Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[random_guy]

What I basically hear you saying is that you will not accept evidence from anyone in a discussion unless they are a professional scientist, insofar as only professional scientists know enough to decipher what constitutes evidence in the first place.

I have no idea where you get this. Anyone can submit research paper to a scientific journal. If their work and their research is good and novel, then it will be accepted. It doesn't matter if they have a Ph.D. or if they had no formal training, if they're Christian or if they're atheist. None of that matters other than the actual work. Having formal training just makes it easier to get a grasp on the material to come up with new ideas.

If I asked you and a biology major to write a new biology research paper on fossils, who do you think would do a better job? I don't know you, but from your comments, I'd rather trust the biology major. It's the same way in science. Untrained people can break into the field, but they have much more barriers to overcome because they don't have all the knowledge yet. The biologist would understand that transitional fossils mean fossils showing characteristics of two different groups, while you may think that transitional fossils means half-fish/half reptile due to your lack of knowledge. This would mean that right from the get go, your paper would be wrong.

Of course, I may be completely wrong since maybe you do know what the definition of a transitional fossil is. I was only using you as a general example.

 

[Aron-Ra]

If YEC is untrue, there is a very big loss, and I would have to go for OEC then....

If YEC is true, then nothing in the universe makes sense anymore, including YEC!

 

[Aron-Ra]

Question, whether or not I believe something because I believe it, is irrelevant to whether or not there is evidence to support it is it not? For example, I might believe in evolution because I believe it but does that automatically mean there is no evidence to support it because it is my belief and not my scientific conclusion!?

You believe it because you believe it? That reminds of something else a creationist, (my own mother) said to me once.

"I belive what I believe because that's what I believe. I believe that! And I'm not going to believe what you believe because that's not what I believe!"
Those were her exact words!

The job of science is to improve understanding, and they do that by proposing explanations for what things are and how or why they work. Then they test those explanations to see how accurate or inaccurate they are. How useful then would it be to say "It works because it works"? Have you explained anything? Or have you instead only offered an excuse to get out of explaining anything? -While still pretending to know something you know you don't really know.

Here is how the statement should look:

I believe [conclusion] because [reason].

This is a sensible statement which allows us to evaluate your reason and determine whether we should agree with you.

What you've done instead is to say:

I believe [conclusion] because [I believe [because [I believe [because [I believe [because [I believe [because [I believe ,.,.,.,,.....i]]]]]

Your statement is not remotely sensable.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Yes they do. For example:
if a=b
a=c
then b=c
Holds in all discussions and fomats. All logical rules do. If you have a logical rule that doesn't, please provide it.

The 'if' here that you present may not always apply.

Then science doesn't enter into it.

Precisely my point. Nor should it. Nor should you expect it to.

In their work, yes. How would you like them to work otherwise?

Without presupposition.

You know nothing of my finite experience.

I know that it is finite.

That I have rejected certain experiences as "supernatural" does not mean I haven't had experiences that others would designate as such.

You interpret your experiences differently.

Then maybe it is time for you to move to that point.

I've done this many times before, but the scientific mind loses it.

But they have agreed on what constitutes empirical evidence.

Not really. Not all.

They disagree on whether this empirical evidence is all there is.

Such is a second disagreement perhaps.

Alien contenders often claim to have empirical evidence.

Some do. Some don't.

In their case, however, it just never holds up to scrutiny.

Please qualify. You're referring specifically to scientific scrutiny.

 

[VinceBlaze]

We'll get back to this shortly.

Without projecting onto the statements?

But since knowledge is defined as a true or factual understanding, then all knowledge can be tested. So yes, it must be measurable/verifiable by definition.

Not scientifically.

Yes, Muslims and Jews may claim to know that El/Allah/Abba/YHWH created the world, and Christians may claim to know that Jesus created the world instead. At the same time, Hindus can -and do- claim that either Krsna, Vishnu or Brahma created the world. But the very fact that all of these people claim metaphysical "knowledge" that is mutually exclusive means that most of them, -if not all of them- don't really know what they claim to know; instead they only believe it. They all claim a metaphysical "truth", but obviously it cannot be truth no matter how desperately they claim otherwise. You're right about the fact that they'll still claim it, but they do it dishonestly.

