The Binding of Satan

[TagliatelliMonster]

Measuring temperature is not about determining whether something is hot or cold.

Except for the fact that tempurature is like literally the unit in which we express exactly how cold or hot something is.

I never said anything about guessing the temperature with a finger.

It was just an example of me to illustrate the difference between objective and subjective.
Since you seem to have trouble understanding the difference between those two words.

Design is not about materials, and what they are made of, or not made of, and if it has a logo, or company name.

Design itself is not, that is true.
However, all those things play a role in DETECTING design.

Design involves, as I said, those parts (whatever material) being assembled in a particular, or precise location, to allow for a particular function, in order to reach a particular goal, or purpose.

That is simply not correct.

I can design things that don't pass those criteria at all.
And we can find undesigned things in nature that do satisfy those criteria.


So, your definition is lacking, since we can find examples on both sides that don't fit your defintion.

Every evolutionist makes the claim you do, but that's all it is - a claim. I can make many of those as well.

The difference is that my claim is supported by actual evidence.

The objective evidence is this...
It requires intelligence to give information containing instructions for designed objects.

You need to be more specific.
"To give information" - give what to what / who?

It requires intelligent agents to construct a designed object.

Designed objects have a designer, yes.

For every cause there is an effect.

So?

Didn't you say those 3 statements were "objective evidence"?
So what are they evidence for and how?

The testimony of the witnesses are in line with the objective evidence.

What evidence?
Those 3 vague statements?

Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.

Another claim.

How so?

It's explained in the quote you are responding too. I don't know how to put it any simpler.

If I claim that a mouse climbed onto the table, and ate the cheese, how is that a belief?

Do you claim that said mouse did that, while not believing it to be true?
Don't you believe (= accept as accurate) that said mouse climed on the table and ate the cheese?

Do you have a habbit of claiming things as true while not actually believing them to be true?

You may call it a belief

It is. You believe it. That's why you're claiming it.
If you didn't believe it, you wouldn't be claiming it.

It is a claim that is true

And that is what you believe.

, whether you accept it or not.

Indeed. Beliefs and accuracy aren't the same thing.
You might have been mistaken. It could have been a rat instead of a mouse.
Nonetheless, you make the claim and you believe said claim - why else would you claim it?

All that's left, is for me to prove it... but how can I? I did not have a CCTV running in my kitchen.

Well, for starters... it's not an extra ordinary claim. It's not like you're claiming the mouse had wings or that it died and resurected 3 days later.

Mouses exists. They tend to tresspass into human place to look for food. Not unusual there. So simply due to our previous experience and knowledge about these animals, the evidence bar is naturally set lower then when you make fantastical claims, obviously.

In fact, if i knew from experience that you were a trustworthy person, I might not even need any evidence at all and just take your word for it.

Having said that, you could still go for circumstantial evidence...
Perhaps we can find some mouse fecies. Or perhaps there is a piece of cheese left with mouse teeth marks. Perhaps there is a trail on the kitchen floor of its dirty mouse-feet. You might even find some mouse hair and run a DNA test on it to prove "a" mouse was present. Perhaps you can set a mousetrap and catch said mouse when it returns.

Lots of possibilities to raise the credibility of this claim.

Let's not pretend as if you could do something remotely like that for your religious claims.

However, if there were more witnesses, that objective opinion is not only true, but verified.

First of all, there's no such thing as an "objective opinion". There you go again, showing how you don't comprehend what "objective" means. Opinions are subjective by very definition.

It may not be believed by you.

10 people could have seen the event and all 10 people could be mistaken about it being a mouse if it was a rat instead. They could all be mistaken about the cheese, it could have been something else as well.

It's not even unthinkable that they were all mistaken about the whole thing, since it's not at all unimaginable that they all made the same mistake while interpreting the shadow of a bird passing the window.

And let's be serious here.... because the claim that you saw a mouse is off course anything but on par with the religious claims you are pretending this is analogous to....

To make this claim truelly analogous, we would have to change this claim to something like the mouse having wings and speaking english.

And you know as well as I do, that not even 100 "witnesses" claiming to have seen such a mouse, would EVER be enough to actually even only consider such claim. Because there's no such thing as english speaking mouses with wings.

Just like there is no such thing as walking on water, making the blind see with a handwave, turning water into wine, resurecting the dead or talking serpents.

You can also repeat the same mistake, because of assuming that you have corrected the mistake, when you only partly fixed it.

True. And you'll then hit a dead-end.
Your model will not work.

