Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[random_guy]

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

Then those posters are wrong.

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

And I apologize if I mischaracterized your beliefs. I was just giving an example of what Creationists may have to overcome to publish a paper on transitional fossils. Most Creationists don't have a basic background in biology so they tend to get their definitions all wrong. This means right from the get go, their paper will be wrong. That's why most of the published papers come from people with degrees, because they'll have enough knowledge to understand the material and the language, where as Creationists tend to just make stuff up as they go.

 

[Chalnoth]

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

Anyone can make an assertion. It's just that it's highly unlikely for somebody who is ignorant of current research to make an assertion that is both correct and new. You don't have to be a professional. You just have to be knowledgeable about the field and self-motivated. It just so happens that the easiest way to do that is to become a scientist through the usual route.

The culture of science is also rather different from what most people experience in their daily lives. You have to be able to accept that you are wrong, about anything, if shown evidence. You have to be able to back up any assertion that you make with evidence. And it all has to be done very rigorously. It's just not an easy thing to jump in with no scientific background and be able to contribute to science.

 

[Tomk80]

A=B may be based upon presuppostion.

It's an agreement. Just as axioms, logical rules are agreements we have reached.

Not all evidence is testable.

If it's not testable, what reason do we have to believe it is true?

This is a presupposition that does not always hold true.

The one that you just made.

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

So you first say scientists should not use those presuppositions, then you say scientists should use them. What is it? Or are you now conflating a group of working people (scientists) with the work they do (science). In other words, do you make the presupposition here that all scientists base their opinions and viewpoints of daily life only in science?

edited to add: and in a later post you say science tries to 'restrict thinking'. So what do you propose to do with science?

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

If you refer to my 'limited' experience, what am I to understand from that?

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

But then those points can just as well be made up, so why should we accept them?

You've already provided the example yourself.

What I meant was that I really, at this point, need an example of where people disagree on what constitutes empirical evidence. Not just evidence, empirical evidence. I know of no such instance, so if you have one, feel free to provide it.

These claims are not necessarily scientifically testable.

But if people say they are and they have 'artifacts' to show us, we can test them. If people say things are scientific, we should hold them to a scientific benchmark. If they do not, the story becomes different.

 

[Chalnoth]

By the way, I'd like to add something. Just because I am a graduate student studying physics, I don't pretend that I can make a contribution to any field of science. At best, I have some hope of providing some small contribution to the little area of cosmology in which I currently work. I don't claim that I could provide any significant contribution even to other fields of physics, not without at least six good months of study, let alone any scientific fields outside of physics.

Given that I understand how much study and time it's taken me to get to the point where I have a hope of providing a meaningful contribution to my little niche, I find it unlikely that any layperson who doesn't put in at least a good three-four years of hard work would have much of a chance in any corner of science.

 

[razzelflabben]

I don't know about any of this.

All I am doing is juxtaposing empiricism and supernaturalism (viz. god). All people take an essentially naturalistic approach to the mundane world; the theist inserts his god wherever he feels unsatisfied with an empirical answer to some philosophical question. Usually, that entails placing his god 'outside' the scope of empirical inquiry, whatever that happens to mean.

Given the undeniable progress made by science in making the world observable and reducible by explanation, "outside" has evolved pretty much continuously as a descriptor of "where" God belongs.

And all I am suggesting is that science cannot hope to know truth unless or untill such time as both options are considered viable, those options being god/gods/God is possible and god/gods/God are not possible. Unfortunately I run into a vast number of people, scientists and want a bes alike that hole only one of these options as possible. Scientifically, we cannot eliminate either possibility at the moment and accepting both as possible will definately affect the conclusions we draw, therefore becomes an important point to make.

Now what seems to be happening is that some here take the view that because I believe that both options still remain viable, and that I can show evidence to support god/gods/God, that somehow that mysteriously means that I think that god is the only possible solution and I need to convince everyone to is only that possible. This view is so far from truth that I am confused why someone would that this view after me saying that both options are possible, but such happens on the forum all the time, so all I know to say to this post is that truth is not found in what I believe but in why I believe what I believe. (I refering not to myself but rather the idea of individual beliefs) Therefore, if evidence exists to support god/gods/God, then truth is found in the evidence not the belief. If evidence exists for the non support of god/gods/God then truth is found in the evidence not the belief. If the evidence is contridictory, then that also is where truth can be found.