I think that you're being a bit extreme to call all religionists liars.

It is a lie to pretend to know
what you know
no one even can know,
and no matter how loudly you insist that lie is truth,
it is still a lie.

I think that you're lying.

You're strategically avoiding the question.

You're strategically changing the context of my statements.

Now define 'evidence' and cite your source for verification.

Here is a simple dictionary link defining 'evidence'. Unfortunately, this definition does not match the formula that you had presented, insofar as there are multiple definitions of the word that vary with context. Yet your scientific formula/definition for evidence is much narrower than what the simple dictionary ascribes as 'evidence'.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=evidence

What does that mean?

It means that you're attempting to place overly constrictive bounds on other people's belief systems (calling them liars and such, because their lines of logic don't follow yours), that they simply will not adhere to anyway.

It doesn't matter.

Sure it does. Just maybe not to you.

Because the fact that they cannot defend any part of their position where I can easily substantiate all of mine -invalidates their disagreement.

You've not substantiated this fact. And I can't imagine why you expect others to substantiate their beliefs to you, when they have absolutely no obligation to do so in the first place. Other than that you believe them to be liars.

Go back and read the first thing you said in this post.

So you were attempting to quote me prior to the presentation of my statement? At best, you've offered a tragically distorted paraphrase of a statement that I've made, a full post before I even made it. Most will quote the statement of another after they have made it, as opposed to paraphrasing someone else's statement before they have made it.

 

[Tomk80]

The 'if' here that you present may not always apply.

Of course, that is why there are a lot of other rules of logic. But if A=B, those rules I gave count, in every discipline. It is the same with all other rules of logic, they are the same everywhere. Sometimes someone within such a discipline (theologists tend to be good at this) will state that logical rules do not apply there (because God is unknowable or some such). But that doesn't mean the rules have somehow changed for them.

Precisely my point. Nor should it. Nor should you expect it to.

However, if the book makes testable or logical statements, they do. You said logic is not the same in every discipline. This is not true. Some people may argue that they do not apply in certain situations (for example the resurrection of Jesus), but this does not mean they aren't the same in their discipline.

Without presupposition.

Science is a toolkit. For it to work, we need to test things. That is one of the few presupposition in science. Reality is real and testable. Which presupposition do you want scientists to leave and how do you propose to do science without those presuppositions?

I know that it is finite.

You interpret your experiences differently.

Yup. Which does not mean I haven't had such experiences, which is what you were implying.

I've done this many times before, but the scientific mind loses it.

Or you point isn't valid.

Not really. Not all.

Such is a second disagreement perhaps.

Example?

Some do. Some don't.

Fair enough.

Please qualify. You're referring specifically to scientific scrutiny.

Yup. Go to a conference where people get together who have been 'visited by aliens'. There are many who make scientific claims. But in all cases where these were really put to the test, they don't hold up.

 

[VinceBlaze]

The idea that arguments stand by their own merits instead of by who supports them is an absolutely core philosophy of science.

But I thought that only professional scientists were qualified to make scientific assertions.

 

[VinceBlaze]

No, it's not.

I'm not arrogant nor ignorant enough to believe that I fully understand our origins. That I am a related to monkeys I am sure of, but then my perspective is not quite so simple.

I personally believe that human beings are related to fish and birds.

 

[JohnR7]

The job of science is to improve understanding.

It seems like on this board everyone comes here to show off how little they understand about either science or religion or both.

It would lead you to believe that science seeks to restrict understanding rather then to improve it.
They are always fighting in the court system to keep people from teaching various things in the school system.

 

[JohnR7]

I personally believe that human beings are related to fish and birds.

According to science we are related to pond scum.
So what does that have to do with anything?

 

[VinceBlaze]

I have no idea where you get this.

I get this from specific individual posters. My statement is not projected onto the entire scientific community.

The biologist would understand that transitional fossils mean fossils showing characteristics of two different groups, while you may think that transitional fossils means half-fish/half reptile due to your lack of knowledge.