In essence, this isn't any different then having a partially incorrect, or incomplete, theory.
Take Newtonian physics. Works very well when application is restricted to medium sized objects traveling at medium speeds and served everybody well for several centuries.

But science continues to progress. And then suddenly, we came accross speeds and masses where Newtonian physics wasn't accurate any more. It didn't work. It failed to predict correctly what would happen.
Then Einstein came along and improved Newtonian physics by adding relativity.

See?

When your model is in error, sooner or later it will be exposed as such.
You might not know immediatly what the error is, but you'll know there is an error, since the model won't work to accuratly describe reality.

So then comes the million dollar question:
how do you know that what you believe is incorrect, unless you can test it against obeservable reality?

So, what does DNA tell you? It doesn't tell you, that you came from a munkey, or to be more precise, that you are a fish, or worm.

Except that it does. It's all in there. The result of at least 3.8 billion years of genetic history.

Yes. It tells you that you have human ancestors, but we already knew that, didn't we?

It also tells us we share ancestry with the other living things on this planet.
The technology that tells us that you and I share human ancestors, is the same technology that tells us we also share ancestors with the other primates, the other mammals, the other tetrapods, the other vertebrates, etc.

To single the human ancestry out as "special" and to deny the rest, is to engage in extreme special pleading for no other reason that incompatible religious beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

At the judgment satan will be destroyed in hell. The reason it is all taking so long is that as a father, God wants to give satan chance to repent.

That "chance giving" seems a bit strange, if it is already known before hand that he won't repent and be destroyed during judgement.

As a matter of fact, it seems incredibly irresponsible and evil to let the very incarnation of pure evil lose on planet earth, if it is already known before hand that only misery will come from it and that he'll eventually be destroyed anyway.

That's a bit like a court judge letting a convicted and incorrigable pedophile go free to "give him a chance to repent" and then sent him to go live at a school with unlimited access to children, while KNOWING that he won't be changing his ways nore repent at any point and just continue his pedophile ways.

Personally, I'ld give such a judge the beating of a life-time if given the chance.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Satan isn't a real being. He is a metaphor for our evil inclination. What Jesus is purported to have said merely highlights the fact that he was part of first century Jewish culture.

 

[nPeace]

As the Biblical god is supposed to have created everything it created dear old Satan as well. So the blame for human wickedness is down to it.

If the Biblical God created everything, then he must have created the pistol, so he must be blamed for people getting filled with lead.

The Bible says, God created angels - spirit beings. It doesn't say God created Satan.
Satan means opposer. The chief angel that opposed God, thus made himself Satan.
The blame for all evil, must therefore rests on the angel - Satan - who opposed good.

 

[nPeace]

Except for the fact that tempurature is like literally the unit in which we express exactly how cold or hot something is.

What does that have to do with me? You are the one going on about temperature.

It was just an example of me to illustrate the difference between objective and subjective.
Since you seem to have trouble understanding the difference between those two words.

So you tripped up on your own example...
Seems to me you are the one having the problem... explaining the difference between objective and subjective.
This is what I meant by having head knowledge, and lacking reasoning ability.

Design itself is not, that is true.
However, all those things play a role in DETECTING design.
Not true.

You don't need to see a logo, in order to determine design.
The type of materials are not the important thing.

That is simply not correct.

I can design things that don't pass those criteria at all.
And we can find undesigned things in nature that do satisfy those criteria.


So, your definition is lacking, since we can find examples on both sides that don't fit your defintion.

Please. By all means, Give me one example.

The difference is that my claim is supported by actual evidence.

That's also a claim.
We all can claim we have evidence for this or that, and the evidence supports our claim.
The evidence supports my view, not yours. See how that goes:?

You need to be more specific.
"To give information" - give what to what / who?

What? I don't get what you don't get. Don't tell me that statement left you bamboozled.

Designed objects have a designer, yes.


So?

Didn't you say those 3 statements were "objective evidence"?
So what are they evidence for and how?
Again? Which post are you reading?


What evidence?
Those 3 vague statements?

Now I am bamboozled.

Another claim.


It's explained in the quote you are responding too. I don't know how to put it any simpler.


Do you claim that said mouse did that, while not believing it to be true?
Don't you believe (= accept as accurate) that said mouse climed on the table and ate the cheese?

Do you have a habbit of claiming things as true while not actually believing them to be true?



It is. You believe it. That's why you're claiming it.
If you didn't believe it, you wouldn't be claiming it.

What is this.. a joke?
So you choose to call every witnessed event a belief?
You are more interesting than I realized. I'm right about reasoning ability.
You have head knowledge, but apparently it doesn't seem to be much use to you.... unless you are not serious.

