Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's disgusting.
You think it's disgusting to place the credit for saving people's lives with the doctors and nurses who work long hours to look after people? Who do everything in their power to keep people from dying?
You think that's disgusting?
I think taking credit away from them is disgusting.
Not quite.
When it comes to evolution, we know that the processes for micro evolution exist, because we have seen them. We know that the processes for macro evolution exist because they are the same as the ones for micro evolution, there is no known mechanism that prevents them from causing macro evolution, and the evidence we have (fossil record, DNA tracing etc) supports it.
When it comes to your walking to Mars because you can walk to Maine idea, there is a mechanism that prevents you from walking to Mars - the lack of a solid surface which is required by the act of walking.
Reality isn't determined by playing the odds.
Science is based on observable and testable and repeatable evidence.
And it works. it not only fits the data we have, but has allowed us to predict data that, at the time the prediction was made, was not available.
I am talking about people who were able to look at things in the real world and say, "Based on the existence of this, I predict that we will find an animal with such-and-such characteristics." it is a prediction, not a postdiction because they were predicting the dioscovery of an unknown animal, not the existence of it.
As I have said before, science does not start with assumptions. it starts with evidence gathered from the real world.
You asked what would be different if kissing was the cause of pregnancy. I answered it. To now come and say that you meant "And nothing else was changed" is moving the goalposts. Tjings do not exist in a vaccuum. If kissing caused pregnancy, then many other things would be changed as well.
That's good.
You are incorrect. DNA comparisons and the fossil record are two examples of evidence that this occurs.
There's no such thing as absolute morality. If there is, can you tell me the absolute moral position on smacking a disobediant child? I can give you a wealth of morally ambiguous hypotheticals that have no clear cut right or wrong. If there is an absolute morality, then you should be able to give answers to them easily. Would you like to try? And remember, just because most people agree with it, doesn't make it an objective thing.
1. Cool your jets, man. Your posts are full of venom. For a Christian, you surely aren't giving off a demeanor of love, which is something I thought you guys were supposed to do.
2. If "you guys haven't fully proven abiogenesis yet" is a reason you believe in God, I would love to see your reaction when they finally figure it out. People used to be like: "you guys haven't explained why it rains, so God must be responsible" or "you guys can't explain the diversity of life, so God must be responsible". The God of the Gaps will leave you with nothing once the gap is filled.
But yeah, we don't have a complete or perfect understanding of abiogenesis. But we have a lot of plausible ideas which are picking up steam. I don't lose sleep over the fact that we don't know for sure (actually, I find it very exciting), and it sure doesn't make me run to repent of my sins.
Dude, naturalism is philosophy, and it's the philosophy that science is built on. No one would argue otherwise.
Science is built on the assumption that the natural world obeys physical laws. And guess what? There has never, ever been any indication that this is not the case. So even if naturalism is fundamentally flawed, it doesn't matter, because the universe behaves like a natural universe would, and science is the method of understanding this.
The only deity that I can possibly conceive of existing is either a deist or pantheist god. But I have no evidence of either, so I refuse to claim either exist. The theist god, who should be interacting with the world by definition, has never been observed doing anything. So why should anyone believe in it?
I did not say that you are ignorant about science (Which, even if I had, would not have been an insult; it would have been a statement of fact about whether or not you had learned certain facts. If you had never been exposed to them you could not know them no matter how intelligent and intuitive you are. But since I don't know what you have or haven't learned, I did not say that.)
What I did do was present three or four ways of looking at a statement about the world (in my example, the feasibility of digging a hole or tunnel to China) and compare the style and apparent nature of the approach you took to the issue to them. The one that was closest was the one where you tell the child it can't be done without even trying to explain why you believe it is impossible. I was hoping that if you did have a basis for your claim you would tell us what it is.
So, mathematics exists outside our brains? Where?
Actually, I have to agree with him on that.
1 + 1 is 2, no matter what.
Whether it's the number of electrons in an atomic shell, or F=MA, mathematics exists regardless of whether or not we're here.
We just assign names to the values.
Forgive me for saying this but in what way does it benefit us to believe or even know that everything is designed if we don't know and will never know who the designer is/was? just saying everything is designed doesn't help us one bit.
