Originally posted by telerionStop posting good stuff. I'm running out of recs...
The fundamental crux of KJ's argument rests upon an equivocation. The word 'faith' when it has been used to describe the Creationist position means something like "belief in a proposition that is independent of and not contingent upon all observation." That Jesus created the world in 6 days with all the current "kinds" (nebulous term) represented is to KJ ...[text shortened]... cientific method and thus the two should not be used interchangeably.
I demonstrated the profound flaw in this equivocation; that is what I
would call 'blind faith' -- or faith in something in the absence or, worse
yet, in spite of evidence -- and what you are (wisely) calling inference.
The flaw is one of the weight of evidence. Ideally (but not always in
practice), science will create, adopt, reject and abandon theories as
evidence is brought in, measured, quantified and verified. The more
independent, concordant sources of evidence a theory has, the stronger
the theory. When conflicts arise, controls are set up to isolate the
influential factors.
KellyJay would have it that all theories about what has happened in the
past are 'merely faith.' We have to have 'faith' that the laws of
physics haven't change. But he doesn't weigh that faith -- that such
changes as we would insist were necessary would have astronomical
(and I don't mean that figuratively) implications on how the universe
unfolded.
Once, I asked, that if he thought it was a matter of faith that he
experienced yesterday rather than having the memory planted in his
brain (a la 'The Matrix,' say) by a computer. He agreed. For him,
everything is a matter of faith, and he would have it that it is purely
opinion that a person might choose to place his/her faith in this or that.
And, consequently, a person would have to have faith just to believe
that there is anyone else in the universe, even right now as you sit
reading this post. It could just be some massive computer
simulation and, in fact, you are alone in the universe.
Well, that sort of nonsensical thinking is just absurd. Some 'faith' is
better placed than others, and we make these decisions every moment
of every day. If this were not the case, we would have to qualify
every single thing we said and did and experienced. You have to
take on faith that your computer exists, that a human being wrote this
post, that you are indeed seeing it with your own eyes and processing
it, &c &c &c.
As Telerion rightly and cogently said, science is merely the collection of
group observation. Can that observation be wrong? Yes. Can it be
misunderstood? Yes. Can a scientific theory be proven incorrect?
Absolutely!
And that's the beauty of science! Scientists are encouraged to
prove things wrong, encouraged to show how a certain theory is
flawed or resting on a false premise. In regards to evolution, that
which Darwin first proposed has been modified, expanded, with
elements discarded as being misinterpreted observations. And, I
would hope, that Darwin would applaud such things, just as Stephen
Hawking applauded those scientists who showed that his theories
about space/time were likely to be wrong (I don't remember the details
offhand).
A Creationist's faith cannot be shaken, for it doesn't hinge on observation,
proof to the contrary doesn't influence it. A scientist has no faith other
than the idea that his/her observations and experiences (and those
of his/her colleagues) are not false. A scientist who is unwilling to
relinquish his/her hold on a theory in spite of evidence is no scientist
at all.
If KellyJay is willing to admit that all theories about how the universe
unfolded are equally plausible -- that God created it in 6 days, that it
evolved over 15 billion years, that the Demiurge took a dump in a
cosmic toilet bowl, or that it only exists in our minds -- then what does
it mean? Why pick one over another? Taste? Comfort? Aesthetics?
If KellyJay (or whoever) is willing to concede that some theories have
greater merit than others, then let him (or whoever) provide the criteria
for weighing the evidence for the theories.
For my part, I will weigh the collection of data through observation as
pretty compelling material.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioAnd that's the beauty of science! Scientists are encouraged to
Stop posting good stuff. I'm running out of recs...
I demonstrated the profound flaw in this equivocation; that is what I
would call 'blind faith' -- or faith in something in the absence or, worse
yet, in spite of evidence -- and what you are (wisely) calling inference.
The flaw is one of the weight of evidence. Ideally (but not always in
practice ...[text shortened]... ction of data through observation as
pretty compelling material.
