how is evolution NOT possible?

[FishFace]

Stop calling me a liar or I am going either report you or put you on ignore. There are rules here and you agreed to them when you signed up. If you want to have a conversation with me, then we are going to do it according to the rules. Otherwise I have no problem with it, because you do ask interesting questions.

Fine then, you purveyor of terminological inexactitudes!

 

[FishFace]

Look at it this way, Corvus --- what's the difference in a Christian going to ScienceForums.com and saying he doesn't care for science, and an Atheist going to ChristianForums.com and saying he doesn't care for Scripture?

Can you answer that?

Because virtually every single human being alive accepts the basic epistemological claims that underly science. They accept that it is silly to believe things without adequate evidence, that to make up entities (I need not here be referring to God, by the way) that are unnecessary does not lead to truth and so on.
If you say "I do not care for science," you are going against the fundamental beliefs held by nearly everyone - even if you were correct, trying to convince the rest of the population would be futile - you wouldn't accept some of the basic assumptions that underpin their beliefs. Given that some of our beliefs are underpinned only by pragmatic assumptions, it would be theoretically impossible for someone with different assumptions to try and convince them otherwise.

If you could show us some logical reason why our common assumptions (the laws of logic, etc) made "caring for science" folly, then there would be no issue at all. So far, I don't think anybody ever has been able to do this, or even come close.
Not caring for scripture, on the other hand, means something slightly different. First of all, it implies that someone has studied scripture at least cursorily and found it lacking, whereas not caring for science - at least in your case (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to mean that in some cases, you're just not willing to look at it.
But also, not caring for scripture, I contend, has a basis in the common assumptions held by everyone.

 

[JohnR7]

Fine then, you purveyor of terminological inexactitudes!

You say you have a case of terminol inexactness?
Or perhaps you just enjoy the fine art of exchanging quips.

 

[AV1611VET]

quote=FishFace - Fine then, you purveyor of terminological inexactitudes! /end quote

LOL, John - and here I was just starting to like you!

 

[AV1611VET]

As far as the war goes, you'll see, that we'll win. You know it now.

AYBABTU

 

[AV1611VET]

I forgot to address this statement:

This argument was made and defeated in rapid succession. Nothing points to a World-Wide Flood. Nothing points towards the Bible except for a little historical evidence and I dare you to bring historical evidence into this, because I have a slew of Science books that are ALL HISTORICAL EVIDENCE and build off REASON.

No wonder you forgot to address it.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you say "I do not care for science," you are going against the fundamental beliefs held by nearly everyone - even if you were correct, trying to convince the rest of the population would be futile - you wouldn't accept some of the basic assumptions that underpin their beliefs.

Hang on --- saying 'I do not care for [whatever]' is not the same thing as going against it.

What would you think if I told you 'I do not care for botany', then proceeded to lecture on photosynthesis?

I feel the same way when people tell me they don't believe in the Bible, then lecture on its credibility.

One thing that really bugs me is people who say it contains no science, then disagree when I point out from It such things as the Strong Nuclear Force, the universe expanding, data transfer, a 4th dimension of space, etc.

Suddenly, these same people who don't care for It, become "experts" in telling me what It doesn't say.

 

[JohnR7]

LOL, John - and here I was just starting to like you!

They say that in order to get into heaven you have to love everyone that is in heaven. If there is one person you do not love, then you can not get in

 

[Upisoft]

They say that in order to get into heaven you have to love everyone that is in heaven. If there is one person you do not love, then you can not get in

Come on, JohnR7! You're still on Earth

 

[JohnR7]

There are four stations on TV that deal with science. Discovery, National Geographics, Science and History. I have noticed that the Science and History Channels are a lot more accurate. Perhaps because they are not as anti-religion as the other two stations seem to be.

With my cable company they have kinda of a all or none deal. They want to give you the best deal if you take their whole package. Internet, phone, TV and so on. I just wonder if we have to do this with science also. Do we have to accept the junk with the good?

