Jan 15, 2004

toff said:
Oops! Wrong, twice. No "empirical research" was done. And secondly, I have drawn no conclusions whatsoever in this thread about whether or not god made the heavens and the earth. Wanna try again? This time, try not to invent positions others don't hold.

Oh Please! These people are scientists that know how it works. Morris was an accomplished scientist who commited the carnal sin of asserting that the earth was not umpteen million years old. My point is that if you say that evolution is science you dont know what you are talking about. I see no reason to think otherwise

MartinM · Jan 15, 2004

phaedrus said:
By self-evident I mean obvious

Obvious != transcendental. Try again.

phaedrus · Jan 15, 2004

the substantive element of all reality is 'self-evident' since it transends things like living systems the way that the natural selection premise does. Now you try again!

Larry · Jan 15, 2004

I have seen this attempt before.

Bushido216 · Jan 15, 2004

phaedrus said:
Oh Please! These people are scientists that know how it works. Morris was an accomplished scientist who commited the carnal sin of asserting that the earth was not umpteen million years old. My point is that if you say that evolution is science you dont know what you are talking about. I see no reason to think otherwise

Wow. Basically what you're saying is that no matter how much independently corraborated research we show you, you'll just dismiss it as philosophical and ignore us.

Pete Harcoff · Jan 15, 2004

phaedrus said:
More verbage that ignores the main point without even answering the question. Can you point to a law of natural selection or is it transendental philosophy.

Your asked what is known as a leading question, where you presume the answer within the question itself. And also invoke a false dichotemy by presupposing only two particular conditions: one, that I point to a "law of natural selection"; and two, that if I cannot specifically point to a "law of natural selection", then the latter option is automatically concluded.

If its false you should have no trouble showing how, without me reading 1500 pages of philosophy.

I pointed out that the mechanism of natural selection is supported by empirical evidence. You have dismissed that in favor of concluding that it is philosophy. On what grounds do you conclude that natural selection is transcendental philosophy?

phaedrus · Jan 15, 2004

No I'm saying no matter how much empirical evidence it is going to be subject to the premise of the philosophy you use.

Larry · Jan 15, 2004

I see it here.

Pete Harcoff · Jan 15, 2004

phaedrus said:
No I'm saying no matter how much empirical evidence it is going to be subject to the premise of the philosophy you use.

It's a given that everything in science rests on certain philosophical presuppositions (such as our existence and the existence of the universe itself). So if you want to start going off into "philosophical la-la land" (as I like to call it), then you can come up with any conclusions you want. As to whether or not they have validity with respect to science, is a whole different matter.

phaedrus · Jan 15, 2004

Pete Harcoff said:
Your asked what is known as a leading question, where you presume the answer within the question itself. And also invoke a false dichotemy by presupposing only two particular conditions: one, that I point to a "law of natural selection"; and two, that if I cannot specifically point to a "law of natural selection", then the latter option is automatically concluded.

I pointed out that the mechanism of natural selection is supported by empirical evidence. You have dismissed that in favor of concluding that it is philosophy. On what grounds do you conclude that natural selection is transcendental philosophy?

You have the first premise right but you have ignored the latter, special creation. I did not conclude that natural selection is a transendental philosophy I said that unless it is a natural law it is the premise of a philosophy. It can be no other kind of a philosophy except transendental since it transends all living systems.

Bushido216 · Jan 15, 2004

phaedrus said:
No I'm saying no matter how much empirical evidence it is going to be subject to the premise of the philosophy you use.

I'm sorry? What philosophy is this? And how come our "philosophy" becomes invalid when the creationist philosophy (notice the lack of quotation marks) isn't?

phaedrus · Jan 15, 2004

Pete Harcoff said:
It's a given that everything in science rests on certain philosophical presuppositions (such as our existence and the existence of the universe itself). So if you want to start going off into "philosophical la-la land" (as I like to call it), then you can come up with any conclusions you want. As to whether or not they have validity with respect to science, is a whole different matter.

No again! Everything in philosophy is predicated on a premise and natural selection is a premise. The only 'la-la land' is the circular reasoning that asserts that natural selection is science.

Bushido216 · Jan 15, 2004

phaedrus said:
You have the first premise right but you have ignored the latter, special creation. I did not conclude that natural selection is a transendental philosophy I said that unless it is a natural law it is the premise of a philosophy. It can be no other kind of a philosophy except transendental since it transends all living systems.

WHAT?

Wow... there is no "law" of natural selection, just as there is no "law" of gravity. Simply put, a.) organisms vary across generations, b.) variations can be inherited, c.) variations which are favourable to the survival of the organism will result in a higher chance of spreading these variations and d.) the frequency of those variations will increase.

Is that meta-physical or can we safely assume that's correct?

Bushido216 · Jan 15, 2004

phaedrus said:
No again! Everything in philosophy is predicated on a premise and natural selection is a premise. The only 'la-la land' is the circular reasoning that asserts that natural selection is science.

Natural selection is the short-hand for a naturally occuring process by which those creatures best adapted to their environment will have the best chance to survive. It is an observed phenomena.

Bushido216 · Jan 15, 2004

This is why I wish I had lucaspa's "Infinite Pile o' Links".

phaedrus · Jan 15, 2004

Bushido216 said:
I'm sorry? What philosophy is this? And how come our "philosophy" becomes invalid when the creationist philosophy (notice the lack of quotation marks) isn't?

I did not say that it was invalid, I said that it is transendental philosophy. Validation goes back to corrospondance with reality and we have yet to define our premise at this point so that is not possible.

phaedrus · Jan 15, 2004

Bushido216 said:
WHAT?

Wow... there is no "law" of natural selection, just as there is no "law" of gravity. Simply put, a.) organisms vary across generations, b.) variations can be inherited, c.) variations which are favourable to the survival of the organism will result in a higher chance of spreading these variations and d.) the frequency of those variations will increase.

Is that meta-physical or can we safely assume that's correct?

Yea, its called the laws of inheritance, natural selection is something else, its a transendental philosophy applied to natural science.

MartinM · Jan 15, 2004

phaedrus said:
natural selection is a premise

No, it isn't.

'Zen and the art of creationist gibberish'?

Creationists and research

Well-Known Member

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Active Member

GondolierAce

Active Member

Fundamentalist Christian

Well-Known Member

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Active Member

Fundamentalist Christian

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

GondolierAce

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency