Science ... NOT God ...

[Audie]

What's funny is, I didn't even mention levels of intelligence. You're likely not to believe me... but just go have a look. All I said was that the "intellectual behavior" of creationists debating their points tends to be quite an immature debacle to behold. This is just the truth as I see it. A person could be the most intelligent person in the world, but if they are still a creationist, and start in on the ridiculous, unfounded ideas of creationism that are constantly paraded around by that bunch... well... then, no matter how smart they are, they have just engaged in intellectual tomfoolery.

It would be a shock to the world if someone were actually able to INTELLECTUALLY HONESTLY provide inter-subjectifiably sound evidence for creationism. Like the kinds of evidence we have for evolution. Actual, demonstrable evidence. As it stands, there has never been any such thing presented. Not once.

One of my favourites is the saying that "We have all
the same evidence, but we interpret it through Gods
word, not the evolutionist paradigm."

Or SEDI, "same evidence, different interpretation".

You are right of course about shock to the world.
Solid data contrary to ToE would perhaps be the
start of the biggest scientific discovery of all time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Careful, your ego is showing. Socrates was considered smart because he was literally the only philosopher of the time who went on long tirades about how LITTLE he really knew, and how much he actually just assumed and guessed just like everyone else.

Yeah, I know that. I use know in the abstract sense. I know something is going on and I am a part of it. But what that really is, outside my experience of it, I don't know. What reality really is independent of my mind as "das Ding in sich" I don't know.
We are playing Kant and how it is impossible to talk about objective reality in itself.
So yes, I assume you and I are in the everyday world.

 

[Darkstorn]

Yeah, I know that. I use know in the abstract sense.

= You use it in a way that's not relevant / understandable / has your personal definitions for it. That's not really useful, now is it?

I know something is going on and I am a part of it.

I'm saying no human CAN know even that. I don't think you're using the word in as abstract sense as you think, as your usage seems to mirror my own. Knowledge is a very fleeting thing. ALL we REALLY have *at the moment* are well-educated guesses and assumptions at the very best, regarding anything. At worst, less convincing versions of those.

It's healthy to think that the only thing we really know, is that we don't know anything.

Think of it as related to truth: Truth seems to be subjective. To make any guesses regarding it, could not be reliably be called "knowledge."

My Buddhist bias shows in this: I am discouraged from making guesses regarding things i have no knowledge of. The Buddha himself famously declined to answers questions regarding existence or non-existence.

In accordance, in my view i can never know even if you or i really exist or don't exist. But it's healthy for me to assume one way or the other.

But what that really is, outside my experience of it, I don't know. What reality really is independent of my mind as "das Ding in sich" I don't know.
We are playing Kant and how it is impossible to talk about objective reality in itself.
So yes, I assume you and I are in the everyday world.

That last part is really the only part i find relevant to what i'm saying, and i agree. But here's something that relates to everything:

This is all metaphysics. By making this post, i am talking about things you are talking, so we're having a discussion. But it's definitely OFF-TOPIC to the actual discussion: It doesn't need people to come in and redefine what it means to be objective evidence. Oh and regarding that, objective evidence should be translated as "independently verifiable evidence." It's as close to objective as we can ever hope to get, but we filter it through our own perceptions which blurry the idea of objective quite heavily. Therefore, discussion like this should be left out of threads that concern themselves about evidence.

Make a thread about philosophy and talk your stuff there, that's my suggestion. Interjecting this stuff into non-related discussion is just muddying the waters and answering nothing.

Sorry for this long off-topic post.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That there might be more to religion than that.

That's true for literally everything one attemtps to explain.
There "might" be more to gravity that mass just bending space and time. There "might" be undetectable graviton fairies playing some unknown role as well. How would you know? It's not like you can exclude them....

So it hardly qualifies as a "problem" concerning my answer.
Unless you have proper evidence to add to your bare assertion. So, do you have any?

So we end here:
Human behavior: religion | Definition & List of Religions
Religion is not a thing, it is a set of human behavior, that might be more than cognition errors.

As explained above, a bare assertion that merely "might be" the case, is not sufficient to counter empirical explanatory power.

The entire universe and everything it contains "might be" created just last thursday, after all.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
I'm saying no human CAN know even that. I don't think you're using the word in as abstract sense as you think, as your usage seems to mirror my own. Knowledge is a very fleeting thing. ALL we REALLY have *at the moment* are well-educated guesses and assumptions at the very best, regarding anything. At worst, less convincing versions of those.

It's healthy to think that the only thing we really know, is that we don't know anything.

Think of it as related to truth: Truth seems to be subjective. To make any guesses regarding it, could not be reliably be called "knowledge."

