Evidence, specifically scientific evidence.

[Audie]

Actually the bonds are very weak and proteins break down and so the author of 'Biochemical Predestination" the most pervasively used biochemical evolution book of the 60's rethought his positions and wore Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins the intelligent design book and is holding to that position now.

That looks like cut and paste

 

[exchemist]

Reality exists both objectively and subjectively. Reality is, after all, 'what is'. What we think of as "reality", however, is an intellectual construct based on our subjective experience, knowledge, and reasoning; speculating about what exists beyond these. And it does not exist apart from our own minds. For this reason, what we call "objective reality" is a logically incoherent state, as by it's own definition, it cannot be accessed by (as it is set apart from) the very mind that conjured the idea up.

I struggle with this.

When you write of "reality" in the 1st line, and claim it is objective, you can only mean "what we think of as reality", because it is you and I reading your words and thinking about their meaning.

In line 4 you say it does not exist apart from our own minds.

How can reality be both "objective" and yet exist only in our own minds?

There seems to be a disappear-up-your-own-ar5ehole quality to this reasoning.

 

[ecco]

I'll take that bet.

I am ever the optimist.

I am ever the realist.

 

[PureX]

I struggle with this.

Yes, because the idea of reality can't be objective, and yet is being presumed to be.

When you write of "reality" in the 1st line, and claim it is objective, you can only mean "what we think of as reality", because it is you and I reading your words and thinking about their meaning.

In line 4 you say it does not exist apart from our own minds.

How can reality be both "objective" and yet exist only in our own minds?

It can't. Which is why the concept of "objective reality" is incoherent. It refers to a reality apart from us, which by definition cannot be ascertained to exist, by us. (Somewhat similar to "God", when you think about it.)

There seems to be a disappear-up-your-own-ar5ehole quality to this reasoning.

And yet scientism presumes "objective reality" to be the determinant of all truth.

 

[ecco]

:"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 naughts after is... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." Sir Fred Hoyle

Several other people have already commented on Hoyle and Pandas.

Let me take a different approach.

Statistically, YOU cannot exist.

The average human ejaculation is 200,000,000 sperm.

That YOU exist is one chance in 200,000,000. If any other sperm had impregnated your mother's egg, YOU would not exist. Someone like you might exist, but YOU would not.


Likewise, YOUR FATHER's existence is a 1 in 200,000,000 chance accident.
Likewise, YOUR FATHER's FATHER's existence is a 1 in 200,000,000 chance accident.

In just 10 generations, the odds of YOU existing is just 1 in 1.204e+81
1 in 1204000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

If you believe that first man appeared 6000 years ago, that's 240 generations.

I'll let you do the math. Oh, wait. YOU cannot do the math because YOU cannot exist.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It will be their "reality", regardless, just as yours is yours.

But will the real Earth go flat?

You think your intellectual construct is more "real" (and true) than theirs because you adhere to "objective evidence", but even your presumption of "objectivity" is logically incoherent, and is heavily biased in favor of relative functionality. And the fact that you apparently don't or can't understand this, and don't want to try just underscores the inhibiting effect that bias is having in terms of any honest pursuit of truth and/or wisdom.

Post-modernism set to 11.

 

[PureX]

But will the real Earth go flat?

How would this matter? If what works for us a real and true, works for us as real and true, how would it matter to us if it wasn't? How would we even know, and why would we care? ... Until it stops working, or something that works better comes along? And when something does come along that works better as real and true (like a spherical Earth), how would we know if it really was or not? And why would care if it wasn't so long as it worked for us being real and true?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

How would this matter?

Yes.

Will the Earth go flat just because I believe it is flat?

Until it stops working, or something that works better comes along?

How do you determine when something stops working or something better comes along?

 

[PureX]

Will the Earth go flat just because I believe it is flat?

How would this matter? If what we think is real and true works for us as though it's real and true, how would it matter to us if it wasn't? How would we even know that it wasn't? And why would we care? ... Until it stops working, or an idea of reality and truth that works better for us comes along? And when a better idea does come along that works better for us as real and true (like a spherical Earth), how would we know if it was 'really true' this time, or not? And why would we care so long as it worked for us being real and true?

How do you determine when something stops working or something better comes along?

It increases your quality of life, and the quality of life of those you effect.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

How would this matter?

I happen to think that what happens in reality matters. Do you?

If what we think is real and true works for us as though it's real and true, how would it matter to us if it wasn't?

What do you mean by "works for us"? How do you determine if something "works"?

And when a better idea does come along that works better for us as real and true (like a spherical Earth), how would we know if it was 'really true' this time, or not?

How do you determine if an idea is "better"?

It increases your quality of life, and the quality of life of those you effect.

How do you measure quality of life?

 

[PureX]

I happen to think that what happens in reality matters. Do you?

You keep ignoring my point. What we call "reality" is whatever works relative to our limited perception, limited experience, and limited ability to understand things. Not long ago we conceived of the world as being flat. Tat was our reality. That was our truth. And we were fine with that, because it 'worked' as being real and true in our lives. When we climbed a mountain and looked around, we could see that the world was flat. Eventually, though, the way we lived our lives changed, and our ability to travel was greatly extended, and this conception of reality no longer worked for us, so had to search for a new one: a different concept of reality that did work. That was a spherical world. So now, we all include this conception as part of our reality and truth, and we will continue to hold onto this one until it no longer works for us, and we discover some new and better conception of the world that works better for the way we live, then.