Nemesio
prove things wrong, encouraged to show how a certain theory is
flawed or resting on a false premise.
Or, the immediacy of the 'scientific method' is what makes it true. Whatever we know right now is true; what happens in the future? Who knows. Right now is all we have.
Good stuff. [where is that sacrastic smiley, again?]
Originally posted by KellyJayTry reading through my post again.
The frame work may be different, but the result is the same, faith and beliefs are the bottom line. You want to say one frame work is better than another, I’d even agree with you, but because it is faith and belief and not what we call facts and reality, the possibility of being wrong exists. Assumptions are made and counted upon, and if they are wrong, the ...[text shortened]... than another group of people making claims on the universe as they see and understand it.
Kelly
I never said one framework is better than another. They're completely different and can't be compared.
The point of my post was to offer some you and everyone else respite from the zealots - on both sides.
Don't misrepresent my views and then start getting stuck into them unless you're clear what it is I'm saying.
I'm agreeing with you that all viewpoints - religious and scientific - are to some extent based on faith. However, this does not mean they are the same or should be treated in the same way - note here I'm not saying one is better than another or one is more truthful than another. They build their understandings of the world in completely different ways - the 'frameworks' I mentioned. They don't mix, and shouldn't mix - the endless tooing and froing of this thread is a perfect example of that.
Originally posted by telerionLike I have said on a number times, what I have is faith it is a
The fundamental crux of KJ's argument rests upon an equivocation. The word 'faith' when it has been used to describe the Creationist position means something like "belief in a proposition that is independent of and not contingent upon all observation." That Jesus created the world in 6 days with all the current "kinds" (nebulous term) represented is to KJ ...[text shortened]... cientific method and thus the two should not be used interchangeably.
position of belief, I cannot prove it. Now you want to make some
comparison for example your,
"Despite everything we have learned about physical processes from many years of observing, testing, and cataloguing natural phenomena, lions, tigers, and bears were originally strict vegetarians."
Okay, yes and according to my beliefs the window for vegetarian
animals were quite small so all observation of these creatures
since the flood would not be as vegetarians, and I don't ever recall
using these as a point for or against evolution. Now what I have
said is that your position on life changing from say a simple cell
creature over time through the (your beliefs) evolutionary time
line evolving into everything from whales to grass has not been
observed. Yet, if I were to read just from scripture it teaches that
everything would multiply after their own kinds, and what do we
see? Creatures multiplying according to their kinds Your selective
in your complaints against my objections, you do not hold your side
to the same standards you attempt to hold me too. I have not
attempted to bring in my religion into this, but you do. Either the
beliefs in what people say evolution did is true or it isn't, it is either
believable or not, what my beliefs about creation hold do not add
too or take away from if evolution is true or not.
Kelly
Originally posted by amannionAgreed.
Try reading through my post again.
I never said one framework is better than another. They're completely different and can't be compared.
The point of my post was to offer some you and everyone else respite from the zealots - on both sides.
Don't misrepresent my views and then start getting stuck into them unless you're clear what it is I'm saying.
...[text shortened]... dn't mix - the endless tooing and froing of this thread is a perfect example of that.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnz[/b]Yes, now when there is a huge pool of life on the planet, the life
[b]The trouble you face is the enviroment is ever changing,
Yes, but within relatively defined limits. These limits are imposed by physics and chemistry. The planet never records surface temperatures of a million C, for example.
the code is ever changing, and more times than not if a bad change occurs it isdead ended, life would not con is why my worldview, based on reality, is used to send people into space, and yours is not.
of a single individual doesn't affect the whole gene pool greatly
unless something really bad happened to that individual, but we
were speaking about the starting point of life according to
abiogenesis were we not? At some point there was a small gene
pool, in a volatile environment, even more volatile than the one
we have now according to you where oxygen supposedly wasn’t
available and I imagine the gases that did fill the atmosphere were
life friendly whatever that was, and it had to change when life
became a reality just in the right portions, under the proper
conditions and so on. Yea, good thing you don’t have to worry
about vegetable eating lions and tigers and bears oh my all of
your beliefs were observed I guess.
