Why this debate forum doesn't matter

[Jjmcubbin]

Or is it science being disingenuous because they refuse to acknowledge the possibility / probability of intelligent design and creation?I think you don't take the time.

Science is not obliged to consider matters of pseudoscience, especially when plenty of evidence otherwise is present. Why doesn't science consider the earth is flat? That the Earth is balanced on a turtle? Because that is ridiculous and has no basis, like creationism. It has no base. Let me rephrase that, no scientific base. I can come up with another pseudo scientific theory (We all live inside a video game like the sims), doesn't mean science has any obligation to consider it because it doesn't explain the stuff we have found.

I didn't understand the second part. I'm sorry. I don't take the time...to write? Well, I am cooking all these words right now, after all.

 

[gaara4158]

Or is it science being disingenuous because they refuse to acknowledge the possibility / probability of intelligent design and creation?I think you don't take the time.

Science cannot infer intelligent design without an intelligent designer to point to. Show me the designer, then we can discuss what it is likely or unlikely to have created.

 

[Gene2memE]

There is not really any "evidence" for evolution, scientifically. There is simply material that has been interpreted from the assumption that evolution must be true

Boooooo.

If you're going to make absolute statements, it might be worthwhile to know what you're talking about.

Here's a study published two weeks ago, providing evidence for rapid evolution in grassland species:
Evidence for rapid evolution in a grassland biodiversity experiment

Here's one, published last week, providing evidence for speciation events due to geographic separation, in rattlesnakes:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00222933.2018.1429689

Neither of those studies are based on an assumption that evolution must be true, those studies demonstrate that evolution is occurring.

Real science requires two things: observation and repeatability. Lacking those what you have is faith-based. Not science.

Cool. If you want, you can ask the authors for their observations and data and try to replicate it, if you want.

Creation seems absurd only from the preconception that God does not exist. But this is not a scientific proposition, it's philosophical.

Science, by necessity, cannot consider the supernatural. It is limited to the real world.

Evolutionists choose to believe that a rock of infinite density floated around in empty space, then spontaneously blew up in violation of one of the primary laws of thermodynamics.

Wow, there's so much wrong here, its hard to know where to begin.

Big Bang cosmology isn't biological evolution
There was no "rock", there was no "space" - talking about these concepts before the existence of space-time may not even make sense
Nothing "spontaneously blew up" - what we observe in nature is evidence of a rapid expansion of space-time approximately 13.7 billion years ago
Nothing is in "violation of one of the primary laws of thermodynamics" - go and ask a cosmologist what the actual energy content of the universe is. The answer may surprise you.

To me, this is a silly belief.

Personal incredulity does not overcome well supported scientific theories.

 

[pitabread]

Stupid drawing.
Made by someone who is either ignorant, biased, naieve or has an axe to grind.
It's plain scoffing.

It's remarkably apt in my experience. Especially given my attempts in the past to engage creationists on the subject of applied evolution, a topic which is basically creationist kryptonite. Creationists blatantly deny the reality of it.

 

[KyleSpringer]

There’s a fact that I’d like to point out.. if you believe things ended up by chance and natural processes, I’m unable to resolve how you believe your perception could be more accurate and reliable than a worldview where our consciousness comes from intelligence with an intended purpose, designed for sharing a relationship with Him.

Juss sayin.

 

[Speedwell]

...than a worldview where our consciousness comes from intelligence with an intended purpose, designed for sharing a relationship with Him.

Juss sayin.

Which does not rule aout the possibility that our corporeal bodies are the product of biological evolution as described by science.

 

[KyleSpringer]

Which does not rule aout the possibility that our corporeal bodies are the product of biological evolution as described by science.

So now science is a person that describes things to you as well?

It hasn’t described anything to me.. you may be talking about the scientists, who are also subject to fallacious and biased presuppositions, but science doesn’t “say” anything. Science is a tool we use to assess the observable world around us.

 

[Speedwell]

So now science is a person that describes things to you as well?

That is not what I said.

It hasn’t described anything to me.. you may be talking about the scientists, who are also subject to fallacious and biased presuppositions, but science doesn’t “say” anything. Science is a tool we use to assess the observable world around us.

And that "assessment" pretty much knocks creationism in the head.
But you can characterize it any way you want, just so you understand that the conversation isn't about theism versus atheism, but about a cranky Protestant minority with a political agenda versus everybody else, theists and atheists together.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

So now science is a person that describes things to you as well?