For me if you accept it all like that without question, then it really is no longer science because it is no longer objective. Yet people come on here really angry and claim that If you do not accept evolution then you have to give up your job and your car and your tv and go live in a cave somewhere. Somehow that sort of nonsense makes sense to them.

The problem is they have not learned to be objective. Perhaps their mother or father or son or daughter has not died because science made a mistake. Or perhaps they have not had to pay the price for junk science. So they just accept it all like a lamb going to the slaughter.

One if the things I think is important it to tell people to be carefull. Esp when your dealing with science. Look into it and investigate what your doing to make sure that they are not leading you into making a mistake. Yet as important as I think this is, it seems to be one of the the more difficult things to get across to people.

It was like back in the 70's when people were burning their draft cards because the government wanted them to go off and fight a war in Vietnam. You could try to tell people that war maybe ok for them, but it is not ok for everyone. Not everyone wants to get involved in a war. My brother for example signed up for four years of civil service so he could finish his education and not have to be shipped off overseas.

The point being, if you think I have to accept something because they call it science, then your wrong. An attitude like that could very well get you or a loved one killed before it is your time to go. In fact I can give you an example where my sister bought her son a Ford SUV with Firestore tires. Science at it's best. Yet when they rolled it on the expressway two young people died. A pastors son and his daughter. Science at it's best.

Be careful with science and ask lots of questions. Remember that the Titanic was the best science had to offer.

 

[AV1611VET]

They say that in order to get into heaven you have to love everyone that is in heaven. If there is one person you do not love, then you can not get in

I wonder if they're the same ones who say we have to hate everyone in Hell, too?

 

[JohnR7]

Come on, JohnR7! You're still on Earth

I was shanghaied.

 

[JohnR7]

I wonder if they're the same ones who say we have to hate everyone in Hell, too?

Actually, Jesus said we are to love our enemy.

Matthew 5:43-45
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' [44] But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, [45] that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

Actually, I do not believe in hell, at least not in the traditional sense. I do believe in justice though and I believe that everyone will get what they rightfully have coming to them. In fact there are 2 million people in prison right now that are getting what "justice" requires of them.

 

[Upisoft]

Be careful with science and ask lots of questions. Remember that the Titanic was the best science had to offer.

You're amazing! Now you're mixing engineering with science. Are you sure you're not doing that on purpose? And then laughing at us, because we think you're serious?

 

[JohnR7]

Now you're mixing engineering with science.

Oh, so now you are saying that engineering is not science. That is good because I sure would hate to blame science when that bridge fell and killed all those people, or when the roof fell in or the balcony in the night club fell and all of those people were killed. Because of course science has nothing to do with engineering.

And then laughing at us, because we think you're serious?

Actually, I do not laugh when dealing with life and death situations.
I will be glad to laugh at anything where someones life is not on the line.

 

[Upisoft]

Oh, so now you are saying that engineering is not science. That is good because I sure would hate to blame science when that bridge fell and killed all those people, or when the roof fell in or the balcony in the night club fell and all of those people were killed. Because of course science has nothing to do with engineering.

Pity Newton is dead. We should put him in the jail for creating gravity that makes things fall.

Oh, wait, maybe it's the engineer, that made the project of the bridge(house, whatever), who didn't take into account all forces that could make it unstable.

Yes, engineering uses science. Does all bridges or houses fall because of that? No. So, the science is not responsible. The engineer that made the mistake is responsible.

If you go to night club and drink a beer ad eat some nuts, then they present you a bill:
beer - $10
nuts - $10
-------------
total - $50

Will you accuse mathematics of inaccuracy? No. You will accuse the waiter. At least I'm willing to believe that you'll do so.

 

[FishFace]

What would you think if I told you 'I do not care for botany', then proceeded to lecture on photosynthesis?

That depends on the content of the lecture, I suppose... Unfortunately, I'm not sure what your driving it, so I can't give a sensible answer!

I feel the same way when people tell me they don't believe in the Bible, then lecture on its credibility.