And that is what you believe.

It is a confirmation.

Indeed. Beliefs and accuracy aren't the same thing.
You might have been mistaken. It could have been a rat instead of a mouse.
Nonetheless, you make the claim and you believe said claim - why else would you claim it?

That's it. I'm done.
This kind of skepticism is clearly not in the bar of rationality.

Well, for starters... it's not an extra ordinary claim. It's not like you're claiming the mouse had wings or that it died and resurected 3 days later.

Mouses exists. They tend to tresspass into human place to look for food. Not unusual there. So simply due to our previous experience and knowledge about these animals, the evidence bar is naturally set lower then when you make fantastical claims, obviously.

In fact, if i knew from experience that you were a trustworthy person, I might not even need any evidence at all and just take your word for it.

Having said that, you could still go for circumstantial evidence...
Perhaps we can find some mouse fecies. Or perhaps there is a piece of cheese left with mouse teeth marks. Perhaps there is a trail on the kitchen floor of its dirty mouse-feet. You might even find some mouse hair and run a DNA test on it to prove "a" mouse was present. Perhaps you can set a mousetrap and catch said mouse when it returns.

Lots of possibilities to raise the credibility of this claim.

Let's not pretend as if you could do something remotely like that for your religious claims.

This is interesting.
So you are saying that you don't accept things you don't normally see, due to the fact that they are extraordinary. Yet you believe in extraordinary claims, like four foot land animals becoming whales, and coded instructions coming into existence without an intelligence.
Interesting belief system.

First of all, there's no such thing as an "objective opinion". There you go again, showing how you don't comprehend what "objective" means. Opinions are subjective by very definition.

Oh, they didn't fill your head with that stuff. That's a shame. Perhaps you should broaden your knowledge base, and it would be advantageous acquiring reasoning ability.
To the contrary, there is such a thing as objective opinion.
I'm actually surprised you didn't take the time to investigate, rather than just making the claim.
Or am I assuming you didn't?

10 people could have seen the event and all 10 people could be mistaken about it being a mouse if it was a rat instead. They could all be mistaken about the cheese, it could have been something else as well.

It's not even unthinkable that they were all mistaken about the whole thing, since it's not at all unimaginable that they all made the same mistake while interpreting the shadow of a bird passing the window.

And let's be serious here.... because the claim that you saw a mouse is off course anything but on par with the religious claims you are pretending this is analogous to....

To make this claim truelly analogous, we would have to change this claim to something like the mouse having wings and speaking english.

And you know as well as I do, that not even 100 "witnesses" claiming to have seen such a mouse, would EVER be enough to actually even only consider such claim. Because there's no such thing as english speaking mouses with wings.

Just like there is no such thing as walking on water, making the blind see with a handwave, turning water into wine, resurecting the dead or talking serpents.

I'm not sure you are being serious.

True. And you'll then hit a dead-end.
Your model will not work.

In essence, this isn't any different then having a partially incorrect, or incomplete, theory.
Take Newtonian physics. Works very well when application is restricted to medium sized objects traveling at medium speeds and served everybody well for several centuries.

But science continues to progress. And then suddenly, we came accross speeds and masses where Newtonian physics wasn't accurate any more. It didn't work. It failed to predict correctly what would happen.
Then Einstein came along and improved Newtonian physics by adding relativity.

See?

When your model is in error, sooner or later it will be exposed as such.
You might not know immediatly what the error is, but you'll know there is an error, since the model won't work to accuratly describe reality.

Why question something that is right?
When you must question whether something works, it means that you have made a proposition you are not sure of, and it works based on the many assumptions on why it works.
So for example Dark Matter in, relativity out....
Oh wait. Not a chance.
Einstein Was Right! Scientists Confirm General Relativity Works With Distant Galaxy
The standard model is a theory which describes how fundamental forces and particles in the universe work and behave together, and it aims to explain our observations and experiments. However, our lack of understanding and explanation of dark matter and dark energy, "the two biggest mysteries in cosmology today," according to Oswalt, lead some to question the standard model.

"I doubt astronomers will be giving up the standard model of cosmology anytime soon," Oswalt said. So, instead of abandoning the standard model, researchers look to "make the models more precisely explain the observed data," he added.

So then comes the million dollar question:
how do you know that what you believe is incorrect, unless you can test it against obeservable reality?

The same way we know that what you believe is incorrect.
We test it against observable reality.
I gave you that in my previous post, but it flew over your head apparently.
Sadly, skeptics mislead themselves into thinking that only people that walk around with the title "scientist", are able to experiment, observe, study, and come to any knowledge.

