Why this debate forum doesn't matter

[Bugeyedcreepy]

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?

Science doesn't do absolutes - so there's no "Proving" something in Science. what its specialty is: Disproving. It can disprove all sorts of things, but it doesn't really prove them. Why doesn't that make sense? What has Science "proven"? do you have an example?

 

[KyleSpringer]

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.

Again you’re assuming uniformity, which is not something your position can readily explain. Although the Bible clearly tells us that all things are held together for our benifit.

Order out of chaos is not a problem for the Christian worldview, but you blindly accept that no one knows how or why but the fact that we even are is your proof.. that’s silly.

 

[KyleSpringer]

Science doesn't do absolutes - so there's no "Proving" something in Science. what its specialty is: Disproving. It can disprove all sorts of things, but it doesn't really prove them. Why doesn't that make sense? What has Science "proven"? do you have an example?

Apparently evolution. Lol

With science, you can prove that light travels faster than sound.

With science, you can prove that oxygen is required for the human respiratory system to function properly.

With science, you can prove that viruses have a capacity to adapt.

I guess you’re glued to a world (gravity) that is sitting still (orbit) as you are slowly turning into something else that will better benifit you. (Apparently evolution)

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Again you’re assuming uniformity, which is not something your position can readily explain. Although the Bible clearly tells us that all things are held together for our benifit.

Not so much assuming uniformity, but accepting that there's no evidence that it's been any different. The models we work around this point give us useful and predictable results, so until it starts failing, there's no need to complicate things with an unfounded assumption that things were different before.

Order out of chaos is not a problem for the Christian worldview, but you blindly accept that no one knows how or why but the fact that we even are is your proof.. that’s silly.

It isn't a problem for anyone as far as I can tell, whether they be Hindus, Muslims, Atheists, Humanists, Republicans, Texans, etc. Why is it necessary that only your particular view be needed to not have a problem with it?

 

[KyleSpringer]

Not so much assuming uniformity, but accepting that there's no evidence that it's been any different. The models we work around this point give us useful and predictable results, so until it starts failing, there's no need to complicate things with an unfounded assumption that things were different before.

It isn't a problem for anyone as far as I can tell, whether they be Hindus, Muslims, Atheists, Humanists, Republicans, Texans, etc. Why is it necessary that only your particular view be needed to not have a problem with it?

You and I could look at the same evidence and come up with different conclusion due to the way we view it.

And what do you mean? “Not assuming uniformity, just accepting that there’s no evidence for it being any different?”

That is uniformity. Literally. The state of being uniform.

Also, if you accept that things have always been the same, why would there be a need for changes? By saying it doesn’t need to be complicated only presents the fact that it’s so fundamentally flawed that there’s no simplicity in it at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Explain. What is wrong exactly? Very easy to just throw that out and go away as if you've made a point.

Just about every word you wrote down there was wrong.

The problem with such posts is that for every sentence you write, we need to type 7 paragraphs to explain the many errors and misunderstandings contained therein.

In essence, I have no problem with doing that.... the thing is though, that we have learn from experience that it mostly is a waste of time.

Because you'll more then likely simply ignore what was explained, and then come back with the same claims that have just been exposed as false.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Society without religion has been tried. It resulted in the Soviet Union.

No. The soviet union is what happens when you try to rule a society by implementing hardline communism. Religion was forbidden there, yes. For political reasons.

A better example would be, the western secular democracy.

But next time, we'll do it better. After all, we are the ones we've been waiting for.

Not sure what that means.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The problem I have is that academia does, in fact, purport itself as the truth. It is axiomatic at best. The big bang is axiomatic. The theory of evolution is not only a crude theory, but it is a crude and improper axiom. Just because something is an axiom does not mean it is right; it speaks more to the qualification of acceptance of something.

Both big bang and evolution are scientific theories and treated as such by scientists. Just like all other theories.

The only issue you have with these 2 particular theories, is that they don't agree with what you believe religiously.

Just admit that. You don't have any problems with the science. In fact, chances are rather big that you, just like most creationists, don't even understand the basics of the science behind evoluion and big bang.

You are simply "against them" because you are under the impression that they are incompatible with your religious beliefs.

That is all.

Academia, and its affects on society, reek of religion and its affects on human history.

And "religion" is bad, I bet?
Tell me, would you also complain if "the science religion" would agree with your actual "religion"? Be honest now....