The reason our conceptions of reality "matter" is because they work, or because they don't. THAT'S what matters: their relative functionality. We call it "reality" and we call it "truth", but all it really is, is relative (subjective) functionality. Which is why it keeps changing.

What do you mean by "works for us"? How do you determine if something "works"?

How do you determine if an idea is "better"?

How do you measure quality of life?

These are question that we each have to determine for ourselves. And some of the answers we will likely agree on, while some we likely will not. For the creationist, the concept of creationism 'works'. That's why they hold onto it, and maintain it, and defend it. This concept may not work for you or I, but that's our own business. That's a determination we've made for ourselves. Do you think other people should be allowed to make that determination for us? Do you think we should be allowed to make that determination for others? IO would say 'no' to both.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You keep ignoring my point. What we call "reality" is whatever works relative to our limited perception, limited experience, and limited ability to understand things.

You are saying that "whatever works" is whatever we want it to be, which means that you think reality can be whatever we say it is. For a person that actually cares about what reality is actually like, such thinking is nonsense. It's worthless post-modernism.

Once, our reality conceived of the world as being flat.

False. People once conceived of the world being flat, not reality. People were wrong. How do we know? The facts from reality contradicted what we believed. Reality trumps belief. Reality trumps what works for us. However, in your post-modernism view of the world, beliefs trump reality. Reality just becomes whatever we want it to be. If the idea of the world being round makes me sad and doesn't work for me, then the reality is that the world is flat, according to your philosophy.

 

[PureX]

You are saying that "whatever works" is whatever we want it to be,

When did I say this?

... which means that you think reality can be whatever we say it is.

Reality IS whatever we believe it is. We are determining what we think/believe is "real".

For a person that actually cares about what reality is actually like, such thinking is nonsense. It's worthless post-modernism.

I think you're just reacting badly to a concept that you can't get your head around. The concept that what we humans think reality is, and what it actually is are two very different things. The first you can't escape from, and the second you will never know.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

When did I say this?

It is in every one of your posts. If I decide that a flat earth works for me then that's reality. That's what you have been saying.

The concept that what we humans think reality is, and what it actually is are two very different things.

So the world really is round even if we believe it is flat?

The first you can't escape from, and the second you will never know.

If your epistemology does not allow us to determine that the world is either flat or round then your epistemology is pretty useless.

 

[PureX]

It is in every one of your posts. If I decide that a flat earth works for me then that's reality.

Then it's YOUR reality. It's YOUR TRUTH. It's what works as real and true, for you. I don't see why this would be so hard for you to grasp.

So the world really is round even if we believe it is flat?

The "world" is a human concept derived from human perception, experience, and intellect. It is whatever you think it is, AND it is whatever else it is, regardless of what we think.

If your epistemology does not allow us to determine that the world is either flat or round then your epistemology is pretty useless.

As I've already stated, "truth" is about functionality, for we humans. What is, is whatever works for us as being what is.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Then it's YOUR reality. It's YOUR TRUTH. It's what works as real and true, for you. I don't see why this would be so hard for you to grasp.

I am not asking what is true to me. I am asking what is true in reality.

The "world" is a human concept derived from human perception, experience, and intellect. It is whatever you think it is, AND it is whatever else it is, regardless of what we think.
As I've already stated, "truth" is about functionality, for we humans. What is, is whatever works for us as being what is.

Like I said, I see no value in solipsism and post-modernism. Everyone being right means no one is right. There is a real universe out there and I don't see why we can't determine what it is like.

 

[PureX]

I am not asking what is true to me. I am asking what is true in reality.

It's all reality, so it's all "true". Including our myths and delusions and ignorance. The problem is that we cannot transcend our own consciousness, so as to realize that it, too, is a part of the observed.

Like I said, I see no value in solipsism and post-modernism. Everyone being right means no one is right.

No one is right. Ut we all think we are.

There is a real universe out there and I don't see why we can't determine what it is like.

Why can't the mushroom 'see' the forest that is it's source, sustenance, purpose, and home?

 

[paarsurrey]

This thread is on the concept of scientific evidence. A concept that creationists seem to avoid understanding. Wikipedia has an excellent article on the topic, but of course other sources are welcome. This article:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

Starts with this clear definition:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

I will gladly discuss this or other well supported definitions of scientific evidence along with examples of evidence and how the details of the definition apply.

But "science" does not claim that it presents the whole reality, it presents material and physical facets in the realty, and even that in temporary and relative terms please.
Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

But "science" does not claim that it presents the whole reality, it presents material and physical facets in the realty, and even that in temporary and relative terms please.
Regards

Did I ever say that it does more than that? This thread exists because many theists, especially creationists, do not seem to understand the nature of evidence. It exists so that various theists can quit making the error of saying that there is no evidence for an idea simply because it runs contrary to their faith.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It's all reality, so it's all "true". Including our myths and delusions and ignorance.

And that is where we disagree. What I believe about the Earth is not the reality of the Earth.

The problem is that we cannot transcend our own consciousness, so as to realize that it, too, is a part of the observed.

We don't need to "transcend our own consciousness". That's just a bunch of hippy woo.

We can make predictions about what will observe out in reality, and then see if those predictions are true. That's how we check to see if what we believe is true.

Why can't the mushroom 'see' the forest that is it's source, sustenance, purpose, and home?

Because the mushroom doesn't have eyes.