The 'evolution' of food

[OldWiseGuy]

You just said you can't explain it. You are contradicting yourself.

How can you be incapable of explaining something for which there is obvious evidence that justifies the claims you are making?

The larynx is one of the most elegant systems in the body. I know that it works, but not how it works exactly, and, I don't have to know. I believe that it was purposefully designed and not a product of happenstance over millions of years.

 

[pitabread]

Neither of us can explain what we believe, only that we believe it.

In the context of science versus supernaturalism that isn't true. Science is about going out and studying the universe (and things in it) to figure out how things work. Appeals to supernaturalism involves invoking the supernatural to 'explain' things we don't otherwise understand.

This is why the question of "how was X created" in the context of supernaturalism can never be answered. Such a proclamation was never derived from that understanding in the first place. It's just made up.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

In the context of science versus supernaturalism that isn't true. Science is about going out and studying the universe (and things in it) to figure out how things work. Appeals to supernaturalism involves invoking the supernatural to 'explain' things we don't otherwise understand.

This is why the question of "how was X created" in the context of supernaturalism can never be answered. Such a proclamation was never derived from that understanding in the first place. It's just made up.

The complexity reinforces supernaturalism. Evolution isn't rejected 'out of hand' but after examining it and concluding that it is as mysterious and fantastic as creationism.

 

[pitabread]

The complexity reinforces supernaturalism.

No it doesn't.

Evolution isn't rejected 'out of hand' but after examining it and concluding that it is as mysterious and fantastic as creationism.

That may be your conclusion based on your own personal incredulity, but that's not actually the case.

For one thing, we have an observable process by which evolution occurs. Do we have an observable process by which organisms are created out of thin air?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No it doesn't.



That may be your conclusion based on your own personal incredulity, but that's not actually the case.

For one thing, we have an observable process by which evolution occurs. Do we have an observable process by which organisms are created out of thin air?

You can take comfort in the fact that more and more people are taking your side in this.

 

[pitabread]

You can take comfort in the fact that more and more people are taking your side in this.

That's irrelevant.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's irrelevant.

Very relevant. Millions of mature knowledgeable adults still believe in creation. You have your work cut out.

 

[Shemjaza]

Care to accompany me on a man-on-the-street interview on the subject? We can even conduct the interviews on a college campus if you wish.

What good would that achieve?

You aren't able to explain and justify your "reasoning", here when you have all the time in the world to collect your thoughts and clarify your process. Putting you on the spot would just leave you with your unsatisfyingly false one-liners.

Very relevant. Millions of mature knowledgeable adults still believe in creation. You have your work cut out.

Same as for individuals, belief, conviction and numbers aren't in and of themselves a measure of truth.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What good would that achieve?

It would demonstrate the effectiveness of leading young people believe in evolution with having a clue about how it works. You would get either goobledegook answers, or blank stares.

You aren't able to explain and justify your "reasoning", here when you have all the time in the world to collect your thoughts and clarify your process. Putting you on the spot would just leave you with your unsatisfyingly false one-liners.

I'm satisfied with them.

Same as for individuals, belief, conviction and numbers aren't in and of themselves a measure of truth.

That door swings both ways.

 

[Shemjaza]

It would demonstrate the effectiveness of leading young people believe in evolution with having a clue about how it works. You would get either goobledegook answers, or blank stares.

Who cares? It's a practical scientific theory. I'd love for the average college student to be educated about the topic, but it isn't a demonstration of truth.

Most people don't know the details about a power station works, this doesn't add any credence to a random person who believes it all comes from the lightening elves.

I'm satisfied with them.

We know, but your unwillingness to be honest is annoying the rest of us. But I suspect that is part of the plan.

That door swings both ways.

Stop. This. Lie.

Consistent, objective, scientific evidence is not the same as OldWiseGuy feels it is the case.

 

[pitabread]

Very relevant. Millions of mature knowledgeable adults still believe in creation. You have your work cut out.

Unless we're specifically getting into politics, popularity is irrelevant.

I really get the feeling that creationists don't have a clue what they are facing when it comes to trying to hold back scientific understanding.

 

[pitabread]

Who cares? It's a practical scientific theory. I'd love for the average college student to be educated about the topic, but it isn't a demonstration of truth.

Most people don't know the details about a power station works, this doesn't add any credence to a random person who believes it all comes from the lightening elves.

Yeah, this line of reasoning is getting just plain weird. It really suggests a fundamental disconnect between creationists versus non-creationists and what each side feels is relevant.

There seems to be a gap in understanding of the whole point of science.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

We know, but your unwillingness to be honest is annoying the rest of us. But I suspect that is part of the plan.

I'm being honest. I believe in special creation.

Consistent, objective, scientific evidence is not the same as OldWiseGuy feels it is the case

We're both looking at the same evidence. You spend years peering deep into the tissues and see millions of years of evolution. I take one look and see creation. Nothing dishonest here.

 

[Shemjaza]

I'm being honest. I believe in special creation.

That isn't the dishonest part.

It's when you claim to have evidence, probability and analysis.

We're both looking at the same evidence. You spend years peering deep into the tissues and see millions of years of evolution. I take one look and see creation. Nothing dishonest here.

It's the explanation.

If there's a wall and one person says it's green and one says it's blue. Let's say the blue one takes some pictures and checks the colours on a computer and they are more blue then green, but the green guy says: "Nah, I still think it's green."

They have the same evidence, but only one of them can back it up.

 

[Kylie]

Both are true. I know that it works but I don't know how it works.

Then how have you determined that what you have is knowledge and not wishful thinking?

 

[Kylie]

The larynx is one of the most elegant systems in the body. I know that it works, but not how it works exactly, and, I don't have to know. I believe that it was purposefully designed and not a product of happenstance over millions of years.

And yet you can investigate the larynx and learn how it works. You can read the work of others who have conducted scientific examinations of it. And you will get consistent results. Everyone will agree that the larynx works one particular way, and it does not work in a different way.

Yet religion doesn't give the same consistent results, does it?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That isn't the dishonest part.

It's when you claim to have evidence, probability and analysis.

I don't recall citing odds, just the improbability.

It's the explanation.

If there's a wall and one person says it's green and one says it's blue. Let's say the blue one takes some pictures and checks the colours on a computer and they are more blue then green, but the green guy says: "Nah, I still think it's green."

They have the same evidence, but only one of them can back it up.

It's really not about evidence. Prisons are filled with innocent people convicted on solid evidence. It's like that judge who said, "I can't define inappropriate contentography, but I know it when I see it." Same with creation.

 

[Kylie]

Very relevant. Millions of mature knowledgeable adults still believe in creation. You have your work cut out.

Argument for popularity is irrelevant. Evolution is valid because it can be tested and verified. Creationism can not.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then how have you determined that what you have is knowledge and not wishful thinking?

Too late, it's become part of the way I think (I admit to have strange ways of thinking).

 

[Kylie]

Too late, it's become part of the way I think (I admit to have strange ways of thinking).

Are you admitting to being closed minded?