That's worth a million dollars...?

Except that it does. It's all in there. The result of at least 3.8 billion years of genetic history.


It also tells us we share ancestry with the other living things on this planet.
The technology that tells us that you and I share human ancestors, is the same technology that tells us we also share ancestors with the other primates, the other mammals, the other tetrapods, the other vertebrates, etc.

To single the human ancestry out as "special" and to deny the rest, is to engage in extreme special pleading for no other reason that incompatible religious beliefs.

Apparently you believe it's okay to engage in extreme special pleading for your own philosophical belief. Why accuse others of your own methods?
DNA does not tell us anything beyond what we can know. It doesn't tell us what you imagine.
It's the same with homology.

It's okay to have hope and faith though. It's nothing to be ashamed of... unless an unhealthy pride is getting the mastery over you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What does that have to do with me? You are the one going on about temperature.

I'm trying to explain to you the difference between subjective and objective. But apparantly, it's not sinking in.

So you tripped up on your own example...

No. You're just too dense.

Seems to me you are the one having the problem... explaining the difference between objective and subjective.

..or you comprehending the explanation?
I don't know how I can simplify it anymore then I already did.

You don't need to see a logo, in order to determine design.
The type of materials are not the important thing.

If you come accross an object, with NO signs of manufacturing at all (no logo, no 'made in taiwan', no manufactured materials, no signs of tool use, ....) then you have no way to conclude design, as it is signs of manufacturing that suggest artificial design. Not "function" or "purpose" or "complexity".

Please. By all means, Give me one example.

A walking cane.
I can take a random stick and pull the leaves etc off and call it a walking cane. But I could also use it as a weapon. Or door stop. So by itself, the stick has no real "purpose or function". The purpose or function is imposed on it by the one using it for whatever reason. And unless I really manipulate the stick (for example by sanding and / or painting it, carving letters in it, putting a leather handle on it etc), the stick would look pretty much like any other stick you might find in a forrest with the leaves eaten of by any animal.

So the way one could differentiate that designed stick from a random natural stick, is by pointing to signs of manufacturing (the carving, the sanding, the painting, the leather handle,...).

On the other hand, we can look at a natural mountain formation, where the mountains have a clear function in the climate conditions of the valley. This function is not "intended" or "planned" before hand. The mountain is not "created for that purpose". It rather naturally takes on that function, just by existing.

That's also a claim.
We all can claim we have evidence for this or that, and the evidence supports our claim.
The evidence supports my view, not yours. See how that goes:?

The objective evidence of evolution (or any other science for that matter) can be found in the more then 200.000 scientific papers on the subject.

Where can we review "your" evidence?

What? I don't get what you don't get. Don't tell me that statement left you bamboozled.

Your sentence as written just didn't make any sense to me. I think you ommitted some crucial information.

What is this.. a joke?

No. More like a "state the obvious" kind of thing.
Kind of incredible that I need to explain that if one makes a claim about something, that that person then also implicitly expresses belief.

Claims and beliefs go hand in hand.
One believes the claims one makes - why else would one make the claim?
If you have a belief, then that implies that there is some claim that you accept as being accurate. That is what "to believe" means. Literally.

So you choose to call every witnessed event a belief?

If you claim to have witnessed event X, aren't you then saying that you believe event X occured????

You are more interesting than I realized. I'm right about reasoning ability.
You have head knowledge, but apparently it doesn't seem to be much use to you.... unless you are not serious.

When you are done with the ad hominims and ready to actually address the points.....


It is a confirmation.

That's it. I'm done.
This kind of skepticism is clearly not in the bar of rationality.

Not automagically assuming that mere claims and beliefs reflect reality and instead assuming that claims and beliefs can be wrong, is "not in the bar of rationality"????????

Owkay then!!!

This is interesting.
So you are saying that you don't accept things you don't normally see, due to the fact that they are extraordinary.

Not exactly. I'm saying that the "sufficient" part in "sufficient evidence" is relative in context of the claim.
The more extra-ordinary the claim, the higher the evidence bar.

This is why you don't believe in things like alien abduction at mere face value. Extra-ordinary claims, require extra-ordinary evidence. The more mondaine the claim, the lesser evidence is required to reasonably accept said claim.

Yet you believe in extraordinary claims, like four foot land animals becoming whales, and coded instructions coming into existence without an intelligence.
Interesting belief system.

That is an extra-ordinary claim for sure.
It is also supported by extra-ordinary evidence. Mountains and mountains of it.

Just like relativity of time is an extraordinary claim. Or black holes. Or quantum mechanics.
All of which are also supported by sufficient evidence.