It hasn’t described anything to me.. you may be talking about the scientists, who are also subject to fallacious and biased presuppositions, but science doesn’t “say” anything. Science is a tool we use to assess the observable world around us.

Not sure if this is a serious objection. Do you really not understand what "describe" means in this context?

 

[KyleSpringer]

Not sure if this is a serious objection. Do you really not understand what "describe" means in this context?

Yes.

The point I’m making is that scientific results are just that. Results.

Scientific observation is just that. Observation.

But to say that science is the means to all ends is fallacious and ultimately close minded.

Again, it’s a wonderful tool, but without intelligence, ironically, science is no different than a stick in the hand of an ape. The stick is not limited to the desire of the ape, but in its nature, is limited on its own.

In other words, we decide what science “describes”, which does not always fulfill its vast potential.

 

[KyleSpringer]

The stick is not limited to the desire of the ape, but in its nature, is limited on its own.

Sorry, let me correct myself.

It IS limited to the desire of said ape. It’s how he chooses to use it that will dictate to what extent it is valued.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Yes.

The point I’m making is that scientific results are just that. Results.

Scientific observation is just that. Observation.

No argument there.

But to say that science is the means to all ends is fallacious and ultimately close minded.

That's a strawman so, again, no argument.

In other words, we decide what science “describes”, which does not always fulfill its vast potential.

Not really sure what your objection is here.

 

[KyleSpringer]

No argument there.

That's a strawman so, again, no argument.

Not really sure what your objection is here.

“Our corporeal bodies are a product of biological evolution ‘as described by science’”

Not strawman. To tell me that something is described by science, therefore it logically follows that one holds it as an absolute standard of truth.

Otherwise, why propegate it?

My point is not to argue the burden of proof, rather the worldview with which one looks upon the evidence.

We are all looking at the same evidence, the question is, which is right?

 

[Gene2memE]

There’s a fact that I’d like to point out.. if you believe things ended up by chance and natural processes, I’m unable to resolve how you believe your perception could be more accurate and reliable than a worldview where our consciousness comes from intelligence with an intended purpose, designed for sharing a relationship with Him.

Juss sayin.

Ah, Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.

There's nothing that guarantees my faculties are reliable or accurate. That's why I continually engage in critical self-reflection and am in constant communication with other individuals, to see if their shared experience and observations of the world line up with my own.

The EAAN is essentially Christian gaslighting "oh you could be wrong about what you think. Then you cant guarantee you're right about anything. Fortunately we have this perfect thing - which is immaterial, timeless, spaceless, eternal, all wise, all knowing, all benevolent and cares about one particular desert tribe and who sleeps with whom - to base our thinking on'.

Here's the reverse of that - how do you know that your perception isn't being deliberately altered by a supernatural entity, be that the Christian God, one of the supernatural beings of the bible, or Casper the semi-friendly ghost?

 

[KyleSpringer]

Ah, Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.

There's nothing that guarantees my faculties are reliable or accurate. That's why I continually engage in critical self-reflection and am in constant communication with other individuals, to see if their shared experience and observations of the world line up with my own.

The EAAN is essentially Christian gaslighting "oh you could be wrong about what you think. Then you cant guarantee you're right about anything. Fortunately we have this perfect thing - which is immaterial, timeless, spaceless, eternal, all wise, all knowing, all benevolent and cares about one particular desert tribe and who sleeps with whom - to base our thinking on'.

Here's the reverse of that - how do you know that your perception isn't being deliberately altered by a supernatural entity, be that the Christian God, one of the supernatural beings of the bible, or Casper the semi-friendly ghost?

Law of Uniformity.

Things are indeed uniform.

This is why you’re able to compare experiences with others and contrast the differences. But without laws of logic, there’s no way of understanding and rationalizing our experiences.

Evolutionary theorists wish to use the laws logic to declare how science is for those who are logical, as creationists are somehow incapable of using logic, or rather logic in tandem with such a belief is incoherent.

One fatal flaw is that evolution cannot produce a logical mind, rather it’s borrows from the idea that logic was a precursor to mans evolvement.

Much to be discussed among these ideas, and forgive me if I’ve stumbled through this. Quite a long day, and I use my phone to draft.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

“Our corporeal bodies are a product of biological evolution ‘as described by science’”

Not strawman. To tell me that something is described by science, therefore it logically follows that one holds it as an absolute standard of truth.