My Buddhist bias shows in this: I am discouraged from making guesses regarding things i have no knowledge of. The Buddha himself famously declined to answers questions regarding existence or non-existence.

In accordance, in my view i can never know even if you or i really exist or don't exist. But it's healthy for me to assume one way or the other.

Well, first off forget "I" - I think, therefore I am - is nothing but something is going and there are is something else, which is not the first something, i.e the experiences that come to "me".
But what are those two cases of something? I don't know, but I know something is going and one is subjective and the other objective. But all it is, are placeholders for something and something else.

In the western tradition that is a kind of abstract knowledge in the tradition of Descartes. Now whether the evil demon was fooling him or not, he didn't know, but he knew he could be fooled by something. So a subject and something fooling the subject or maybe not. Something(the subject) and something else(not the subject) or if you like subjective and objective reality in relationship to each other.
That was what I meant by abstract knowledge. I do know this, it just doesn't tell me if I am a Boltzmann Brain or not.

That last part is really the only part i find relevant to what i'm saying, and i agree. But here's something that relates to everything:

This is all metaphysics. By making this post, i am talking about things you are talking, so we're having a discussion. But it's definitely OFF-TOPIC to the actual discussion: It doesn't need people to come in and redefine what it means to be objective evidence. Oh and regarding that, objective evidence should be translated as "independently verifiable evidence." It's as close to objective as we can ever hope to get, but we filter it through our own perceptions which blurry the idea of objective quite heavily. Therefore, discussion like this should be left out of threads that concern themselves about evidence.

Evidence is used, because metaphysics doesn't work and evidence is the assumption that we are not being fooled and we can trust our sense and reasoning. But God hide in the Gap of that, because what if God is the first unmoved mover? Well, back to metaphysics and that we can't know.
Evidence is connected to this.

Make a thread about philosophy and talk your stuff there, that's my suggestion. Interjecting this stuff into non-related discussion is just muddying the waters and answering nothing.

Sorry for this long off-topic post.

Well, it answers this: There is no positive privileged position in metaphysics and that connects to how we deal with what science and religion can do in practice.
So, yes, it is connected. And I like your long off-topic post.

 

[Jollybear]

You keep reading though, don't you?

I keep reading, NOT because your right about me, but because your wrong and i wanna figure out why you believe and hold so strongly to your ad hominems. Why you wont let them go.

Its not because i care what you think on me. Its because i care to figure out YOU.

 

[Jollybear]

No, i'm saying the reason i'm posting to begin with is light entertainment. Your reaction has nothing to do with it, and i actually would prefer for you to feel better. I'm trying to say that showing delusional behavior is going to be taken as delusional behavior.



Yes, but you making a straw man is also trolling.



It doesn't involve that much trying. Either you're doing it for entertainment too, or your self-admitted frustrations. I say both are valid, i'm just saying my way is better for my mental well-being.

Ok, let me put it like this: if your not trolling and you think i am, in your world can someone get angry for being trolled? Or is anger at such things audamatically delusional behavoir, sckitso minded?

 

[Jollybear]

What's funny is, I didn't even mention levels of intelligence. You're likely not to believe me... but just go have a look. All I said was that the "intellectual behavior" of creationists debating their points tends to be quite an immature debacle to behold. This is just the truth as I see it. A person could be the most intelligent person in the world, but if they are still a creationist, and start in on the ridiculous, unfounded ideas of creationism that are constantly paraded around by that bunch... well... then, no matter how smart they are, they have just engaged in intellectual tomfoolery.

It would be a shock to the world if someone were actually able to INTELLECTUALLY HONESTLY provide inter-subjectifiably sound evidence for creationism. Like the kinds of evidence we have for evolution. Actual, demonstrable evidence. As it stands, there has never been any such thing presented. Not once.

Im gonna go out on a limb here and ask this.

Ill pretend to assume for the sake of my question that all creationists are intellectually dishonest.

Ok, why do you think that is?

 

[ratiocinator]

Ill pretend to assume for the sake of my question that all creationists are intellectually dishonest.

Ok, why do you think that is?

Faith.

Here is an intellectually honest creationist (more than most, anyway): The truth about evolution

"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion....
...
Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you."

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I keep reading, NOT because your right about me, but because your wrong and i wanna figure out why you believe and hold so strongly to your ad hominems. Why you wont let them go.

Its not because i care what you think on me. Its because i care to figure out YOU.

"Hold so strongly to [my] ad hominems?" What is this supposed to mean? What personal attack (not argumentation) do I keep "holding onto?" This only further illustrates that you simply do not know what the term "ad hominem" means. And this after I gave you a clear definition and examples. You need to simply stop using that term. I could barely take you seriously as it was.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Im gonna go out on a limb here and ask this.