We can call this designer whatever we like and it will still be of no consequence if we can't see or find him/she/it.
Saying it's a God means nothing, what's a God? where is this God? who called it a God? and who found out that this God designed everything? the very idea of putting things down to an imaginary being just because we don't know how it all came about is ludicrous in the extreme, it's something a child would do, how did that happen? the boogy man did it.
I hardly think 'full of venom' is accurate. Am I sarcastic? Yes. Too sarcastic at times? Guilty. Is that the case in this instance? I don't think so. If I offended him he can let me know. That wasn't my intention.
That hardly sums it up. I think the scientific evidence is clear that abiogenesis cannot happen and it is my prediction that they won't figure it out because it is not there to be discovered. If I am wrong, feel free to come back and gloat.
'Complete' or 'perfect'? You would be hard pressed to to make a bigger understatement. How about 'no' understanding? That's more accurate. You have hypotheses, but I haven't seen any that are moving, let alone picking up speed. I haven't looked in a few months, so maybe I just missed it but I would think it would be a fairly big story.
I'm glad you are getting your rest, as for the repenting of your sins part, I pray you do.
We agree that Naturalism is philosophy.
I don't agree that it is a necessary foundation for science.
I do agree it is part of the paradigm of many of the current scientists and academics, but at one time so was geocentrism.
It is a mistake to think that Naturalism is foundational to science. A mistake based on the fallacy that only Naturalism allows for an understanding that, generally, processes in nature are constant and consistent. We don't need to accept it to realize that there is a certain order to the universe.
It was Christian philosophy that brought the birth of science, not naturalism. Belief in a creator does not hamstring us so we are incapable of discovering or understanding the hydrologic cycle, the mating habits of alligators, or the speed of sound.
This is not an assumption originated with or exclusive to Naturalism. This is an assumption that I hold (As well as almost every Christian that I am aware of) and I am in no way a subscriber to Naturalism.
The problem with Naturalism isn't that it claims the natural world obeys physical laws, Creationism and ID make the same claim. The problem is that it, a priori, has declared that nothing but natural processes can come into play. Out of the gate, it dismisses even the possibility of a creator that would transcend the natural world, and will not accept that any evidence could point to the contrary.
He has been observed for millennia and He does interact with us. Just because He isn't jumping at every irreverent demand to prove Himself to Dawkins and the like, doesn't mean He isn't there.
Jeremiah 55:6-9: Seek the LORD while he may be found;
call upon him while he is near;
let the wicked forsake his way,
and the unrighteous man his thoughts;
let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him,
and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts."
1 Chronicles 28:9b: "... for the LORD searches all hearts and understands every plan and thought. If you seek him, he will be found by you, but if you forsake him, he will cast you off forever."
Here we have a term for what you just did. We call it Crawfishin'.
I gave as much an explanation as was necessary at that point. If you wanted to know something, you could have asked.
If you are going to act like my positions are no more refined than a two year old's, just don't bother responding to me. I've no interest in your rambling condescension or 'Blue's Clues' style science lectures.
your explanation is possible. However it does involve a lot of reaching.
For a start there are 14 or 15 species, not 2. So you would need 14 or 15 groups of birds that are all different species and all have different traits to all fly the 600 miles out into the ocean to a random group of islands 'in serach of food', and all happen to find an island each that suits their traits perfectly. And somehow all of their ancestors on the mainland would die out, leaving them as the unique example of their species in the world. And for some reason all 14 or 15 species are closer related to each other than to any other examples of their wider family in the whole world. So it must be a MASSIVE stroke of luck that the 14 or 15 species of finch most closely related all flew out and all found an ecosystem that suited them perfectly and all the other members of all 14 or 15 species that stay behind on the mainland died out.
I honestly hope you can think about this for a bit and realise how much of a stretch that all is.
But most importantly, Darwin has mountains of evidence and research to back up his explanation. Everything from dna to the fossil record to comparitive anatomy to geographical distribution to experiments to observations from the animal kingdom and more. Other scientists have also spent decades studying these birds after darwin and come to the same conclusion. This is why his idea is accepted. Not just cause it's a good idea and good explanation, but because he has the mountain of evidence to prove it.