The conceptual distortion which you illustrate does not represent my belief.

 

[JohnR7]

But I thought that only professional scientists were qualified to make scientific assertions.

Bryan Sykes does NOT have a Phd. Yet he did the breakthrough work on Ice Man and Chedder man. His lab work has had a major impact on population genetics. He was the first one to find that the best place to get DNA was in the tooth. The enamel protects it better there then in the bones. This may not seem like much, but what if no one else figured that out? Now it is becoming standard procedure when they find a skull to get the best tooth and send it off to the lab to have the DNA checked in it. They only need one cell, but that is the best place to find it.

 

[VinceBlaze]

According to science we are related to pond scum.
So what does that have to do with anything?

I sometimes make generalized precursory statements to weed out people with restrictive control tendencies in a discussion. It tells me who's narrow and who's agile.

 

[Aron-Ra]

We'll get back to this shortly.

Without projecting onto the statements?

That's right. I projected nothing.

But since knowledge is defined as a true or factual understanding, then all knowledge can be tested. So yes, it must be measurable/verifiable by definition.

Not scientifically.

Is there any other way to measure or verify something?

I think that you're being a bit extreme to call all religionists liars.

If you have nine guys all telling different mutually-exclusive stories to explain the same thing, then logically only one of them can be right, and its probable they're all wrong, if only to some acceptible degree. But it doesn't become a lie until they all proclaim each of their stories to be 'truth'. At that point, then yeah, most of them, -if not all of them- are lying. We still might be able to overlook it even then, but when they all start declaring "absolute" truth, when none can claim that, then all of them are lying.

It is a lie to pretend to know
what you know
no one even can know,
and no matter how loudly you insist that lie is truth,
it is still a lie.

I think that you're lying.

I don't see how that's possible. So I'd appreciate it if you would explain that. Because I'm not the one claiming 100% accurate and perfectly infallible knowledge of the unknown. I don't know the unknown at all. Now how is it a lie to point out that you don't really know the unknown either?

You're strategically changing the context of my statements.

No I'm not. But you're welcome to try to defend that accusation.

Here is a simple dictionary link defining 'evidence'. Unfortunately, this definition does not match the formula that you had presented, insofar as there are multiple definitions of the word that vary with context. Yet your scientific formula/definition for evidence is much narrower than what the simple dictionary ascribes as 'evidence'.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=evidence

No, this is the same definition I gave. I said evidence is a fact or set of factual circumstances which are demonstrable or measurable and verifiably accurate by objective standards, and which are consistent with a given argument. That summarizes each of the definitions you gave.

Main Entry: 1ev·i·dence
Pronunciation: 'e-v&-d&n(t)s, -v&-"den(t)s
Function: noun
1 a : an outward sign : [SIZE=-1]INDICATION[/SIZE] b : something that furnishes proof : [SIZE=-1]TESTIMONY[/SIZE]; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2 : one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
- in evidence
1 : to be seen : [SIZE=-1]CONSPICUOUS[/SIZE] <trim lawns...are everywhere in evidence -- American Guide Series: North Carolina>
2 : as evidence

But that doesn't match anything you're pleading for. You said there was some agreement on what would constitute evidence; You said there were other fields of knowledge which use a different definition, one that supports the allegations you're making. Yet the definition you provide agrees with mine completely, and doesn't begin to support anything you alledge. Your reference to Whitley Strieber wasn't an example of evidence by anyone's definition. That was an assertion:

"a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason: a mere assertion; an unwarranted assertion."
--Dictionary.com

The fact that they cannot defend any part of their position where I can easily substantiate all of mine -invalidates their disagreement.

You've not substantiated this fact. And I can't imagine why you expect others to substantiate their beliefs to you, when they have absolutely no obligation to do so in the first place. Other than that you believe them to be liars.

When asked for real world evidence, I presented a series of easily verifiable facts which served as part of the basis of evolutionary theory. You responded by mentioning someone you apparently made up -detailing an event that never happened, and which is impossible to do.

"Whitley Strieber experienced space aliens in the night as he floated above his bed."