 

[razzelflabben]

At creation. The event of creation suggests the breaking of physical laws. If you propose a being that can do that, then why doesn't that being continue to break physical laws?

I've heard this claim made but have not yet, after repeated attempts to understand, seem any such evidence of the breaking of physical laws in respect to the biblical creation events. You can help by showing such.

And by the way, Razzelflabben, if you think you have posted decent evidence of a god, could you please either post it or post a link to where you have posted it? This is a very long thread for me to wade through.

Existance, complexity, miracles (broad definition), theres a nutshell start for you, posting links would require several links where the logical progression was also involved.

 

[razzelflabben]

You've never heard of Ken Hamm, Oral Roberts, Kevin Copeland, Henry Morris, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, or Kent Hovind, whom I specifically had in mind with that example?

How are these people the elite in the christian world? I thought we were talking about the elite as compared to scientists and their group of elite, in the know people. Look at it this way, the above people have a following, that doesn't make them anymore the elite than David Karesh (did I spell his make right?) Just because you have a following doesn't make you anything but a leader of a following. The elite in the "biblical" world are very educated people, with more education that many "scientists".

Most Biblical scholars, and all the ones I know of who possess legitimate Master of Divinity and doctoral degrees, and have travelled the world earning those, (Professors Bart Ehrman and Michael Shermer, and my own professor, Dr. Mark Hanshaw are the first examples that come to mind) -are definitely not creationists!

Now show me the coursework to become a professional creation scientist.

Now, I have know idea about the so called professional creation scientists you are going on about, as I have already stated and it would seem to me from you post here you don't either, because if they are professional creation scientists, then by title they would have the same credentials of any other scientist out there and your comment would be in vain as far as an attempt at proving they need no credentials but, we also can add to this the ID scientist many of whom have PhDs in science.

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

But, evolutionists and scientists here on this very forum have admitted already, bias in the publishing of scientific papers so one or the other of these ideas must be wrong, either the field is open to outsiders or it isn't. The evidence I have seen though not conclusive shows a closed group indeed and not only closed but very exclusive to similar ideas not open to possibles which in turn would make the scientific community not scientific at all. I am still collecting evidence before passing judgement for myself, but so far, it isn't looking promising for the scientific elite in our land, and it is pretty hard to ignore scientist and evolutionists who admit to this bias.

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

Seems you misunderstood my point. My point is that just because someone might believe something because as your mother said, she believes it, doesn't mean that no evidence exists to support the claim. It is sad that your mother (using your example but not intending to pick on her) doesn't know why she believe what she does, but that doesn't mean that there is no evidence, only that she doesn't know what the evidence is or if it does indeed exist.

Many people who don't want to believe in the possible existance of god/gods/God or in the possible event of creation, do so by ignoring any and all evidence in support of because they believe as your mother in what they believe. Very few people indeed, look at both sides and say, "what is the logical conclusion to all the evidence, not just what I want to look at".

What your mother said, in no way eliminates the existance of any evidence to support her belief, it simply means that she doesn't know what the evidence is and is content not to know and though I find it sad, it is common in both camps.

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.

Except that is not what I was saying. What I was saying is that just because someone believes what they do because they believe it, doesn't remove the evidence that exists only that they don't know what the evidence is. Look at it this way if you would, if I believe because I believe that evolution is false, does that mean that the evidence supporting evolution mysteriously disappears? If I believe because I believe that evolution is truth, does that mean that the evidence supporting evolution mysteriously disappears? That would be insanity to think it did. The same is true for god/gods/God and creation for that matter. Just because there are those out there who believe it because they believe it, doesn't mean the evidence supporting it mysteriously disappears.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Seems you misunderstood my point.