What evidence and/or proof do you have to support your explanation??
My explanation doesnt require any proof. Its simple. Its based on observation and common sense. And it is right.
So why are you and your like not utilizing this incredible resource instead of just talking about it?It can benefit us greatly even if it were true that we can't find or know Him.
If everything is designed, it is an incredible resource that we can utilize for our own technological advancement.
I had a funny feeling you would end up there, so the Dover trial ended with the right result after all, ID is just another name for creationism.One of the most detrimental aspects of the dominance of Naturalism in science over the last century is that it has deprived us of many of the advancements and benefits, some of which we are just starting to see.
While these are important questions, and I will gladly discuss them with you, what difference does it make from a scientific perspective? If it is designed, we don't need to know anything about the designer to utilize His technology or to see that it was designed. Fortunately, the Designer in our case is knowable. His name is Jesus.
Observing rain or a volcano is easily explained by 'Goddidit'. Doesn't make it right.
Remember what I said about homogeneity. Traits work their way through a population until every member of the population has the trait. Thats what happened on every island. You end up with 14 or 15 species. You dont begin with 14 or 15 species.
I know I said two populations arrived at the islands. I should have said some birds from population A and some birds from population B arrived at the islands. And of course they didnt just get up and leave for the islands one day either. They could have strayed or got lost. Maybe they got caught in a storm that blew them off track. I dont know. Thats not important. The important point is that the birds from population A had large beaks and the birds from population B had small beaks. The birds with the larger beaks were able to crack open the nuts on island 1 so thats where they stayed. The birds from population B were not. So they moved over to island 2 where the food was acceptable. The size of the beak determined where the birds ended up.
Of course they came from the mainland. They must have come from somewhere if they were not native to the islands. And no, the populations they came from did not die out. There are many species of finches. I cant say where they came from.
My explanation doesnt require any proof. Its simple. Its based on observation and common sense. And it is right.
OK... now I'm confused. You say that 2 species evolved into many on the islands? This is called adaptive radiation, and that is exactly what we say happened. It is evolution. You are just claiming that they all came from two species instead of just one. That seems to be a rather trivial point to be making, but OK.Remember what I said about homogeneity. Traits work their way through a population until every member of the population has the trait. That’s what happened on every island. You end up with 14 or 15 species. You don’t begin with 14 or 15 species.
I know I said two populations arrived at the islands. I should have said some birds from population A and some birds from population B arrived at the islands. And of course they didn’t just get up and leave for the islands one day either. They could have strayed or got lost. Maybe they got caught in a storm that blew them off track. I don’t know. That’s not important. The important point is that the birds from population A had large beaks and the birds from population B had small beaks. The birds with the larger beaks were able to crack open the nuts on island 1 so that‘s where they stayed. The birds from population B were not. So they moved over to island 2 where the food was acceptable. The size of the beak determined where the birds ended up.
Of course they came from the mainland. They must have come from somewhere if they were not native to the islands. And no, the populations they came from did not die out. There are many species of finches. I can’t say where they came from.
My explanation doesn’t require any proof. It’s simple. Its based on observation and common sense. And it is right.
In every thread I've seen you post in, all you do is talk down to other people. Which makes me chuckle at your "Ambassador for Christ" title.
Wow, ok, it's one thing to say that scientists are clueless but it's a completely different thing to say that abiogenesis is not possible. It wasn't too long ago that people were sure that you couldn't fix Tetralogy of Fallot (blue baby syndrome) with surgery. Being completely convinced that something is impossible is antithetical to science and gets us nowhere. It's a good thing scientists don't share your pessimism or we'd be stuck in the dark ages treating plague with incantations. This kind of attitude towards progress makes my stomach sick.
The fact that you don't even accept evolution shows how little you understand science. So I wouldn't expect you to be the authority on abiogenesis.
How condescending of you! The hits keep rolling.
Naturalism is the philosophy that there are only natural explanations for phenomena in this world. It rejects the supernatural as an explanation. This is science. Science does not work with the supernatural by definition.
