> chris thompson wrote: > > In the category, STFU with those big words!
> >>>> So there is no evidence for God. But science offers data. Data that > >>>> may be incomplete or even incorrect due to the flaws in mankind's > >>>> abilities to percieve and interpretate data. > >>>> Basically one has to use the same kind of faith (call it trust if you > >>>> like) that a creationist uses to believe God created, to believe > >>>> scientific theories such as evolution. > >>>> it seems to be THAT simple. > >>> It all comes down to a question of epistemology. > >> No, it doesn't. It comes down to world views.
> Epistemology, you supporter of woman abusers, is not synonymous with the > notion of a world view.
> All-seeing-I wrote: > > On Nov 6, 9:27 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> All-seeing-I wrote: > >>> On Nov 6, 6:16 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >>>> All-Seeing-I wrote: > >>>>> " I would like to thank everyone that responded to the thread > >>>>> entitled: A few serious Questions for the Evolutionist." I was amazed > >>>>> at the thoughtfulness of some of the replies. Many of you are quite > >>>>> intelligent and articulate. Again thanks. > >>>>> Likewise, i was not suprised to see a few of the same old characters > >>>>> posting the same old crap. > >>>>> Anyway. My sincerest thanks to those that took the time to give the > >>>>> thoughtful and thought provoking replies. > >>>>> Next. > >>>>> The tone that many of your posts shared was that there is no evidence > >>>>> for God but, there is in fact evidence for evolution using science. > >>>>> This was a main point made over and over. > >>>>> While I respect science for all of the great things it has given > >>>>> mankind; science has flaws. Science has flaws because humans have > >>>>> flaws, Sciencentific ability will only go as far as mankinds ability > >>>>> to percieve and interpretate data will go. But there are many animals > >>>>> that have a higher level of perception then the average human. > >>>>> So there is no evidence for God. But science offers data. Data that > >>>>> may be incomplete or even incorrect due to the flaws in mankind's > >>>>> abilities to percieve and interpretate data. > >>>>> Basically one has to use the same kind of faith (call it trust if you > >>>>> like) that a creationist uses to believe God created, to believe > >>>>> scientific theories such as evolution. > >>>>> it seems to be THAT simple. > >>>> It all comes down to a question of epistemology. If you consider > >>>> revelation to be the most important source of knowledge, one that trumps > >>>> empirical data, then your beliefs follow directly. (You have the > >>>> additional problem that you need further revelation do determine which > >>>> among many conflicting revelations are the correct ones, but that's a > >>>> comparatively minor problem.) > >>>> Then again, if you consider empirical data important, my beliefs follow. > >>>> None of your objections apply without that assumption that revelation > >>>> trumps evidence. Sure, our data are incomplete, but they're all we have > >>>> to go by. There is no other source of knowledge. > >>>> And faith doesn't enter into it, except for the assumption (which I > >>>> would not call faith) that empirical evidence is meaningful. > >>> Empirical data is very important. Dare I say, "Science" is very > >>> important. That does not mean your beliefs follow. > >> Not just from that, no. However, it happens that the data do support my > >> beliefs. In fact, that's where my beliefs come from in the first place. > >> They aren't a priori positions.
> > Sure they are. Knowledge is cumulative. So you have to take a priori > > position if you have not made a direct scientific observation > > yourself, The same holds true for believing the bible and miracles. > > One has to accept the fact that the cumulative knowledge of past > > events as described are true. This is why many say it takes the same > > kind of faith to believe man evolved that it takes to believe God > > created.
> I don't agree. There are important differences. In science, you can test > prior results, and in the normal course of doing science an incorrect > prior result will cause contradiction in the structure of knowledge that > will invite re-examination. Consistency with other results and new data > provides a constant check. Again, no faith required. I can go out and > check human evolution within a few minutes, just by downloading some > randomly selected DNA sequences from GenBank, aligning them, and doing a > phylogenetic analysis.
You are misunderstanding. All of the testing is meaingless if it is incomplete or inaccurate. Just like man did not know certain frequences existed in the past, there may be other data that you cannot percieve at this point in history due to mankinds limited physical abilities.. So the outcome of any tests may be skewed and you would not even know it. Therefore you presuppose any testing will be accurate because you feel the checks and balances are adaquate enough to determine a dergree of accuracy. But they may not be.