So you were attempting to quote me prior to the presentation of my statement?

No, two hours and thirty-nine minutes later.

At best, you've offered a tragically distorted paraphrase of a statement that I've made, a full post before I even made it. Most will quote the statement of another after they have made it, as opposed to paraphrasing someone else's statement before they have made it.

No, I quoted you paraphrasing what you had already said five posts earlier. In Post#490, you declared your baseless and totally fabricated Whitley Strieber assertion to be a "metaphysical argument", which you said was a step "outside of scientific fields of knowledge". Well, that's exactly what the definition of "magic" is:

"supernatural power over natural forces"
--Merriam-Webster

"Of, relating to, or invoking the supernatural:"
--Bartleby.com

And what is "supernatural"?

"of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe;
....departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature".
--Merriam Webster

"of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law."
--Dictionary.coml

"Being beyond or exceeding the powers or laws of nature; miraculous."
--Webster's 1828 dictionary

"refers to forces and phenomena which are not observed in nature, and therefore beyond verifiable measurement. If a phenomenon can be demonstrated, it can no longer be considered supernatural. Because phenomena must be subject verifiable measurement and peer review to contribute to scientific theories, science cannot approach the supernatural;"
--Wikipedia

There you have it. If it can be demonstrated or measured in any way, then it is scientific. Nothing natural is beyond the realm of science; nature is the realm of science. But if something can not be demonstrated or measured in any way, can't be indicated by evidence, (according to the only definition yet given) can neither be quantified nor qualified by any objective means, and defies the laws of nature all at the same time, then it is supernatural, and that means miraculous; magic by definition.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Somehow my submission posted twice.

 

[Tomk80]

I get this from specific individual posters. My statement is not projected onto the entire scientific community.

Which ones? My guess is that you may have misunderstood what they say.

The conceptual distortion which you illustrate does not represent my belief.

But it does demonstrate why it is important that those making certain claims, also have taken the effort to familiarizing themselves with the subject first. You seem to be objecting to this because it makes those who are making statements about this as a 'closed group'. But why should this group consider arguments that are only based on ignorance? Why is the expectation that those commenting on issues also understand the issues first a bad thing?

 

[VinceBlaze]

But if A=B, those rules I gave count, in every discipline.

A=B may be based upon presuppostion.

Science is a toolkit. For it to work, we need to test things.

Not all evidence is testable.

That is one of the few presupposition in science. Reality is real and testable.

This is a presupposition that does not always hold true.

Which presupposition do you want scientists to leave

The one that you just made.

and how do you propose to do science without those presuppositions?

I don't propose to do science without those presuppositions.

Yup. Which does not mean I haven't had such experiences, which is what you were implying.

I believe that you read too deeply into my statement. I wasn't implying anything. Just go with the text itself.

Or you point isn't valid.

Not according to scientific measurements. But not all points are scientifically measurable. So it is vain to attempt to measure them scientifically.

Example?

You've already provided the example yourself.

Go to a conference where people get together who have been 'visited by aliens'. There are many who make scientific claims. But in all cases where these were really put to the test, they don't hold up.

These claims are not necessarily scientifically testable.

 

[VinceBlaze]

It would lead you to believe that science seeks to restrict understanding rather then to improve it.

That's what I'm led to believe.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Bryan Sykes does NOT have a Phd. Yet he did the breakthrough work on Ice Man and Chedder man. His lab work has had a major impact on population genetics. He was the first one to find that the best place to get DNA was in the tooth. The enamel protects it better there then in the bones. This may not seem like much, but what if no one else figured that out? Now it is becoming standard procedure when they find a skull to get the best tooth and send it off to the lab to have the DNA checked in it. They only need one cell, but that is the best place to find it.

I'm glad to see an exception to the rule.

 

[TeddyKGB]

That's what I'm led to believe.

Because you believe in methods of "knowing" that provide fanciful, exciting, and comforting conclusions to the virtual exclusion of means of verification.

Non-rigorous methods of "knowing" simply invite contradictory statements. What do you do when wholly metaphysical assertions display mutual exclusivity?