Kelly
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt is far more rational to trust in the conclusions derived from empirical evidence through
Or, the immediacy of the 'scientific method' is what makes it true. Whatever we know right now is true; what happens in the future? Who knows. Right now is all we have.
Good stuff. [where is that sacrastic smiley, again?]
repeated experiments than to a priori hold beliefs as true that run contrary to the same.
And, your characterization is disingenuous: The conclusions we derive from whatever we observe
right now merely represents the best possible answer. No scientist ever claims to fully
understand what is going on in even the simplest experiment -- the bonding of atoms forming water
is, of itself, infinitely complicated. Contrary to how you might present it, that a scientist is willing
to repent of a previously held is to his/her credit, not detriment.
By contrast, you and many other so-called Christians that frequent this forum have repeatedly
demonstrated an unwillingness to relinquish even the slightest ground in the face of even the
most monumental evidence.
Such a position is to your profound discredit.
Nemesio
Originally posted by KellyJayTo believe something in spite of every shred of experiential evidence you yourself could collect
Okay, yes and according to my beliefs the window for vegetarian
animals were quite small so all observation of these creatures
since the flood would not be as vegetarians, and I don't ever recall
using these as a point for or against evolution.
is downright bizarre. That you can rationalize that lions ate only grass irrespective of what we
know of their digestive system and how this is totally impossible simply because a book you
revere says so only degrades any credibility your ability to reason effectively.
As far as your framework is concerned, any belief is as plausible as any other belief and,
consequently faith is merely a matter of taste.
Who could possibly be compelled to take you seriously, then?
Nemesio
3 edits
Originally posted by NemesioIt is a matter of faith Nemesio, on one hand while speaking about
To believe something in spite of every shred of experiential evidence you yourself could collect
is downright bizarre. That you can rationalize that lions ate only grass irrespective of what we
know of their digestive system and how this is totally impossible simply because a book you
revere says so only degrades any credibility your ability to reason ef ...[text shortened]... a matter of taste.
Who could possibly be compelled to take you seriously, then?
Nemesio
evolution I don't bring in creation it has nothing to do with evolution
even if both are true, one is a process the other a special event. Yet,
you and others feel compelled to bring in my religious beliefs while all
I'm attempting to do is speak about the beliefs surrounding evolution.
As I told you even the small changes through time are a given, we
can see small changes in the here and now, but what we do not see
are them leading into something else, that 'not seeing' is not
different that you or others making fun of my beliefs, because no one
alive has seen where lions eating only vegetation. If the complaint
against my faith is that some parts of it are about things and events
that cannot be seen now, and must be believed, well there are
elements within the mainstream evolutionary belief system that also
are strictly a matter of faith too.
I can say what I believe is an old event of recorded history, but it does
not change the fact it must be accepted or rejected by man. The
beliefs about elements of abiogenesis must be believed too, but its
origins are the speculation of man, if they are true isn’t apparent as
some seem to think and suggest. I have not said one time that one
belief is as plausible as any other belief system, I have said that all
belief and matters of faith are just that, beliefs and matters of faith.
Of course some can be taken more seriously than others I have never
suggested otherwise, if you think I have I suggest you return the post
where you think I said that and read it again.
As far as my caring if you take me seriously or not, I’m not overly
concern about that either, you get my honest opinion take or leave it,
I do not run to web pages, or to or talk origin sites to find the best
arguments to use. I do read up on these topics now and then and if I
find something worthy of a quote you get it from me. My main
objections come because of the issue I see in designing other things,
when I think about how that relates to life. I accept scripture as a
valid source of truth in my life, and if you reject it, you reject it, there
isn’t anything I can do or say that will change how you perceive
scripture as there is me being able to prove God to another person,
that is up to God.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't think you've understood my point. I'm saying that the faith by which you claim that lions ate grass and the "faith" by which a scientist says that the Earth is approximately 4.3 billion years old are fundamentally different things, and to equate the two is a mistake.