At one time, geocentrism was the best observation people could make with limited measurement tools. Same goes for flat earth. But it's funny, it was religious dogma that held so tightly to geocentrism, not science. Science progressed, but dogma refused.
Naturalism is the foundation of science. If processes in nature are not repeatable, science is worthless. I'm sorry but you simply do not understand science but really think that you do.
I roll my eyes at your arrogant belief that Christianity spawned science, but I'll leave that point alone. Sure, you can believe in God and be a scientist, but no scientists use God in their work. My dad is an extremely devout Protestant, but he's also a microbiologist. God does not factor into his research. He operates under the rules of science when he does his work.
1. You have no evidence of a creator.
2. You have no evidence for creationism/ID.
3. Creationism/ID are not science because they are not testable.
You make the same assumptions I do about the universe - that it behaves according to rules. The big difference between us is that you believe in God, and I don't. I don't see any evidence for God, and until I do, I won't believe in one. No evidence for God or anything supernatural = I have no reason to believe they exist = I'll stick with the natural world. YOU are the one adding a priori assumptions. You believe that there must be a God, and then shape your understanding of the universe around that. I prefer to study the universe directly. If God shows up, I'll adjust my model accordingly.
This is not evidence, and until you post something substantial, your claims can easily be dismissed.
What is "Crawfishin'"? How am I supposed to answer a charge if I have no idea what you are talking about?
But in any case, I never once wrote anything personal about you. Every time I wrote it was to try to speak to what you wrote. Looking back, I see that I did sometimes use the word "you" when I could have maybe used a more neutral term, or a more descriptive phrase such as "the explanation you proposed," and if I was less than clear, I apologize.
I did ask, and so, later, did Tiberius. And you still have not answered. You compared the difference between what is sometimes called "micro-evolution" and what is sometimes called "macro-evolution" to the difference between walking to California and walking to Mars. There is a very clearly defined limitation (the need for a solid surface and gravity to allow walking) which separates the two possibilities in the walking from Maine example. But there is no such limitation on evolution that Tiberius and I know of. If you know of one, you have given no indication that you do, much less tell us what it is.
Some of your statement about naturalism seemed to make no sense if you were operating from basic scientific principles. I assumed that if we were not to be talking past one another, we should first agree on the basics. What you percieved as a "'Blue's Clues' style of science lectures" was an attempt to "define my terms.
There are two kinds of materialism (sometimes called naturalism): methodological materialism, limiting scientific inquiry to studying natural events and natural processes, and philosophical materialism, the belief that natural events and natural processes are all that exist.
Your statement, "Not every scientist operates under an assumption of naturalism and they are making interesting discoveries as a result. Naturalism is not needed to do good science and it is my observation that it has been detrimental in many ways." is true of philosophical materialism, but it is false of methodological materialism. Any non-atheist who does not see this distinction does not know science, and is in danger of rejecting science in favor of a muddled philosophy.
If there was nothing in specific that you disagreed with in my "Blue's Clues" lectures, then perhaps it was just sloppiness on your part about the word "naturalism," similar to the sloppiness on my part about the word "you" and not the problem I thought it was. Still, it never hurts to stop and define one's terms to make sure that everyone starts off on the same page.
So why are you and your like not utilizing this incredible resource instead of just talking about it?
we all know why don't we.
I had a funny feeling you would end up there, so the Dover trial ended with the right result after all, ID is just another name for creationism.
It's when someone tries to back off of a statement they've made or a position they've taken. If you ever watched a crawfish fleeing, it will make sense.
If you haven't, here:
YouTube - ‪Filming Crayfish/Crawdads Underwater‬‏
Fair enough. Sorry if I misunderstood.
Species primarily change generation to generation by the genetic processes Mendel discovered. This mix-match of genes is the culprit in ring speciation and animal husbandry and it does not necessitate mutations to achieve what we have observed it doing throughout human history. This mechanism can get you an incredible variety within the types such as canines or equines (walking Cali to Maine), but it is not going to get you from bacteria to man (walking Earth to Mars), without something else.
Y'all claim it is mutations, but have not shown, scientifically, that beneficial mutations can account for the development of any organ, metabolic system, or behavior, much less occur at a frequency required to account for all organs, limbs, systems, behaviors, etc. that exist.