You would not.

 

[DogmaHunter]

As to my visualization of the big bang theory, nothing that science proposes is substantively different from a rock floating in empty space

Ow boy......

Yeah, sure.... aside from the fact that there is no rock, no floating and no empty space.

You're just using sciency language to obscure that. So a hypothesized singularity which contained everything we now know as the universe suddenly blew up in violation of a known law of thermodynamics

See, this is why it is important to use correct terminology. Nothing "blew up". There was no "explosion". The name of the theory might be "big bang", but make no mistake: nothing "banged".

It never ceases to amaze me how science deniers seem to be experts at scientific ignorance.

But we have no idea where the singularity came from. It just was.

To have no idea about something, is not the same as "it just was".
To have no idea about something, means just "we don't know".

A useful definition of God, for me anyway, is intelligence plus force plus directed will.What science has done is taken God and subtracted out intelligence and directed will.

Science hasn't done anything to god-models, because there is nothing there to do anything with. The only reason why no scientific theory mentions any gods, is because no gods are showing up anywhere and that's it.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Apparently evolution. Lol

Not proven, just has a mountain of supporting and correlating evidence, observations and facts. Even has its own Theory!

With science, you can prove that light travels faster than sound.

Well, you can demonstrate it isn't slower, but there are conditions where light can be brought to a stop. so I guess it isn't "proven" unless you're willing to be wrong... so if you can be wrong, then did you really prove it to begin with? Scientists stop light in a cloud of atoms

With science, you can prove that oxygen is required for the human respiratory system to function properly.

I challenge that. You can demonstrate the human respiratory system functions properly with other gasses, but this would only be temporary given the success of the system doesn't make up for the lack of oxygen in the gasses that the respiratory system was successfully exchanging. The other thing to consider is that the human respiratory system would still fail despite oxygen being available in the water being respired, or that aged/diseased respiratory systems still fail despite breathable oxygen - so this isn't a clear cut guarantee. What you can do though, is disprove that Humans can survive respiring other gasses.

With science, you can prove that viruses have a capacity to adapt.

Again, you can demonstrate it to be likely, but it isn't always the case - otherwise, how would we be able to create antiviral medication for example? How would our autoimmune system eradicate viral infections, etc.

I guess you’re glued to a world (gravity) that is sitting still (orbit) as you are slowly turning into something else that will better benifit you. (Apparently evolution)

Well, while the models prove to be successful and the results continue to be useful, then I'm good with that.

You and I could look at the same evidence and come up with different conclusion due to the way we view it.

Correct - so how do we work out who's right?

And what do you mean? “Not assuming uniformity, just accepting that there’s no evidence for it being any different?”

That is uniformity. Literally. The state of being uniform.

which would be the default position unless demonstrated to be otherwise, wouldn't you agree?

Also, if you accept that things have always been the same, why would there be a need for changes? By saying it doesn’t need to be complicated only presents the fact that it’s so fundamentally flawed that there’s no simplicity in it at all.

Again, why not accept the state we experience as it is if the scientific models we have explain the data accurately? If historical conditions match what we measure now, then I don't get what your issue is with it. Are you asserting there's a different state past?

 

[DogmaHunter]

OK then. Your scientific evidence in support of macroevolution will of course follow.

- Nested hierarchies
- geographic distribution of species
- observed speciation
- comparative anatomy
- comparative genetics
- the fossil record (and the pattern of distribution of fossils accross the various geological layers)
- ....


(each of these points consists of thousands upon thousands, even millions, of datapoints, that all independently from one another converge on the exact same answers: common ancestry and evolution)

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's just trying to start an argument.

And not just any argument...... but an argument that's been given a bazillion times and which has been debunked even more times.

 

[DogmaHunter]

First, I do respect your effort and integrity in answering my post. Second, I simply don't have the time, energy, or interest to continue this discussion any further.

There you go..........
Yep, that's always how it goes....

1, call evolution a "lie" and "back it up" with a complete misrepresentation of the science.
2, get corrected and come back with some snark comment
3, get a detailed explanation and exposure of how your creationist stuff is utterly wrong
4, run away or ignore the explanation
5, go back to "1"


But I will say, usually creationists aren't honest about point 4. So I guess you have that going for you.