> > But here is the catch. Mankind's data is based on observations while > > using abilities that are not perfect. How do you know your data is > > accurate if you cannot trust your own perceptions of the observation > > being made?
> That's nihilism. We do indeed assume that we are not hopelessly wrong > about every perception, and that a misperception will generate > inconsistencies. But that objection applies to all knowledge whatsoever, > including yours. How do you know your ancient texts are right, or that > you are reading them correctly? I can at least test my knowledge against > the world.
Nihilism is science. It is not me that will bow to no authority and accepts no doctrine, however widespread, that is not supported by proof. Actually, that sounds a lot like Kermit now that I think about it.
Next, you are correct. I can misinterpret data from ancient texts; you can misinterpret data from science. That is the point.
> > For instance. Many animals can percieve frequences that mankind cannot > > percieve.
> > For a long time those frequences did not exist from man's perspective > > without a device. The frequences would still not be percievable and > > therefore nonexistant from man's perspective without such a device.
> > With that in mind, man's interpretation of the data could be > > incomplete or even inaccurate based on mankind's limited perception > > ability alone.
> It's always possible. But if such frequencies exist and have any > effects, they will generate inconsistencies in our explanations of the > data. And so we will have to postulate them.
Mankind did not even know the frequencies existed. Only certain animals could hear them. Which does not generate inconsistencies. But it does generate the possibility that you can miss something with tests and research that you won't even know you are missing. Why? Because you cannot perceive them. So you miss the evidence.
Maybe those that have spoken to God were given perception abilities that outreach the average man's perception. IOW God may be standing in front of you right now but you do not have the ability to perceive him just like you cannot perceive certain sounds that some animals can perceive.
> >>> Even evolutionary science has furthered mankind's knowledge regarding > >>> such things as disease. But that does not mean your beliefs follow. > >> Well, some of my beliefs follow from that.
> >>> The problem as I see it: There are too many that will /only/ accept > >>> empirical data. > >> And the problem as I see it is that there are too few.
> >>> But there are other forms of data and other types of > >>> evidences that can be equally as valid. > >> I disagree. What are they, and how do we know they're valid?
> > How can you lay claim to validity when, the very senses you posses to > > gather and interpret data are limited? If your data is not 100% > > correct then there could be other data that is equally as valid.
> > That is just common sense.
> No it isn't. It's nihilism. If your argument is correct, you have > established that it's impossible for us to know anything whatsoever. I > think I'm typing now. But what if my senses are imperfect and I'm really > peeling potatoes? What if your revelations are false? How would you know?
No it is not. Your explanation is an over exaggeration anyway.
> >>> Maybe science would have some > >>> new "revelations" if it would consider information that has been > >>> recorded for posterity rather then dismiss everything that does not > >>> fit a scientific framework for acceptable data, Scientific data can be > >>> flawed based on mankind's ability to 1)Find data 2) Interpret ate the > >>> data and 3) Communicate the data. > >> I don't know what you mean by that.
> >>> It is rather amusing to hear the evolutionist invalidate all of the > >>> other unscientific data when science's data itself is flawed. It is > >>> flawed because human understanding and perceptions are flawed. If they > >>> were not flawed we would be able to pinpoint the origins of man with > >>> no need for further revision. > >> By this you perhaps mean that all our understanding must be provisional, > >> and that we don't have complete information. Still, that doesn't mean we > >> know nothing, or that we don't know some things with near certainty. We > >> may not know exactly which fossils are our ancestors, or by what pathway > >> (and I'm sure I've mentioned that it's practically impossible to tell > >> whether a fossil is an ancestor or a cousin), but we do know with fair > >> confidence that we are closely related to chimps, and with near-total > >> certainty that chimps and gorillas are our closest relatives.
> > Of course we are closely related. Man and chimp share common elements > > as well as a common design. So long as there is more then one > > interpretation for the evidence no one knows exactly what the origins > > of man are.