I have read a great deal of the literature about the evidence of such things as the 'evolution' of feathers, eyes, legs, et al. and they all have one thing in common, the requirement to assume Naturalism, which I think is a faulty and discredited philosophy. They take some fossils, many time small fragments of a long dead animal, and spin a tale of how it lived, what its ancestors were, what it looked like, who its descendants are, etc. The language is saturate with 'probably', 'may have', 'could have', 'should have', etc. This is the language of speculation and hypothesis, not scientific evidence.
To sum it up:
1)Naturalism is a failed philosophy.
2)All the evidence for universal common descent is circumstantial and dependent on Naturalism's presuppositions.
3)Therefore, universal common descent is a failed hypothesis.
I don't need to spend all my time talking minutia of every naturalistic interpretation. I only need to demonstrate that Naturalism is false and that it has a negative impact on every area of human thought and discovery.
Ok, sorry. The image that popped into my mind as I read your post was of one of those goofy preschool shows explaining something scientific to a kid in a diaper with pudding smeared all over his face.
You make a good point here. I acknowledge that there are those who hold to a Methodological Naturalism for science but do not believe it represents reality.
In theory, I could almost accept Methodological Naturalism, but it runs straight into the same problem as the full blown philosophical variety. If Methodological Naturalism concerned itself with strictly scientific issues, it would be more benign. The problem is that it doesn't. If it did, we would not see such lockstep agreement on every level of this debate between the pure and the methodological when the discussion steps outside science and into philosophy, which it does most of the time.
Sure, a Methodological Naturalist may go to church and believe in Jesus, but at work, he is accepting the same presuppositions in the interpretations and theories as his colleague who doesn't drop his Naturalism when he leaves work, i.e. that there can be no supernatural explanation for anything in the universe.
If you accept a false philosophy only when doing science, it is not a virtue. At what point is any evidence of the Creator that you believe in admissible as evidence? How far will you go with Methodological Naturalism before it finally runs your theism under foot? Whenever it happens, you're just another nutty 'godidit' type to the true adherents of Naturalism.
Again, sorry if I misread you, and the Blue's Clues was just to illustrate how I perceived you talking to me like a kid that just soiled himself and had never heard the word science before. It was probably nothing like Blue's Clues. I was just grabbing for something of that genre.
I wasn't differentiating between pure Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism because, in science, there is no appreciable difference.
To hold to theism, Christianity specifically, and Methodological Naturalism is an illogical dichotomy. Naturalism and Christianity are mutually exclusive. I am not saying that those who hold your position aren't Christians, please understand. I just think you hold to an irrational position.
Methodological materialism is a way -- the only way-- of doing science. Period. When materialism leaks into philosophy, it is philosophical materialism, even if the person using it does not believe himself to be a philosophical materialist. It is understandable that a true philosophical materialist would confuse the two, but a lot of people with faith and/or open minds on the possibility of non-material events and processes tend to confuse the issue as well. I suspect that we view this breakdown in the separation between the two kinds of materialism the same, but just think in different terms of the grey area due to these peoples' sloppy thinking.In theory, I could almost accept Methodological Naturalism, but it runs straight into the same problem as the full blown philosophical variety. If Methodological Naturalism concerned itself with strictly scientific issues, it would be more benign. The problem is that it doesn't. If it did, we would not see such lockstep agreement on every level of this debate between the pure and the methodological when the discussion steps outside science and into philosophy, which it does most of the time.
A scientific model is a limited representation of reality. One of the limitations on the model is that it is naturalistic. From a viewpoint inside a scientific model there can be nothing non-naturalistic. But like all models, it is not a perfect representation of reality. It is a simplification that allows us to understand a particular aspect of realities rules. A limitation of naturalism on the model does not force the same limitation on the reality.I wasn't differentiating between pure Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism because, in science, there is no appreciable difference.
To hold to theism, Christianity specifically, and Methodological Naturalism is an illogical dichotomy. Naturalism and Christianity are mutually exclusive. I am not saying that those who hold your position aren't Christians, please understand. I just think you hold to an irrational position.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