Could be. I was never talking about any "elite", nor am I aware of any elite in the realm of science. Thank you for lumping ID proponants in with the rest of the creation "scientists". They definitely belong together. But not all of them are scientists, and many of them don't hold legitimate degrees or experience. If anything, it could be said that they oppose science with an anti-science agenda. They damned-sure don't know as much as legitimate scientists! This is usually true of Biblical scholars too, and and most Bibilcal scholars aren't creationists because they usually know a good deal more than creationists do!

As for believing because you believe, you're right that evidence doesn't disappear just because you didn't know about it. But religious beliefs are necessarily faith-based because they never had any evidence in the first place.

 

[razzelflabben]

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?

It is a problem IF the group considers any and all arguements not like there own to be ignorant. Human nature tends to say, if you agree with me, then you are intelligent and if you disagree you are unlearned. Now as long as a group of people, share different ideas, so as to balance thier inclusiveness with human nature, all goes well, because the balance is there, but, when that balance is removed, we open ourselves up for some not so pretty situations of bias. That is why the question and discussion are important, to determine whether or not that bias exists. The more like minded individuals that exist in a given group, the more biased and predjudice the group usually becomes.

 

[razzelflabben]

Could be. I was never talking about any "elite", nor am I aware of any elite in the realm of science. Thank you for lumping ID proponants in with the rest of the creation "scientists". They definitely belong together. But not all of them are scientists, and many of them don't hold legitimate degrees or experience. If anything, it could be said that they oppose science with an anti-science agenda. They damned-sure don't know as much as legitimate scientists! This is usually true of Biblical scholars too, and and most Bibilcal scholars aren't creationists because they usually know a good deal more than creationists do!

As for believing because you believe, you're right that evidence doesn't disappear just because you didn't know about it. But religious beliefs are necessarily faith-based because they never had any evidence in the first place.

Not all, I wonder why you sound so bitter when talking about people and beliefs you don't know? Fist let's talk about ID and creationists that are scientists. There are many and they are learned and they disagree with you and the evolutionist scientist, that doesn't automatically take away their degrees, the work they put into getting those degrees, the process they go through and continue to go through to find truth, they go at it the same way but come to a different conclusion as you. Bottom line, if we are to believe that education and scientific process are valiable, then you need to value it when anyone uses it not just those you agree with. Your post shows a lack of such and is somewhat disturbing to me. This image I get when reading your post of anything that disagrees with your evolutionist anti god belief is non science and is a degregation of science itself. It is also why many people view science and the scientific community as biased and closed.

Now, about religious beliefs being faith based. Not all religious beliefs are faith based. Consider all the religions that have as their "head" a human that was empiracl at least for a time. Even in christianity, Jesus was empiracle and is the center of the belief. Thus logically speaking, we have two conclusions, 1. the religion is empiracle in nature, and 2. It is based on more than just faith.
In fact, much religious belief is based on teaching and/or indoctirnation rather than faith. Now part of the religious belief is faith indeed, but not all, much of the belief is not based in faith at all.

Now, on a brief personal note, many people in the christian relgion, agree with me while disagreeing with me on many aspects of the religious beliefs, because I came to an understanding and belief based on the evidence I saw, over time of studying that said understanding to gain a greater understanding, I found that the bible itself says that the evidence I found early on did indeed exist. Amazing isn't it? So while you can be "hateful" (looking for a proper word and this seemed the most appropriate though may not be a percise "emotion") toward those who have a strong religious belief, you cannot make the claim that all religions are only faith based when you look at the evidence and the religions themselves.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Not all, I wonder why you sound so bitter when talking about people and beliefs you don't know?

I do know them. But I am only "hateful" of willfull dishonesty, and Intelligent Design creationism is deliberately deceptive. Its based on a handful of falsehoods conceived for strategic purpose. One of them is the claim that one can't be a Christian if don't accept the stories in Genesis to be literally historically correct. They know that's not true, but they promote that idea anyway. They also know what a transitional species is, and how many we know of so far, but they continue to assert that none have ever been found. Lies are easy to hate, and I am compelled to oppose liars.

By the way, assertion by authority is not empiracle. Look it up. Believing on authority is a tenet of faith not evidence.

 

[Chalnoth]

I've heard this claim made but have not yet, after repeated attempts to understand, seem any such evidence of the breaking of physical laws in respect to the biblical creation events.