You seem to think that I'm saying that no extra-ordinary claim should ever be believed. This is not true at all. I'm just saying that not all claims are equally likely / plausible a priori. And the amount and/or quality of evidence that would be sufficient to support a claim, is in direct proportion with how extra-ordinary the claim is.

Claims of the supernatural, are widely extra-ordinary and aren't supported by sufficient evidence at all.
I'ld have no problem at all accepting claims of the supernatural (just like I'ld have no problem accepting claims of alien abduction), if they can be supported by sufficient evidence. But they can't, so I don't.

Oh, they didn't fill your head with that stuff. That's a shame. Perhaps you should broaden your knowledge base, and it would be advantageous acquiring reasoning ability.
To the contrary, there is such a thing as objective opinion.
I'm actually surprised you didn't take the time to investigate, rather than just making the claim.
Or am I assuming you didn't?

Again: opinions are subjective by definition.

You are welcome to give an example of an "objective" opinion.
Don't forget to explain how it's objective...

I'm not sure you are being serious.

Why wouldn't I be?
If 100 people who attended a concert of Jay Z and claimed to have witnessed Jay Z literally transform into a reptilian alien and then turn human again, would you believe their "testimony"?
Or would you rather assume that they must have been mistaken or hallucinating?

People claim a lot of things and people are oftenly mistaken.

Why question something that is right?

How do you know something is right unless you question it?
I say you can not. To conclude that something is right you'ld have to test that something. And when you test something, you are literally questioning it.

When you must question whether something works, it means that you have made a proposition you are not sure of, and it works based on the many assumptions on why it works.
So for example Dark Matter in, relativity out....
Oh wait. Not a chance.
Einstein Was Right! Scientists Confirm General Relativity Works With Distant Galaxy
The standard model is a theory which describes how fundamental forces and particles in the universe work and behave together, and it aims to explain our observations and experiments. However, our lack of understanding and explanation of dark matter and dark energy, "the two biggest mysteries in cosmology today," according to Oswalt, lead some to question the standard model.

"I doubt astronomers will be giving up the standard model of cosmology anytime soon," Oswalt said. So, instead of abandoning the standard model, researchers look to "make the models more precisely explain the observed data," he added.

Not sure what your point is here.
Scientists are aware of problems in their current models. So they investigate and seek ways to resolve those problems. And in doing so, some will try to "marry" conflicting models, others will question present models, even others will try and come up with an entirely different model,...


What is the problem?

Btw: all these approaches have something in common: none of them are accepting current models at face value without questioning.

The same way we know that what you believe is incorrect.
We test it against observable reality.
I gave you that in my previous post, but it flew over your head apparently.

Now you're contradicting yourself, since you presented "witness testimony" as being sufficient to believe things, completely ignoring that "testimonies" are just claims. Claims that need to be tested against observable reality, in order to see if they are accurate or not.

Sadly, skeptics mislead themselves into thinking that only people that walk around with the title "scientist", are able to experiment, observe, study, and come to any knowledge.

Not at all. Rather, if you are trying to get to accurate and trustworthy answers, you'ld better use trustworthy methods of inquiry.

You don't need to have a phd to properly apply a valid method of inquiry in your reasoning.
Wheter evidence is valid or not, is not dependend on any titles. It is dependend on the nature of the evidence and the means by which the evidence was acquired.

Or, in other words, you don't need to be a scientist to differentiate objective evidence from subjective opinions.

Apparently you believe it's okay to engage in extreme special pleading for your own philosophical belief.

Where and how have I done that?

Why accuse others of your own methods?

I don't understand. I'm not being selective in which evidence I will and will not accept, depending on my a priori religious dogmatism.

DNA does not tell us anything beyond what we can know. It doesn't tell us what you imagine.

It's the same with homology. ​

Common ancestry is not imagined or superimposed. It is rather concluded from the actual data. Data, like DNA.

I'm sorry if you can't comprehend that.
Once more: the genetic technology / knowledge / theories that are used to determine who your biological parents / siblings etc are, is the exact same genetic technology / knowledge / theories that are used to determine that chimps and humans share ancestors, while humans and cats share older ancestors and humans and birds share even older ancestors, etc.

If you are going to claim that DNA can't help in determining ancestral bloodlines, then you are also saying that paternal DNA testing (to see who the biological father of some child is) doesn't work.

If you don't think that is the case, then you may explain why.

It's okay to have hope and faith though. It's nothing to be ashamed of... unless an unhealthy pride is getting the mastery over you.

