Falsifiability

[Speedwell]

I think it's a passive aggressive mock. You have admitted to mocking so it's not like I have to go back from months ago to find a more suitable candidate. And no, you did not say it wasn't a source of reliable scientific knowledge, you cast doubt on the entirety of the Old testament. It may not have been your intent but your poor choice in words gives the world the appearance of a Christian disparaging his own scripture.

By declaring that it is not a source of reliable information about mechanical sorting and by implication not a reliable source of information about science generally. But have it your way. In my opinion, people who insist that the Bible must be "literal and inerrant" to be the inspired Word of God and oppose it to science are doing it more discredit than any mockery of mine ever could.

I do not know of any persecution of the Anglican Church in the US. And commie? There are socialist running for president. Can you link me a news article on this persecution?

No, that was persecution of me, personally. For my sins I had to live in the Bible Belt, where I and my family were subject to much the same unpleasantness as is handed out there to any non-Fundamentalist. My kids were bullied by their public schoolteacher for "whut your daddy bleeves abat the buybull." I soon put a stop to that kind of thing (It got around that I owned guns which surprised them and kept them back) but knew of much worse being meted out to others. Where we lived, for example, it was considered good sport to set dogs on JW canvassers and some were severely injured, but the Sheriff wouldn't take a report because it was his Pastor who encouraged that kind of thing. I could go on and on, but anyone who has lived 'below the line' as a non-Fundamentalist has horror stories like that of their own. I don't want to see the whole country run like that; We would be much better off with a Socialist for President than someone supported by the Christian Right.

Can you give me an example of you telling Atheists that God is the creator of "all things both visible and invisible"? That sounds like creation, not evolution.

Just keep reading my posts, I'll do it again soon whenever we run up against some religious extremist who argues that evolution denies God's authorship of our being.

 

[VirOptimus]

First, I started with the childhood belief that evolution was true. In college, I looked at Christianity as a skeptic and came away a believer. After becoming born again and dealing with the issue of creation vs evolution, I chose to look at evolution as a skeptic. I found several issues that should give any skeptic cause for more skepticism.

1. The fundamental notion that life arose independently of a creator.
There is no experimental confirmation of this theory. If we never see the spontaneous generation of life, then evolution's fundamental promise remains a faith, not a fact. We may one day be able to create life in the lab, but that life still requires a creator with the intent to create life.

2. The ascent of Man as the capstone of evolution.
From simple to complex, from inferior to superior. This may not be much of a selling point now, but it was a very important plank in the doctrine of evolution. As a skeptic, I do not see this widespread principle of simple life evolving into complex life. It is unproven, but it has been discredited for social justice reasons rather than scientific ones. These days, you can't even ask if the races have evolutionary differences in intelligence. So much for the purity of science.

3. The un-measurability of evolution.
No one knows how to measure evolution. Again, we have no objective, agreed upon way to measure evolution. Things that we can describe but not measure are still beyond our understanding. The best thing you can say about evolution is that "we don't understand it, but we believe it".

I have more, reasons, but I think these are sufficient.

According to you, wich ”races” have superior or inferior intelligence?

 

[Sanoy]

By declaring that it is not a source of reliable information about mechanical sorting and by implication not a reliable source of information about science generally. But have it your way. In my opinion, people who insist that the Bible must be "literal and inerrant" to be the inspired Word of God and oppose it to science are doing it more discredit than any mockery of mine ever could.

No, that was persecution of me, personally. For my sins I had to live in the Bible Belt, where I and my family were subject to much the same unpleasantness as is handed out there to any non-Fundamentalist. My kids were bullied by their public schoolteacher for "whut your daddy bleeves abat the buybull." I soon put a stop to that kind of thing (It got around that I owned guns which surprised them and kept them back) but knew of much worse being meted out to others. Where we lived, for example, it was considered good sport to set dogs on JW canvassers and some were severely injured, but the Sheriff wouldn't take a report because it was his Pastor who encouraged that kind of thing. I could go on and on, but anyone who has lived 'below the line' as a non-Fundamentalist has horror stories like that of their own. I don't want to see the whole country run like that; We would be much better off with a Socialist for President than someone supported by the Christian Right.

Just keep reading my posts, I'll do it again soon whenever we run up against some religious extremist who argues that evolution denies God's authorship of our being.

If that is what you were trying to say then you have to be more careful because a lot of people read these threads.

I'm sorry to hear that you are being treated this way. I can easily the parallel between those people and some of the things that go on here. The best thing you can do is genuinely forgive those people in your past, and gently instruct the people that maybe similar here so that they don't grow into it.

 

[Peter J Barban]

According to you, wich ”races” have superior or inferior intelligence?

Go fish!

added: I'm not a believer in evolution, so that is an irrelevant question to me.
However, that has been a very important question in the history of evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

If that is what you were trying to say then you have to be more careful because a lot of people read these threads.

I'm sorry to hear that you are being treated this way. I can easily the parallel between those people and some of the things that go on here. The best thing you can do is genuinely forgive those people in your past, and gently instruct the people that maybe similar here so that they don't grow into it.