If you're claiming that no physical laws were broken at creation, then there is no god at creation, either.

 

[Chalnoth]

It is a problem IF the group considers any and all arguements not like there own to be ignorant.

Those of us who actually do scientific research have dedicated a number of years of our lives learning enough just so that we can have a hope of contributing to the body of scientific knowledge. How can people seriously expect to contribute anything without even knowing what the current size is?

 

[Tomk80]

It is a problem IF the group considers any and all arguements not like there own to be ignorant.

In the scientific fields, this is not the case.

Human nature tends to say, if you agree with me, then you are intelligent and if you disagree you are unlearned. Now as long as a group of people, share different ideas, so as to balance thier inclusiveness with human nature, all goes well, because the balance is there, but, when that balance is removed, we open ourselves up for some not so pretty situations of bias.

Since different ideas are welcomed in the scientific realm, this is not applicable to science. There is balance there. It is however, a balance of the knowledgable. Ideas are not rejected because there are disagreements, in fact, those abound in science. However, ideas that are not based in a sufficient knowledge of the subject are rejected. And rightfully so.

That is why the question and discussion are important, to determine whether or not that bias exists. The more like minded individuals that exist in a given group, the more biased and predjudice the group usually becomes.

Sure, but now back to the question. Why should scientists take seriously the ideas of those that do not know what they are talking about? Why should they not first send those away untill they actually know what they are talking about?

 

[razzelflabben]

I do know them. But I am only "hateful" of willfull dishonesty, and Intelligent Design creationism is deliberately deceptive. Its based on a handful of falsehoods conceived for strategic purpose. One of them is the claim that one can't be a Christian if don't accept the stories in Genesis to be literally historically correct.

Now I respect your .... problem ..... here, I have some basic problems with a lot of religious .... ideas .... as well, but I have seen you use this ..... venom ..... on people and ideas that do not fit what you describe as your problem. (trying to find a tactful none threatening way of saying that your problem appears to show up in more than just this area, but with all ideas of god/gods/God, creation, Gen. etc.) Maybe it's just forum communication, but you seem unreasonably agitated at times.

They know that's not true, but they promote that idea anyway. They also know what a transitional species is, and how many we know of so far, but they continue to assert that none have ever been found. Lies are easy to hate, and I am compelled to oppose liars.

And once, I made a a post about never assuming to know it all, and asked how that idea had anything to do with the fossil record, "what was the missing link between not assuming to know everything, that there is always something to learn and the fossil record" (a response to my post) at which time I was told that there are no missing links, that the fossil record is solid and well evidenced and that missing links don't exist. It is only the unlearned like me that don't see that the missing links in the fossil record don't exist and that if I would just look at the evidence I would see that. (note here, I never even suggested anything about missing links in the fossil record) It is this kind of overreaction, over sensitivity that I am having a problem with. The idea and notion that if I am not an evolutionist, I am an ID creationist going around purposely decieving people with lies and false truths. I get this nonesense all the time on the forum and so I admit I am hypersensitive to it as well., but I purpose not to read into posts what is not there in an attempt to only deal with what is mine to deal with. Anyway, take my belief of origins for example. I believe simply that we don't know. I can argue both for evolution and for creation as I can argue against both as well. (and not the canned arguements most common to both) I can look at the evidence and judge it independent of my preferred options because I have no preferred option. As a believer in Christ, I can look at Gen and ask it to tell me what God intended for me to draw from the text, and the answer is never how He created the world, and/or life in it, but rather that He created and therefore there is no such thing as the sun god, or water god because they are objects, emperical things to study and understanding and not gods themselves. And that is pretty much where Gen. leaves us in our understanding of origins, however, because I am not an evlutionist people like you seem to pigeon hole me as a creationist who goes around purposing to decieve people with creationist ideas. I want to take the time to openly and publicly object to this stereotyping of those who do not agree with the evolutionist mindset that you could never be wrong, that evolution is so well evidenced that any new evidence presented to counter it would be dismissed without any real inverstigation, only show investigation. And I have seen this as well, new evidence will surface to the pubic that questions what we know, and it will be mentioned on the forum to have the poster attacked instead of discussing the evidence. Not everything is black and white. Somethings are shades of truth this goes for evolution, creation, religions, etc. Truth is wound up within all the emotional baggage like what you are talking about here, but we need to get through the emotional stuff before we can find any truth, I think that is what drew me to this thread, that maybe we could cut through all the hypersensity stuff to find a common ground where we all could talk. So far I have been resonably pleased.