The original straw man was "science is the means to all ends". Now you're using another - saying that something is described by science does not make it "an absolute standard of truth". Science doesn't deal in absolutes. One of the fundamental principals of science is that there is always the possibility of error.

 

[loveofourlord]

There’s a fact that I’d like to point out.. if you believe things ended up by chance and natural processes, I’m unable to resolve how you believe your perception could be more accurate and reliable than a worldview where our consciousness comes from intelligence with an intended purpose, designed for sharing a relationship with Him.

Juss sayin.

maybe because if our senses were not fairly acurate we would never have survived to evolve to this point, and our senses arn't very accurate or reliable at times. were prone to errors, making mistakes, miss interpeting, or understanding things. Thats why science relies on more then one person testing something, or examples. the same test I can do, everyone else can with the right level of knowledge and skill.

But as is becoming more and more apparent eye witnesses and other such things that rely on fallable people without evidence tends to be high unreliable, why courts won't take eye witness testimony on it's own, it's just hearsay.

 

[loveofourlord]

Law of Uniformity.

Things are indeed uniform.

This is why you’re able to compare experiences with others and contrast the differences. But without laws of logic, there’s no way of understanding and rationalizing our experiences.

Evolutionary theorists wish to use the laws logic to declare how science is for those who are logical, as creationists are somehow incapable of using logic, or rather logic in tandem with such a belief is incoherent.

One fatal flaw is that evolution cannot produce a logical mind, rather it’s borrows from the idea that logic was a precursor to mans evolvement.

Much to be discussed among these ideas, and forgive me if I’ve stumbled through this. Quite a long day, and I use my phone to draft.

For most of human existance logic hasn't been used very consistently and reliably till recently, and who says evolution can't create a mind capable of understanding logic. You don't think a brain that can least understand logic is better then one that can't? You don't think a animal that is more likly to see and think and understand things more then not isn't going to be more beneficial?

A zebra that mistakes the lion for a mate isn't going to survive too long, but also a zebra that runs when he thinks he sees a lion but's a shadow has better chance to survive, but do it too often he never eats and wastes too much energy. Reliability of our minds to be able to more often then not see true things and reconize them as such allows for survival, it got there by evolution, because without it we would never have survived long enough to even get here.

 

[KyleSpringer]

For most of human existance logic hasn't been used very consistently and reliably till recently, and who says evolution can't create a mind capable of understanding logic. You don't think a brain that can least understand logic is better then one that can't? You don't think a animal that is more likly to see and think and understand things more then not isn't going to be more beneficial?

A zebra that mistakes the lion for a mate isn't going to survive too long, but also a zebra that runs when he thinks he sees a lion but's a shadow has better chance to survive, but do it too often he never eats and wastes too much energy. Reliability of our minds to be able to more often then not see true things and reconize them as such allows for survival, it got there by evolution, because without it we would never have survived long enough to even get here.

“Evolution is true, or else we wouldn’t be here”

Sounds very circular to me.

But I’ll respond.

Your first objection that logic hasn’t been used consistently “until recently” is to say that Logic has existed prior to humans capacity to understand it. My question is how, if our universe is only a cosmic accident and our very existence is based upon some autonomous recognition of what’s beneficial, can your position even justify a pre-existent standard for logic?

If logic increases as our minds evolve, what’s to say your standard of logic is right? If everyone is at a different stage in evolution, you would really be relying on the majority, which even then assumes a standard of accuracy.

You know the socialogical analogy where a tribe on a remote desert island make up their own standards and laws?

Evolution can’t even do that, because if our thoughts are only seen as synapses in our brain, you actually have turned back on your own belief because you have assumed your thoughts are intrinsically valuable.

Otherwise you wouldn’t be able to argue, unless that’s just your nature and it is somehow benefiting you right now to tell me that a zebra is lion food, whether or not he runs.

 

[KyleSpringer]

The original straw man was "science is the means to all ends". Now you're using another - saying that something is described by science does not make it "an absolute standard of truth". Science doesn't deal in absolutes. One of the fundamental principals of science is that there is always the possibility of error.

Science doesn’t deal anything. You continue to reify science, when we’ve discussed how science is no different than a twig on the ground until someone picks it up.

Are you meaning to say absolutes cannot be proven, scientifically? Because that wouldn’t make sense.

Or that absolutes don’t exist?

In either case, how does anyone know what’s true? Or do you just accept whatever the scientific community propagates for the week?