Creation vs. Evolution

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm sorry what is before me, on me, or part of me isn't a matter of
faith it is what it is, what you believe about things that cannot be
shown right or wrong is not the same thing, you do not grasp that?
Kelly

What do you mean by "cannot be shown right or wrong"?

What I don't grasp, KJ, are your views on epistemology. You're constantly ragging on what the fallibilist takes to be knowledge, but you do it in a way that seems to be shamelessly hypocritical. You're scoffing at my previous question; but, again, you don't know with certainty that you have a head because you cannot dismiss the mere possibility that you are, in fact, a headless mind. So you're willing on one hand to welcome as knowledge (to the point of scoffing at the alternative) certain fallible belief* and then on the other hand to dismiss as knowledge other fallible belief merely on the grounds that it is fallible. That's inconsistent and makes no sense.

So this is what I want to know. I want to know why you think we can come to hold knowledge about our having heads but that we cannot come to hold knowledge about such things as the age of the universe.

-----------
*Here, I just mean 'fallible belief' in the sense that we cannot rule out the mere possibility that the belief is mistaken: the evidence is not sufficient to guarantee the truth of the belief.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
lol

KJ's faith sustains him. Bless.

Although he has a point. What if we are all like the matrix? and none of what we see, touch, feel, etc is real? only thought counts, and since we can't really share that except through see, touch, feel, etc, faith (as part of thought) becomes more rational than it would otherwise be. It certainly keeps KJ sane...

What if we are all like the matrix?

But one cannot just stop there. With real radical doubt, you either go big or you haven't gone at all. For instance, when Neo entered the "real world", all his experiences were again consistent with still being just a brain in a vat (or a brain-body in a goo-pod battery field). It really is like vistesd once said (paraphrasing here): that true radical doubt cannot buttress in a substantive way any world view. KellyJay's selective epistemic skepticism doesn't help him out, it just adds inconsistency. I also don't think he has a "point" -- he just has some bad epistemic notions.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]What if we are all like the matrix?

But one cannot just stop there. With real radical doubt, you either go big or you haven't gone at all. For instance, when Neo entered the "real world", all his experiences were again consistent with still being just a brain in a vat (or a brain-body in a goo-pod battery field). It really is like vist ...[text shortened]... istency. I also don't think he has a "point" -- he just has some bad epistemic notions.[/b]

It really is like vistesd once said (paraphrasing here): that true radical doubt cannot buttress in a substantive way any world view.

Would that I said, whatever I said, quite that well... 🙂

Originally posted by telerion
Again, it's a good thing our courts of law and really the rest of our society (apart from mysticism and religion) do not operate by this philosophy. It's absolutely useless.

Given that assuming the world to be an illusion gets us nowhere, let's agree to continue under the hypotheses that it is real and that our senses are not all lying to us all the tim ...[text shortened]... J, whether he'll admit it or not, lives by this assumption as does every other person alive.

You have nothing that tells you the earth or the universe is billions of
years old, you have eyes to see what is before, trust them or not. The
theories and assumptions made that give us clues into the age of the
universe either are what we think they are or they are not; you want to
trust and call factual what cannot be shown to be wrong, by all means
do so, but know it is faith on your part nothing else that makes that
leap, mysticism not required.
Kelly

Originally posted by snowinscotland
lol

KJ's faith sustains him. Bless.

Although he has a point. What if we are all like the matrix? and none of what we see, touch, feel, etc is real? only thought counts, and since we can't really share that except through see, touch, feel, etc, faith (as part of thought) becomes more rational than it would otherwise be. It certainly keeps KJ sane...

Do you have the ability to touch something and by that touch know
how old it is, how about looking at it, can you do that and know what
the age of something? If you tell me you have tests that can tell
the age, I have already said that tests alone do not give us the
certainity to call something true of factual!