By the way, assertion by authority is not empiracle. Look it up. Believing on authority is a tenet of faith not evidence.

Yeah, and your point is? There is a difference between belief and faith. Many people belive something, but lack faith in it. Most in fact, I can't think of a single relgion that is not based on emprical evidence, therefore the belief is also based on emprical evidence, it may lack understanding, but it is empirical evidence at the heart of the belief. FAith comes later, and is not required for every religious belief.

 

[razzelflabben]

If you're claiming that no physical laws were broken at creation, then there is no god at creation, either.

Okay, again I ask this time more specifically,
1. what physical laws were broken
2. how does the lack of broken physical laws say no god/gods/God (can we shorten it to creator at least?)

I keep asking people but get the kind of response you gave, you have to give me more if you expect your claim to have merit.

 

[razzelflabben]

Those of us who actually do scientific research have dedicated a number of years of our lives learning enough just so that we can have a hope of contributing to the body of scientific knowledge. How can people seriously expect to contribute anything without even knowing what the current size is?

Huh? If I take what I said, or at least intended, and apply it to what you said, or at least what I read from your intended comments, it sounds like you are presented an even more biased approach than I have seem to date. First of all, many self studied people are extremely knowledgable and so I think you might want to think that over again, secondly, my post made no mention of uneducated people only people of different mindsets, therefore your comment would lead me to believe that you are one of those people who thinks that only educated people can agree with you all others are morons. That I hope is not what you intended.

Let me tell you a couple of quick stories. I have a BS, my husband a masters, we are not stupid people and yet my grandfather, who only finished 3rd grade, could do math quicker and more acurrately then either of us could hope to do.

My husband grew up in Nigeria, at that time, there was a man there who taught himself languages if I remember the story correctly, he taught himself and was proficient in 13 different languages, all self taught.

Education doesn't make one smart or intelligent, or even learned, it makes you educated. I am hoping this is not what you intended but offer you a word of caution to not assume that education makes you the itellectual of our world.

 

[razzelflabben]

Before I address individual issues here, let me say this, there is a difference between the ideal and the real world sometimes, I reserve the right to view the evidence and weigh it fairly before determining whether the ideal world is different from the real world in this or any issue.

In the scientific fields, this is not the case.

Let's hope so, I know that it is not suppose to be this way, but the evidence I have been seeing, questions this idealism in practise.

Since different ideas are welcomed in the scientific realm, this is not applicable to science.

You know what, I never used to question this, today, I am finding a lot of evidence that contridicts this and have begun to ask the question, is the scientific community as unbiased as it was constructed to be? I am still collecting evidence, but it concerns me that enough evidence exists to even ask the question, Doesn't that trouble you?

There is balance there. It is however, a balance of the knowledgable. Ideas are not rejected because there are disagreements, in fact, those abound in science. However, ideas that are not based in a sufficient knowledge of the subject are rejected. And rightfully so.

Again, those are not the evidence that got me questioning, the evidences that got me questioning are things like evolutionists admitting that well formulated papers written by creationist-scientists were rejected (one even admitted that the rejection was unfounded) because a creationist wrote the paper, it had nothing to do with the accuracy of the content, but rather the "political" correctness of the author, this shows bias that at one time, I didn't even suspect from the scientific community, today, I question everything and look for evidence of bias. I hope I don't find it, but I look where once I did not. If the bias does indeed exist, it is problematic and that was all I said on the issue, that bias in science is not science at all.

Sure, but now back to the question. Why should scientists take seriously the ideas of those that do not know what they are talking about? Why should they not first send those away untill they actually know what they are talking about?

See my above post where I deal with this issue in greater detail, then if you still don't understand my position ask again, okay?