I have no reason to have "hope" or "faith" regarding history.
I have no emotional attachment nore "preference" to any particular theory of origins.

I'm happy to go where the evidence takes us.

Sounds like you are projecting a bit there...

 

[nPeace]

I'm trying to explain to you the difference between subjective and objective. But apparantly, it's not sinking in.



No. You're just too dense.



..or you comprehending the explanation?
I don't know how I can simplify it anymore then I already did.



If you come accross an object, with NO signs of manufacturing at all (no logo, no 'made in taiwan', no manufactured materials, no signs of tool use, ....) then you have no way to conclude design, as it is signs of manufacturing that suggest artificial design. Not "function" or "purpose" or "complexity".



A walking cane.
I can take a random stick and pull the leaves etc off and call it a walking cane. But I could also use it as a weapon. Or door stop. So by itself, the stick has no real "purpose or function". The purpose or function is imposed on it by the one using it for whatever reason. And unless I really manipulate the stick (for example by sanding and / or painting it, carving letters in it, putting a leather handle on it etc), the stick would look pretty much like any other stick you might find in a forrest with the leaves eaten of by any animal.

So the way one could differentiate that designed stick from a random natural stick, is by pointing to signs of manufacturing (the carving, the sanding, the painting, the leather handle,...).

On the other hand, we can look at a natural mountain formation, where the mountains have a clear function in the climate conditions of the valley. This function is not "intended" or "planned" before hand. The mountain is not "created for that purpose". It rather naturally takes on that function, just by existing.



The objective evidence of evolution (or any other science for that matter) can be found in the more then 200.000 scientific papers on the subject.

Where can we review "your" evidence?




Your sentence as written just didn't make any sense to me. I think you ommitted some crucial information.



No. More like a "state the obvious" kind of thing.
Kind of incredible that I need to explain that if one makes a claim about something, that that person then also implicitly expresses belief.

Claims and beliefs go hand in hand.
One believes the claims one makes - why else would one make the claim?
If you have a belief, then that implies that there is some claim that you accept as being accurate. That is what "to believe" means. Literally.



If you claim to have witnessed event X, aren't you then saying that you believe event X occured????



When you are done with the ad hominims and ready to actually address the points.....


It is a confirmation.



Not automagically assuming that mere claims and beliefs reflect reality and instead assuming that claims and beliefs can be wrong, is "not in the bar of rationality"????????

Owkay then!!!





Not exactly. I'm saying that the "sufficient" part in "sufficient evidence" is relative in context of the claim.
The more extra-ordinary the claim, the higher the evidence bar.

This is why you don't believe in things like alien abduction at mere face value. Extra-ordinary claims, require extra-ordinary evidence. The more mondaine the claim, the lesser evidence is required to reasonably accept said claim.




That is an extra-ordinary claim for sure.
It is also supported by extra-ordinary evidence. Mountains and mountains of it.

Just like relativity of time is an extraordinary claim. Or black holes. Or quantum mechanics.
All of which are also supported by sufficient evidence.

You seem to think that I'm saying that no extra-ordinary claim should ever be believed. This is not true at all. I'm just saying that not all claims are equally likely / plausible a priori. And the amount and/or quality of evidence that would be sufficient to support a claim, is in direct proportion with how extra-ordinary the claim is.

Claims of the supernatural, are widely extra-ordinary and aren't supported by sufficient evidence at all.
I'ld have no problem at all accepting claims of the supernatural (just like I'ld have no problem accepting claims of alien abduction), if they can be supported by sufficient evidence. But they can't, so I don't.



Again: opinions are subjective by definition.

You are welcome to give an example of an "objective" opinion.
Don't forget to explain how it's objective...



Why wouldn't I be?
If 100 people who attended a concert of Jay Z and claimed to have witnessed Jay Z literally transform into a reptilian alien and then turn human again, would you believe their "testimony"?
Or would you rather assume that they must have been mistaken or hallucinating?

People claim a lot of things and people are oftenly mistaken.



How do you know something is right unless you question it?
I say you can not. To conclude that something is right you'ld have to test that something. And when you test something, you are literally questioning it.



Not sure what your point is here.
Scientists are aware of problems in their current models. So they investigate and seek ways to resolve those problems. And in doing so, some will try to "marry" conflicting models, others will question present models, even others will try and come up with an entirely different model,...


What is the problem?

Btw: all these approaches have something in common: none of them are accepting current models at face value without questioning.



Now you're contradicting yourself, since you presented "witness testimony" as being sufficient to believe things, completely ignoring that "testimonies" are just claims. Claims that need to be tested against observable reality, in order to see if they are accurate or not.