So, wait... One may not raise an argument that something is wrong if they believe the argument they're raising?
By all means, tell us why science is flawed. That's a little different to claiming the Theory of Evolution is flawed - it would imply that something about science in general is lacking - I presume you think this (if indeed you do) because it doesn't take God into account, doesn't agree with the Bible, reasons like that.

What I'm really trying to get across is that when someone says what you put as "I don't care for the Bible," in my experience, they mean something slightly different than what I think you mean in saying, "I don't care for science." It seems to me you'd rather ignore science and evidence if it doesn't agree with a certain set of beliefs you have. When I, at least, say I don't care for the Bible, or equivalent, I mean that I've studied, to an extent, the text in question, and found that it disagrees with certain fundamental premises shared by all of mankind.
I will not disregard the Bible if it disagrees with something I already believe. I will try and trace my disagreement to one of these fundamental laws of thought.

One thing that really bugs me is people who say it contains no science, then disagree when I point out from It such things as the Strong Nuclear Force, the universe expanding, data transfer, a 4th dimension of space, etc.

That's because you have to take bizarre contortions of the text - ludicrously far away from the obvious reading of the it - to draw these conclusions. I can't imagine there aren't similarly interpretable passages in other holy books, and probably things like the Iliad.

Suddenly, these same people who don't care for It, become "experts" in telling me what It doesn't say.

That's because when they say they "don't care for it," what I hope they mean, and what I mean, is that they don't agree with it due to some thought out reason. It's not that they disregard it automatically - as you often appear to do with science.

 

[FishFace]

Oh, so now you are saying that engineering is not science.

That would be correct. Engineering nowadays relies on science in some situations, but engineering is not science.

 

[XTE]

There are four stations on TV that deal with science. Discovery, National Geographics, Science and History. I have noticed that the Science and History Channels are a lot more accurate. Perhaps because they are not as anti-religion as the other two stations seem to be.

With my cable company they have kinda of a all or none deal. They want to give you the best deal if you take their whole package. Internet, phone, TV and so on. I just wonder if we have to do this with science also. Do we have to accept the junk with the good?

For me if you accept it all like that without question, then it really is no longer science because it is no longer objective. Yet people come on here really angry and claim that If you do not accept evolution then you have to give up your job and your car and your tv and go live in a cave somewhere. Somehow that sort of nonsense makes sense to them.

The problem is they have not learned to be objective. Perhaps their mother or father or son or daughter has not died because science made a mistake. Or perhaps they have not had to pay the price for junk science. So they just accept it all like a lamb going to the slaughter.

One if the things I think is important it to tell people to be carefull. Esp when your dealing with science. Look into it and investigate what your doing to make sure that they are not leading you into making a mistake. Yet as important as I think this is, it seems to be one of the the more difficult things to get across to people.

It was like back in the 70's when people were burning their draft cards because the government wanted them to go off and fight a war in Vietnam. You could try to tell people that war maybe ok for them, but it is not ok for everyone. Not everyone wants to get involved in a war. My brother for example signed up for four years of civil service so he could finish his education and not have to be shipped off overseas.

The point being, if you think I have to accept something because they call it science, then your wrong. An attitude like that could very well get you or a loved one killed before it is your time to go. In fact I can give you an example where my sister bought her son a Ford SUV with Firestore tires. Science at it's best. Yet when they rolled it on the expressway two young people died. A pastors son and his daughter. Science at it's best.

Be careful with science and ask lots of questions. Remember that the Titanic was the best science had to offer.

Science IS asking questions and getting better. How many times have we told John this now?

Just because you JUST ACCEPT your book as the truth for everything, don't think we do the same with our Science. If only you questioned your interpretations the same way.

You don't even speak for us correctly, you are truly disingenuous.

Like you can qualify Science programming......

John, is it OK to copy/paste all of your text within a field/word search program? I want to compare what you say today with that of the future. Is that OK with you?

 

[XTE]

AYBABTU

What does this mean?

edit: All Your Base Are Belong To Us.... Gotcha