What I have is this: everywhere you look in the universe you see design, purpose, and order. Look at a spider crafting a web. That's a computer program, there's nothing random about it. I think that design does not evolve out of cosmic sludge given time plus chance. It requires a designer. And the denial of that does not come from science facts, it comes from a fallen desire to rebel against God. We simply don't want God to exist so that we don't have to answer to Him. And man's science facilitates that rebellion and so replaces God with "an image made like corruptible man."

Evolution doesn't consider spider webs to be "random" or whatever. Furthermore, what you "think" or "believe" isn't actually relevant.

The presence of artificial design needs to be demonstrated, not just asserted.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not a hypocrite, really. That's the most honest thing I've said. This is not a subject that even interests me all that much

That it doesn't interest you, is indeed supported by your clear ignorance on the subject.
Which is fine, btw.

But one has to wonder.... how someone with NO interest in biology and as a result NO understanding of biology, can consider himself qualified to argue against biology and call it a "lie".

Maybe you should reflect on that for a bit.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Because none of us believe evolution is "random".
If my perception wasn't accurate, I wouldn't be alive.
i'ld cross the street and get crushed by a truck.
or I'ld jump out the window to get to downstairs, instead of taking the elevator.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

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.

I am glad someone gets the psychology of that.

On one hand, science is an alleged model for seeking truth, on the other hand, it is treated as a semi-conscious arbiter that is allegedly responsible for determining validity, reality and their value overall contributing to "truth." Religion, by another name - even while the most vocal SWEAR the opposite case.

One can understand another religion without it defining one's entire life around it, or even believing it. However, "science," as it were, is treated as the god of the godless, which is why things get so vicious when Daddy Science is attacked.

It doesnt help academia gets plenty of financial support. Academia and its lot is a mirror image of its arch-nemesis the Catholic Church. We should all be lucky academia has not started burning theists and creationists at the stake.


And, try being a scientist or mathematician disillusioned by academia and voicing that: excommunication.


But, nah academia isn't like religion at all. (Most religions don'teven believe in a god; they believe in IMAGES AND IDOLS. When people realize that they will likely understand their own exploitation.)

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes.

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

Scientific observation is just that. Observation.

Both observations and results, seems like a big deal to me...

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

I guess it's a good thing then, that nobody actually says that.
Instead, at best, we would say that science is currently, demonstrably, the most succesful tool we have to learn about reality.

Again, it’s a wonderful tool, but without intelligence, ironically, science is no different than a stick in the hand of an ape

Generally, scientists are pretty intelligent, last time I checked.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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?

"true" is that which corresponds to reality.
So to find out if a claim is "true", one needs to match it up against reality.

Science is quite good at that.
Religion? Not so much.

 

[KyleSpringer]

Because none of us believe evolution is "random".
If my perception wasn't accurate, I wouldn't be alive.
i'ld cross the street and get crushed by a truck.
or I'ld jump out the window to get to downstairs, instead of taking the elevator.

You’re implying a conscious choice to benifit yourself, while propegating that evolution occurs to “weed out” those who don’t adapt. If I don’t know how to use stairs, I would never be off of ground level. And if there were not intellect and a design for the truck, you would have no worries at all right?

There have been plenty of people hit by cars, and it wasn’t because they shoulda known better, but because people are indeed fallible creatures who’s senses are basically reliable but are not exempt from deception.

In other words, what’s to stop someone in a truck from plowing you down on the sidewalk?

Your world seems in perfect order until you’ve been ran over by someone who thinks THEIR world is in perfect order. So much wrong with that argument.

Evolution at its finest.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I
It doesnt help academia gets plenty of financial support. Academia and its lot is a mirror image of its arch-nemesis the Catholic Church.

The catholic church and science are enemies?
Did nobody inform you that the official stance of the vatican is the very opposite of creationist dogmatic doctrines we find in the US (and the middle east)?

The current pope even notoriously said "God is not a magician with a magic wand" when addressing the whole evolution/creationism issue.

We should all be lucky academia has not started burning theists and creationists at the stake.

You mean academia like Francis Collins, Ken Miller, etc... devout christians and world reknown evolutionary biologists?

But, nah academia isn't like religion at all. (Most religions don'teven believe in a god; they believe in IMAGES AND IDOLS. When people realize that they will likely understand their own exploitation.)

The reality is, that you are simply projecting your own dogmatism unto others.