As I pointed out before I can test a device after I stress it to make it
behave as if it were a certain age, or I can actually find a device at
the age I stressed it to and test it as well, both would behave the
same way! Meaning that age isn't the only thing that can affect my
device, and not having all the details only shows that testing alone
isn't enough to give us certainty on what our results really mean.

Your faith will take you where your going too like it or not since we are
all creatures of faith.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
What do you mean by "cannot be shown right or wrong"?

What I don't grasp, KJ, are your views on epistemology. You're constantly ragging on what the fallibilist takes to be knowledge, but you do it in a way that seems to be shamelessly hypocritical. You're scoffing at my previous question; but, again, you don't know with certainty that you ha lief is mistaken: the evidence is not sufficient to guarantee the truth of the belief.

If you do not see your head on your shoulders I suggest you look
south and inside another of your body parts! My point has been if is
in my possession I do not look for it, neither do I wonder if I have it or
not, if you tell me something that cannot be shown wrong or true, is
the truth I can either accept or reject it, I can try to with hold
judgment, but I'll lean one way or another. Your wish to compare the
heads on our bodies with the outcomes to tests without knowing all the
details surrounding the items being tested, our heads and your claims
are apples and oranges, and if you do not see that I doubt anything
can be said to enlighten you, you are a true believer and that is that.
The only true difference between us is I call what I believe faith, you
call your beliefs facts.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
My claims on the age of the earth is, "I do not know!"

I see as much reason to accept scripture as accept the reasons for
man, neither one provides anything we can call certainity. For me the
age of the earth is what it is, but with us, it is a matter of faith no
matter what age you believe to be true.
Kelly

I am still trying to understand your position as you are often very vague. When I mentioned dinosaur fossils you implied that you accepted it as fact that you could call certainty that dinosaurs once existed. Am I right about that or is their existence a matter of faith? Please clarify that for me and also, if I am right, explain why you feel that dinosaur are more believable than a 4 billion + year old earth

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am still trying to understand your position as you are often very vague. When I mentioned dinosaur fossils you implied that you accepted it as fact that you could call certainty that dinosaurs once existed. Am I right about that or is their existence a matter of faith? Please clarify that for me and also, if I am right, explain why you feel that dinosaur are more believable than a 4 billion + year old earth

You believe we can have fossils of creatures that never existed, that
seems well, very unlikely to me! Now the age of the universe being
4 billion years old, you have a certain method you trust? You have
no doubt nothing was over looked, no facts about your tests are
being over looked, no other reason outside of age can give you the
readings you are seeing, you KNOW you have all the details covered?
I'd say the odds that dinosaurs were real is much greater than the
outcomes of your tests are giving us what you think is true, both
may be real too, I have not denied that either.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't remember mentioning the evolutionary argument at all. Could you quote me and show me where I did? Or are you under the seriously mistaken impression that evolution is 'random chance'.

"3. The fossil came about via 'random chance' ie the atoms required to make the fossil just happened to end up in all the right places as to look like a fossil when actually it is just a highly improbable random configuration of atoms. "

I almost fell out of my chair when I read this line, you do not think
this is an evolutionary argument? I mean really, life just happened
and got larger and more complex over time, things just happened.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You believe we can have fossils of creatures that never existed, that
seems well, very unlikely to me! Now the age of the universe being
4 billion years old, you have a certain method you trust? You have
no doubt nothing was over looked, no facts about your tests are
being over looked, no other reason outside of age can give you the
readings you are se ...[text shortened]... giving us what you think is true, both
may be real too, I have not denied that either.
Kelly