Not at all. Rather, if you are trying to get to accurate and trustworthy answers, you'ld better use trustworthy methods of inquiry.

You don't need to have a phd to properly apply a valid method of inquiry in your reasoning.
Wheter evidence is valid or not, is not dependend on any titles. It is dependend on the nature of the evidence and the means by which the evidence was acquired.

Or, in other words, you don't need to be a scientist to differentiate objective evidence from subjective opinions.



Where and how have I done that?




I don't understand. I'm not being selective in which evidence I will and will not accept, depending on my a priori religious dogmatism.



Common ancestry is not imagined or superimposed. It is rather concluded from the actual data. Data, like DNA.

I'm sorry if you can't comprehend that.
Once more: the genetic technology / knowledge / theories that are used to determine who your biological parents / siblings etc are, is the exact same genetic technology / knowledge / theories that are used to determine that chimps and humans share ancestors, while humans and cats share older ancestors and humans and birds share even older ancestors, etc.

If you are going to claim that DNA can't help in determining ancestral bloodlines, then you are also saying that paternal DNA testing (to see who the biological father of some child is) doesn't work.

If you don't think that is the case, then you may explain why.



I have no reason to have "hope" or "faith" regarding history.
I have no emotional attachment nore "preference" to any particular theory of origins.

I'm happy to go where the evidence takes us.

Sounds like you are projecting a bit there...

You obviously don't know what design is.
Refocusing...
Is using homology to determine common descent objective, or subjective? Could you explain.

 

[Tiberius]

The reason Satan still seems to be so active is that the church has failed to realise the full extent of what Christ has achieved.

Isn't that like saying that criminals in jail are still able to commit crimes because the general population has failed to realise the full extent of what the courts have done?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You obviously don't know what design is.

Refocusing...
Is using homology to determine common descent objective, or subjective? Could you explain.

You got that backwards. Homology isn't used to "determine" common descent.
Homologous structures is what we call structures that have common origins.

The determining has already been done.

And yes, the process of determining common ancestry of species or shared ancestry of structures, is an objective process. It's a scientific process.

 

[nPeace]

You got that backwards. Homology isn't used to "determine" common descent.
Homologous structures is what we call structures that have common origins.

The determining has already been done.

And yes, the process of determining common ancestry of species or shared ancestry of structures, is an objective process. It's a scientific process.

So, am I correct is concluding that you are saying homology is objective evidence? It doesn't appear you explained. Do you care to?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, am I correct is concluding that you are saying homology is objective evidence? It doesn't appear you explained. Do you care to?

Homology is the name used to group features that have been determined to have common origins.

Yes, it is objective evidence.

Exactly what we would expect from a process like evolution.

 

[nPeace]

Homology is the name used to group features that have been determined to have common origins.

Yes, it is objective evidence.

View attachment 30275

Exactly what we would expect from a process like evolution.

Okay, so you don't care to explain how it is objective evidence.
Apparently you are satisfied to just make claims.

No instrument was used to tell you anything. Just like the finger and mind, the eyes and mind are being used.
There is no difference between the two.

If the former is subjective, the latter is also.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay, so you don't care to explain how it is objective evidence.

Because the process of determining common ancestry of certain structures etc, is an objective process. It is based on predictions and testing of those, and conversion of multiple independent lines of evidence.


Did you think that when such things are determined, that it's just some biologist expressing his opinions?

Apparently you are satisfied to just make claims.

No instrument was used to tell you anything. Just like the finger and mind, the eyes and mind are being used.
There is no difference between the two.

If the former is subjective, the latter is also.

 

[nPeace]

Because the process of determining common ancestry of certain structures etc, is an objective process. It is based on predictions and testing of those, and conversion of multiple independent lines of evidence.


Did you think that when such things are determined, that it's just some biologist expressing his opinions?

"Did you think that when such things are determined, that it's just some biologist expressing his opinions?"
That's right.
The tests carried out in these cases, are all done with the eyes and mind. Like the finger and the mind, they are subjective.
For example, homology is determined by a subjective method.
Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals...

Why are you rolling your eyes?
I can only interpret that to mean, you have nothing to say.
Where does that leave me?

Note. I made a point, you failed to respond to.
That usually is a submission of an incapability to respond with anything that can refute the argument.
Care to adjust your response?

Apparently you are satisfied to just make claims.

No instrument was used to tell you anything. Just like the finger and mind, the eyes and mind are being used.
There is no difference between the two.

If the former is subjective, the latter is also.
Do you disagree? Then could you make some sort of meaningful contribution, so that I can appreciate what valid or reasonable objection you have for doing so?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Homology is the name used to group features that have been determined to have common origins.