Like I have said on a number times, what I have is faith it is a
position of belief, I cannot prove it. Now you want to make some
comparison for example your,
[b]"Despite everything we have learned about physical processes from many years of observing, testing, and cataloguing natural phenomena, lions, tigers, and bears were originally strict vegetarians ...[text shortened]... s about creation hold do not add
too or take away from if evolution is true or not.
Kelly[/b]
There's another thing that it seems needs to be cleared up. When I say that some proposition is consistent with our observations of natural processes, I do not necessarily mean that we observe that proposition to be true directly. I could for instance observe boiling water and make the claim that the water molecules are moving very fast. How could I know this? Do we observe each tiny water molecule directly? Of course not. The claim however is consistent with our observations of the behavior of liquids under heat/pressure. It is also consistent with our understanding of chemistry and physics and the numerous tests and observations associated with those fields.
So when I say that evolutionary theory is consistent with what we observe in nature, I do not mean that we see populations changing dramatically in our lifetimes (If we did, then our current theories of evolution would be falsified.). I mean that it is consistent with the small changes that we do observe, and just as importantly it is consistent with the larger body of observations from genetics (super consistent in fact), paleontology, all fields of biology, and anatomy.
That is where Creationists get into trouble. They focus on accounting for a single observation and ignore the larger body of catalogued data. For instance a 2 billion-year-old rock can be accounted for by claiming that the decay rate of all isotopes was much much much faster in the past. This however would be inconsistent with our knowledge of physics as well as with the direct observations detailed here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html
(great link; check it out.)
Originally posted by telerionIf faith were a smell they would both stink, that is the bottom line.
I don't think you've understood my point. I'm saying that the faith by which you claim that lions ate grass and the "faith" by which a scientist says that the Earth is approximately 4.3 billion years old are fundamentally different things, and to equate the two is a mistake.
There's another thing that it seems needs to be cleared up. When I say that so ...[text shortened]... iled here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html
(great link; check it out.)
I understand it isn't exactly the same, but nonetheless it is still faith.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI think, Kelly, it's pointless for us to continue debating this. You continue to spout your "it's all just opinion" line, and we continue to show you why that is wrong. You then ignore us, and spout the same stuff again. I put it to you earlier that the evidence could be explained in one of two ways;
Yes, now when there is a huge pool of life on the planet, the life
of a single individual doesn't affect the whole gene pool greatly
unless something really bad happened to that individual, but we
were speaking about the starting point of life according to
abiogenesis were we not? At some point there was a small gene
pool, in a volatile environment ...[text shortened]... able eating lions and tigers and bears oh my all of
your beliefs were observed I guess.
Kelly[/b]
Violent, stochastic changes in the laws of physics and chemistry ove a short time scale, with immutable forms of biological life, or
gradual change of life forms through huge amounts of time where the laws of physics and chemistry remain relatively constant.
You have not answered me which you believe to be true, but patently, only one can be true.
Originally posted by scottishinnzViolent, stochastic changes in the laws of physics and chemistry ove a short time scale, with immutable forms of biological life, or
I think, Kelly, it's pointless for us to continue debating this. You continue to spout your "it's all just opinion" line, and we continue to show you why that is wrong. You then ignore us, and spout the same stuff again. I put it to you earlier that the evidence could be explained in one of two ways;
Violent, stochastic changes in the laws of phys ...[text shortened]... ave not answered me which you believe to be true, but patently, only one can be true.
gradual change of life forms through huge amounts of time where the laws of physics and chemistry remain relatively constant.
You have not answered me which you believe to be true, but patently, only one can be true.
If you are refering to creation as changes in the laws of physics and
chemistry, no, that didn't happen, what happened was those laws
were set in place during creation. Your view that only one can be true
is false, neither has to be true, and if creation did happen what you
are calling evolution can still be taking place, the only difference is
the starting point.
Kelly