Evolution of the evolution threads...

Originally posted by sonhouse
I do not attempt to promote my stances here by bringing
in scripture, yet you are willing bring my faith/religion into this
discussion for the very reason to question my motives.

Those are your words. You don't have to quote script to imply what you really mean. Your motive is clear. How many of the links we provided did you actually read? That goes to your lack of real interest in science.

Oh please, you question my interest in science? You have drawn me
into discussions about faith as much as anyone else. Quit asking
questions or making comments about faith and religion you will see
a drop off of those topics from me in this forum as well. If you'd quit
bad mouthing it when it isn't suppose to be a topic of discussion here
you'd hardly ever see it, try avoiding it and see who in this tread
brings it up first.
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Let's talk faith in the Spiritual Forum. You and me. Perhaps there we can learn much from eachother.

Look up my thread: “make a “science and religion” in the “site ideas” forum -I would like your opinion on it 🙂

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Look up my thread: “make a “science and religion” in the “site ideas” forum -I would like your opinion on it 🙂

There is a reason the two topics get mixed every now and again.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Oh please, you question my interest in science? You have drawn me
into discussions about faith as much as anyone else. Quit asking
questions or making comments about faith and religion you will see
a drop off of those topics from me in this forum as well. If you'd quit
bad mouthing it when it isn't suppose to be a topic of discussion here
you'd hardly ever see it, try avoiding it and see who in this tread
brings it up first.
Kelly

I have never heard anything but scepticism from from you, never affirmation. What area of science are you actually interested in? I repeat my question: Do you ever bother to read any of the links we provided?

Originally posted by KellyJay
There is a reason the two topics get mixed every now and again.
Kelly

Yes -often because certain parts of science apparently logically contradicts the Creationist’s story so some of the Creationists try to rubbish at least those parts of science.
But sometimes they try to rubbish the whole of science rather than just those parts of it that contradicts their beliefs as a strategy to avoid appearing to have selective bias against only the parts of science that contradict their beliefs else such selective bias would be a blatant logical inconsistency.

P.S. I certainly don’t have any problem with science and religion being discussed together by people that are not just simply trying to rubbish science or any part of it. Even when people that ARE just simply trying to rubbish science, I don’t have a big problem with that -because there are always people like me that like to point out the flaws in the arguments against science.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I have never heard anything but scepticism from from you, never affirmation. What area of science are you actually interested in? I repeat my question: Do you ever bother to read any of the links we provided?

yes
Kelly

Originally posted by Eladar
Do you think you know God's intentions? Without understanding intentions, it is impossible to make predictions.

That's laughable.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Yes -often because certain parts of science apparently logically contradicts the Creationist’s story so some of the Creationists try to rubbish at least those parts of science.
But sometimes they try to rubbish the whole of science rather than just those parts of it that contradicts their beliefs as a strategy to avoid appearing to have selective bi ...[text shortened]... ere are always people like me that like to point out the flaws in the arguments against science.

You can fabricate many things and say it is science in some twisted
way, but the thing that matters is, does it fit reality not so much
science because we can get things wrong by using science unless
of course you want to say we are infallible.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You can fabricate many things and say it is science in some twisted
way, but the thing that matters is, does it fit reality not so much
science because we can get things wrong by using science unless
of course you want to say we are infallible.
Kelly

So no method of judging physical reality (and it is physical reality that we are talking about here) is infallible and that includes scientific method.
But scientific method is still overwhelmingly the best tool for judging physical reality simply because it is based on reason and evidence (and that is all scientific method is really all about: i.e. basing conclusions entirely on reason and evidence )

So, what alternative do you have to using scientific method to judge physical reality?
-blind faith in the Bible? -religious scriptures? -or what?
Do you even claim to have a better alternative to using scientific method to judge physical reality?
-if so, what is this alternative?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Here's your problem, KellyJay. I believe that we can be 'largely certain,' or have a 'vague sense of
certainty' on given issues.

Whether you acknowledge it or not, you do indeed live this way. You're largely certain that when
you wake up, you'll be in your house. You're largely certain that your family will still be there.
You're largely certain ...[text shortened]... the embracing
of the irrational, which is antithetical to science.

Nemesio

I did not get to the post you asked of me this weekend, I'm sorry
I'll attempt to work on it this week.
Kelly

Originally posted by Badwater
We cannot know what it is that 'God', or whatever you're referring to as a creative source, has at its disposal. What tools or methods are being employed? What is not being used? How would we know?

We can't know, so as much as you might want to not engage in describing what we find, I don't see how that's logically feasible. I think you're setting up impossible constraints on the unknowable.

Intelligent Design has as a basic assumption that people can intuitively tell whether something has been designed. Can God design something and people would not be able to tell it had been designed? If so, ID is wrong...which it is!

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Intelligent Design has as a basic assumption that people can intuitively tell whether something has been designed. Can God design something and people would not be able to tell it had been designed? If so, ID is wrong...which it is!

Can't that be applied to the whole universe? Can anyone tell if it was 'designed'?

(1) If the Universe is so fantastic and improbable, then it must been designed by an intelligent being, god, right?
(2) This being, god, is even more fantastic and improbable so this being must be designed by an even more intelligent being, gods god, or super god, right?

One objection I've heard is this:
(3) God isn't designed and created, he has always been, he is the ultimate one, right?
So in the same spirit I say:
(4) Universe isn't designed and created, it has always been, it is the ultimate one, right?

There is a relationship between (1) and (2), and between (3) and (4), right?

I say that if god is not designed and created then universe cannot be designed either.
But if god is designed and created by a supergod, then it's possible that the univere is designed and created too.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
(1) If the Universe is so fantastic and improbable, then it must been designed by an intelligent being, god, right?
(2) This being, god, is even more fantastic and improbable so this being must be designed by an even more intelligent being, gods god, or super god, right?

One objection I've heard is this:
(3) God isn't designed and created, he has al and created by a supergod, then it's possible that the univere is designed and created too.

I believe that to be a perfectly logically self-consistent analysis 🙂

It is a pity that some people don’t worry much about being logically self-consistent and tend to use one kind of logic for assessing one hypotheses but then be logically inconsistent by using a totally different kind of logic for assessing another hypotheses.

You on the other hand rationally correctly try and see here what happens if you use exactly the same kind of logic for assessing all hypothesises.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
(1) If the Universe is so fantastic and improbable, then it must been designed by an intelligent being, god, right?
(2) This being, god, is even more fantastic and improbable so this being must be designed by an even more intelligent being, gods god, or super god, right?

One objection I've heard is this:
(3) God isn't designed and created, he has al ...[text shortened]... and created by a supergod, then it's possible that the univere is designed and created too.

Who told you God was designed, or had a beginning?
Kelly