Yes, it is objective evidence.

View attachment 30275

Exactly what we would expect from a process like evolution.

It is evidence corroborated by genetics as well, so it is very good evidence.

Good luck on trying to have a rational discussion with someone.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"Did you think that when such things are determined, that it's just some biologist expressing his opinions?"
That's right.

LOL!!!!

I so hope you'll ever find yourself in a court case concerning determining biological ancestry of some kid and then telling the judge, after the DNA test outcome isn't to your liking, in "your defense" that this test isn't valid, because it's just some biologist's opinion

Dear me.....

The tests carried out in these cases, are all done with the eyes and mind. Like the finger and the mind, they are subjective.

Congratulations.
You just have thrown all of science in the garbage bin.

To be consistent and not a hypocrite, you should now move into a (natural) cave somewhere and swear of any and all technology.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

LOL!!!!

I so hope you'll ever find yourself in a court case concerning determining biological ancestry of some kid and then telling the judge, after the DNA test outcome isn't to your liking, in "your defense" that this test isn't valid, because it's just some biologist's opinion

Dear me.....




Congratulations.
You just have thrown all of science in the garbage bin.

To be consistent and not a hypocrite, you should now move into a (natural) cave somewhere and swear of any and all technology.

When creationists are confronted with facts and having no where to run, his is the sort of response I have come to expect.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

LOL!!!!

I so hope you'll ever find yourself in a court case concerning determining biological ancestry of some kid and then telling the judge, after the DNA test outcome isn't to your liking, in "your defense" that this test isn't valid, because it's just some biologist's opinion

Dear me.....




Congratulations.
You just have thrown all of science in the garbage bin.

To be consistent and not a hypocrite, you should now move into a (natural) cave somewhere and swear of any and all technology.

That does seem like the next natural step, since he lives in an intellectual and metaphorical cave now.

 

[nPeace]

LOL!!!!

I so hope you'll ever find yourself in a court case concerning determining biological ancestry of some kid and then telling the judge, after the DNA test outcome isn't to your liking, in "your defense" that this test isn't valid, because it's just some biologist's opinion

Dear me.....

Apparently I am not the only sensible person who don't close their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears, and scream in their mind, "science is objective, full-stop."

Perhaps you should join the ones on the side of reasonableness, and sensibility...

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

EVOLUTION: A Grand Monument to Human Stupidity
...we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion.

What do you think ideas and explanations are? What are interpretation? Yes.Opinions are involved. That's why there are usually adjustments made, to what they assume. One can only go so far in deciphering evidence.

Congratulations.
You just have thrown all of science in the garbage bin.

To be consistent and not a hypocrite, you should now move into a (natural) cave somewhere and swear of any and all technology.

No. Not all science at all. There is good science, and then there is the rubbish you believe, imo.
I believe rubbish do belong in the garbage bin.

You are asking me to believe in stupidity... like you do.
I could appreciate why you would do that.
Hypocrisy is evident in a lot of people today, but I don't find it is present in most of those who follow Christian standards. I find it's mostly present in persons who are godless though.

We were discussing subjectivity as opposed to objective, but since, you seem to be finished with that, then that's the end of that.
Thank you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Apparently I am not the only sensible person who don't close their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears, and scream in their mind, "science is objective, full-stop."

Perhaps you should join the ones on the side of reasonableness, and sensibility...

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

EVOLUTION: A Grand Monument to Human Stupidity
...we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion.

What do you think ideas and explanations are? What are interpretation? Yes.Opinions are involved. That's why there are usually adjustments made, to what they assume. One can only go so far in deciphering evidence.


No. Not all science at all. There is good science, and then there is the rubbish you believe, imo.
I believe rubbish do belong in the garbage bin.

You are asking me to believe in stupidity... like you do.
I could appreciate why you would do that.
Hypocrisy is evident in a lot of people today, but I don't find it is present in most of those who follow Christian standards. I find it's mostly present in persons who are godless though.

We were discussing subjectivity as opposed to objective, but since, you seem to be finished with that, then that's the end of that.
Thank you.

There is no great divergence in the opinion of biologists and other scientists over the theory of evolution being the best explanation for the facts and observations. You are attempting to make arguments by scientists over the details equivalent to dissent regarding the theory. This is not true nor logical.

Good science is not science that supports your belief system. No matter how many times you repeat this erroneous claim, it will not become true. What you believe to be true about Genesis is refuted by a vast amount of good science.

I find that, among creationists, hypocrisy and ignorance are thriving.