Ill pretend to assume for the sake of my question that all creationists are intellectually dishonest.

Ok, why do you think that is?

From my interactions with creationists, there is insistence that there is evidence on par with (or supposedly even better than) evidence for evolution. This is simply false, and I am of the mind that the creationists themselves realize this, because when asked to provide their purported evidence (which a great many people handily do for the case of evolution CONSTANTLY) they have never done anything more than:

1. try and provide evidence they think runs contrary to evolution (as if this proves their case for creationism - completely dishonest)
2. point to unverifiable sources like The Bible
3. point at things and argue that those things had to have had "a creator" - but without the ability to demonstrate even one single piece of compelling evidence that displays where the creator left His mark, or how the rest of us could possibly accept that "the creator" is evident in the make-up of these things.

I don't know about you - but all of that simply reeks of intellectual dishonesty. Especially so when it is claimed that there exists some "creation science" that has made scientific findings regarding creation - which, again, usually end up being nothing more than trying to discredit evolution, or pointing out that proof/evidence for a hypothesis like abiogenesis remains currently unattained, etc. There's never any positively-applied evidence FOR creationism. None.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Dust is comprised of fine earth particles and organic materials.

Any of the genetic information from any of those creatures could be contained in the "dust" to create Adam's physical body.

Yeah, DEAD STUFF! According the literalists, death didn't come into the world until Adam sinned.

<cue the tap dance>

 

[Wandering Monk]

Faith.

Here is an intellectually honest creationist (more than most, anyway): The truth about evolution

"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion....
...
Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you."

A point I keep butting up against: Why does creationism feel compelled to invoke science? I thought religion was about faith!

 

[Jollybear]

Faith.

Faith huh? So im gonna beg the question here. Why do they choose to have "faith" in creationism over evolution? Why do YOU think they do?

Here is an intellectually honest creationist (more than most, anyway): The truth about evolution

"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion....

Ok, so hes saying he believes in evolution, so hes not consistent, which THAT makes him actually intellectually dishonest through the inconsistency.

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives.

See, hes contradicting himself. How is that intellectually honest?

It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

"

Ok, so from your view, why does he choose faith in the bible then?

 

[Jollybear]

From my interactions with creationists, there is insistence that there is evidence on par with (or supposedly even better than) evidence for evolution. This is simply false, and I am of the mind that the creationists themselves realize this, because when asked to provide their purported evidence (which a great many people handily do for the case of evolution CONSTANTLY) they have never done anything more than:

1. try and provide evidence they think runs contrary to evolution (as if this proves their case for creationism - completely dishonest)
2. point to unverifiable sources like The Bible
3. point at things and argue that those things had to have had "a creator" - but without the ability to demonstrate even one single piece of compelling evidence that displays where the creator left His mark, or how the rest of us could possibly accept that "the creator" is evident in the make-up of these things.

I don't know about you - but all of that simply reeks of intellectual dishonesty. Especially so when it is claimed that there exists some "creation science" that has made scientific findings regarding creation - which, again, usually end up being nothing more than trying to discredit evolution, or pointing out that proof/evidence for a hypothesis like abiogenesis remains currently unattained, etc. There's never any positively-applied evidence FOR creationism. None.

Ok, soooooo, if theres no evidence for creationism, why do they believe it then?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Ok, soooooo, if theres no evidence for creationism, why do they believe it then?

I've been asking them that for years. Still haven't heard a good excuse. I'm being 100% serious.

 

[Jollybear]

I've been asking them that for years. Still haven't heard a good excuse. I'm being 100% serious.

Whats your theory of why they choose faith in the bible over evolution?

 

[Polymath257]

Whats your theory of why they choose faith in the bible over evolution?

Mine is mostly upbringing. There is some fear of loss of control if their religion is undermined. And, of course, it takes some discipline and mental ability to learn enough to really understand what is going on in evolution. Most people don't want to commit that much time and energy to the issue, so they take the word of their religious leader.

 

[Jollybear]

Mine is mostly upbringing. There is some fear of loss of control if their religion is undermined. And, of course, it takes some discipline and mental ability to learn enough to really understand what is going on in evolution. Most people don't want to commit that much time and energy to the issue, so they take the word of their religious leader.

So, can the same be said of those who believe in evolution. Upbringing? And take the word of the scientists?

 

[Polymath257]

So, can the same be said of those who believe in evolution. Upbringing? And take the word of the scientists?

The biggest difference is that the scientists are legitimate authorities because they actually do the field or lab work to establish their positions.