I now understand your position. You simply do not have enough evidence to believe that the earth is millions of years old. I on the other hand do. Therefore, for me, it is not faith.
I have as much reason to believe that the earth is millions of years old as I do to believe that fossils are the remains of living creatures. The whole earth is a fossil it is so obvious to anyone with enough scientific education, there simply cannot be any doubt that the earth is millions of years old.
In fact your argument that I might have overlooked some facts amounts to the claim that all science may be wrong, but that it just as likely if not more so than you 'overlooking some facts' when looking at a fossil. There are just so so so many different pieces of evidence that point to the age of the earth and the universe that for all of them to be wrong (and I do mean all) is simply so unlikely that the only conclusion to draw would be that it was 'intelligently designed' ie the evidence was planted by someone intending to deceive.
I realize that you do not understand the science involved and thus can claim not to personally have the evidence but your argument still boils down to an accusation that all scientists are intentionally deceiving us and making things up. For them to all make the same mistake again points to intentional deception by God which you have already ruled out.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I almost fell out of my chair when I read this line, you do not think
this is an evolutionary argument? I mean really, life just happened
and got larger and more complex over time, things just happened.
Kelly

Nearly every single branch of science talks about how 'things just happen' according to the laws of the universe. Why did you single out evolution? Why not call it a 'relativity argument' or a 'Newtonian argument' or a 'plate tectonics argument'?
Or is it that you think that evolution is entirely made up of random changes with no processes involved? If so, then you need to do some studying before you open your mouth about evolution again.
The only truly 'just happened' element of 'the evolutionary argument' is abiogenesis (which isn't even part of the Theory of Evolution) and since there are well over a billion billion planets in the universe and I don't know how many molecules on the surface of those planets the chances of one molecule replicating in such a way as to later evolve into life is pretty high and for it to 'just happen' is an expected outcome.

Originally posted by LivingForJesus
okay in the old testment there we 48 predictions and they all came true in the new testement!!!! that is a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 in a thrillion chance of guessin that!!!!

how about maquiavel? why don't you believe in the coran, too?
You must mean 1 in a trillion.
I saw bible predictions, most are just like astrology predictions. They just fit in. And they require interpretation.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I now understand your position. You simply do not have enough evidence to believe that the earth is millions of years old. I on the other hand do. Therefore, for me, it is not faith.
I have as much reason to believe that the earth is millions of years old as I do to believe that fossils are the remains of living creatures. The whole earth is a fossil it ...[text shortened]... same mistake again points to intentional deception by God which you have already ruled out.

"Therefore, for me, it is not faith."

I cannot prove God is real, I believe it, it is faith, I do not say it is not
faith because I believe I have enough evidence. The difference again
is what you are willing to call a fact, I cannot call what you have a
fact, I call it belief on your part.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
I now understand your position. You simply do not have enough evidence to believe that the earth is millions of years old. I on the other hand do. Therefore, for me, it is not faith.
I have as much reason to believe that the earth is millions of years old as I do to believe that fossils are the remains of living creatures. The whole earth is a fossil it same mistake again points to intentional deception by God which you have already ruled out.

Another difference between you and I, I do not call someone a liar
who I disagree with just because they disagree. To lie means that
they are hiding truth for the purpose to do or get something, and
everyone who believes in an old universe does not lie, but believes
and speaks about what they believe to be true, just as and ID person
does, it isn't a lie to claim your beliefs.

For the record I believed long before the ID movement came about
that man didn't know how old the earth was, only guessed. I could
but don't say that those that preach an old universe are intentionally
being deceptive, but why would I if they actually are making the
claims they believe to be true. It is some what telling that the words
like 'deception' is used to color those that do not agree with the
facts as you see them.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Nearly every single branch of science talks about how 'things just happen' according to the laws of the universe. Why did you single out evolution? Why not call it a 'relativity argument' or a 'Newtonian argument' or a 'plate tectonics argument'?
Or is it that you think that evolution is entirely made up of random changes with no processes involved? If s ...[text shortened]... lve into life is pretty high and for it to 'just happen' is an expected outcome.

I called it the evolutionary argument because that was what came to
me while I read it! You do not see it? I believe life goes through
changes, just not the degree others do. Think about this, and apply
it to dead dirt or some other non-living substance, it just happened
and not only did the form appear, it became alive! You have some
record of that occuring, you have witnessed that, or is it just believed?
Kelly