Yes, the notion that a particular group of Christians set themselves up as arbiters of who is a "real" Christian and who is not (often based on unessential points of doctrine) is offensive to me, whoever is doing it. That is the main reason I come here, because it appears to me that in this country and at the present time, creationists are the worst offenders.

 

[TBDude65]

I have already stated why my mind cannot be my body. Seems we are back to another repeated question.

You've not stated why it cannot, you've stated that you don't accept it. I have not yet seen a logical reason for this though

 

[TBDude65]

1. Is evolution really falsifiable?
2. How would we theoretically falsify evolution?
3. If we could experimentally falsify evolution, would you believe in it anyway?

(I didn't read most of the other posts, it just seems the OP takes evolution's falsifiability for granted.)

Evolution could have been falsified by the fossil record or genetics. It failed to be falsified (and continues to fail to be falsified via these avenues)

And yes, if you can show me evidence that corroborates evolution as false via the fossil record or via genetics, I am all ears

 

[Sanoy]

You've not stated why it cannot, you've stated that you don't accept it. I have not yet seen a logical reason for this though

I stated this in post 180 TBDude.

 

[TBDude65]

I stated this in post 180 TBDude.

And I continue to fail to understand your "logic" in separating the definition of "fact" in two

 

[Sanoy]

And I continue to fail to understand your "logic" in separating the definition of "fact" in two

That is a different question entirely from whether the mind is the body. Would you like me to try and explain the differentiation of facts again?

 

[TBDude65]

That is a different question entirely from whether the mind is the body. Would you like me to try and explain the differentiation of facts again?

No, because the issue is that you try to split facts artificially. You take the fact that you can construct facts about fictions (it is a fact that Harry Potter is capable of performing magic within the context of the stories in which he exists), and then extrapolate from there that facts about reality may not be facts about reality. It's nonsensical.

 

[Sanoy]

No, because the issue is that you try to split facts artificially. You take the fact that you can construct facts about fictions (it is a fact that Harry Potter is capable of performing magic within the context of the stories in which he exists), and then extrapolate from there that facts about reality may not be facts about reality. It's nonsensical.

It is not artificial. Those are philosophical terms. You told me earlier, in answering my question, that physics and chemistry do not directly describe reality.

 

[Speedwell]

That is a different question entirely from whether the mind is the body. Would you like me to try and explain the differentiation of facts again?

That might be a good idea. Your use of the terms "synthetic" and "analytic" doesn't seem quite the same as in standard philosophical discourse (although I admit that I haven't gone back and looked it up to be sure) and in any case the distinction might be unfamiliar to many of our colleagues here.

 

[Sanoy]

That might be a good idea. Your use of the terms "synthetic" and "analytic" doesn't seem quite the same as in standard philosophical discourse (although I admit that I haven't gone back and looked it up to be sure) and in any case the distinction might be unfamiliar to many of our colleagues here.

OP doesn't want me to. So look away if you are the OP.
Synthetic truths are truths about reality. Analytic truths are truths in virtue of their meaning. For example if Batman exists then he lives in Gotham. Or more relevant, if our faculties are capable of detecting complex truths then physics and Chemistry describe reality.

 

[pitabread]

My feeling is that based on human nature, all facts (even previously incompatible ones) will be believed to support the existing paradigm to avoid cognitive dissonance.

This is where I look to biology industries (e.g. agriculture, medicine, etc) as a sanity check. They don't have an interest in maintaining a paradigm just for the sake of it. Rather, they have a vested interest in the best understanding of biology possible, because that understanding turns into practical application.

What you describe in the quoted post is not the state of biological evolution, but rather the current state of creationism. It is creationists that cling to existing beliefs to avoid cognitive dissonance. This is evidenced by creationists on this forum actively avoiding any educational material on biological evolution; they avoid material which creates that cognitive dissonance.

 

[TBDude65]

It is not artificial. Those are philosophical terms. You told me earlier, in answering my question, that physics and chemistry do not directly describe reality.

Just because they are philosophical, does not mean that they are not artificial. What humans produce (be it thought or some other means of production) is not necessarily true with respect to reality, even if it's "philosophical."

 

[Speedwell]

It is not artificial. Those are philosophical terms. You told me earlier, in answering my question, that physics and chemistry do not directly describe reality.

I would agree with him to the extent that I see physics, chemistry and other similar cognitive activities as creating instrumental models rather than making ontological claims.

 

[Sanoy]

Just because they are philosophical, does not mean that they are not artificial. What humans produce (be it thought or some other means of production) is not necessarily true with respect to reality, even if it's "philosophical."

I would reply, just because they are philosophical does not mean it is artificial. I agree with your last statement, but on your beliefs I'm not sure how we can have any correct beliefs on reality. In other words, the possibility of being wrong is of little concern compared to the lack of capability in ever being right.

 

[TBDude65]

I would reply, just because they are philosophical does not mean it is artificial. I agree with your last statement, but on your beliefs I'm not sure how we can have any correct beliefs on reality. In other words, the possibility of being wrong is of little concern compared to the lack of capability in ever being right.

You think one cannot prove anything to be true?

 

[Sanoy]

You think one cannot prove anything to be true?

No, I can prove to myself that I exist. I don't know how you can prove/show physics and chemistry describe reality under your beliefs. You yourself said as much when you answered my question way back.