> Please don't redefine words. You know what "closely related" means. They > share a common ancestor, somewhere around 5 million years ago. There is > not more than one interpretation of the evidence, at least not that > actually makes sense. Don't take refuge in postmodernist relativism. > It's unseemly.
Oh please. Much of what you study and research can be viewed as common design as well.
>On Nov 7, 3:07 am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org> >wrote: >> In message >> <db93c743-b0f4-49b8-a0b4-1182e166f...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, >> All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes
>> >" I would like to thank everyone that responded to the thread >> >entitled: A few serious Questions for the Evolutionist." I was amazed >> >at the thoughtfulness of some of the replies. Many of you are quite >> >intelligent and articulate. Again thanks.
>> >Likewise, i was not suprised to see a few of the same old characters >> >posting the same old crap.
>> >Anyway. My sincerest thanks to those that took the time to give the >> >thoughtful and thought provoking replies.
>> >Next. >> >The tone that many of your posts shared was that there is no evidence >> >for God but, there is in fact evidence for evolution using science. >> >This was a main point made over and over.
>> >While I respect science for all of the great things it has given >> >mankind; science has flaws. Science has flaws because humans have >> >flaws, Sciencentific ability will only go as far as mankinds ability >> >to percieve and interpretate data will go. But there are many animals >> >that have a higher level of perception then the average human.
>> Yep, mantis shrimps can see 12 colours. Pretty cool.
>> >So there is no evidence for God. But science offers data. Data that >> >may be incomplete or even incorrect due to the flaws in mankind's >> >abilities to percieve and interpretate data.
>> >Basically one has to use the same kind of faith (call it trust if you >> >like) that a creationist uses to believe God created, to believe >> >scientific theories such as evolution.
>> >it seems to be THAT simple.
>> *All* the scientific data that has been collected so far on the subject >> points to evolution, none points to creation. or any god. Yes, some of >> that data might be wrong (and some probably is) but it's very unlikely >> that all of it is because thousands upon thousands of scientists (and >> non-scientists) have been checking and testing it for the last 150 >> years!
>Bull shit. >What has been happening for the last 150 years is evolution evolving.
Evolution is a fact. Only a real fool disagrees with that.
Sure, in the 150 years since Darwin published OTOOS we have learned a lot more. He laid the foundations for thousands of scientists to build our modern understanding of the subject.
>When evolution is compared piece by piece it does not hold water. And >most of you know this.
What most of us know is that you don't understand the subject, that you are scientifically illiterate and that you lie far too much.
>> Entire organisations have been set up to look for flaws in the ToE, >> without finding anything. They end up resorting to lies, quote mines >> and distortion instead. Very moral I'm sure.
>> In other words, on one side is a vast amount of data supporting the >> theory of evolution and on the other there is nothing supporting >> creation or the presence of a god. Yet you say they are equal because >> the data supporting evolution *might* be wrong.
>> That doesn't seem at all reasonable to me, but there you go.
>It seems to me that you have the Rooster in charge of the Hen house.
>IOW Peer review is not as honerable as it once was.
Creationists try to use that excuse for nothing being published to support their twisted ideas.
But then we know that creationist don't do science.
>> In addition we can use the ToE to make predictions and to solve >> problems. For example I used it in my beastly_maths.pl program to solve >> Spinny's maths problem. If the theory is wrong then how come it can >> be applied to solve *real* problems?
>Don't you pay attention?
Yes, he does. Clearly you don't - as your past record of stupidity shows.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to? Certainly I don't.
>> I always find it amusing that Post-Modernism seems to have become the >> last refuge for theists who realize that they have nothing to back >> their claims.- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>On the surface it may appear that you are correct. But you are quite >mistaken.
>Why you ask? Two things.
>1) You do not look deep enough into the issue for the truth and 2) >Physical observations are objective, as you said. But when you look >one level deeper into the comparison the interpretation of those >observations are NOT objective. They are quite subject to various >interpretations based on human abilities that are quite limited.
>OTOH Spiritual observations are subjective, The interpretations of >those observations are based on the same abilities used to iinterpret >the physical observations.
>So either one has the same chance to be valid or invalid.
Your yourself said that "Physical observations are objective", so at least everyone can observe the same data and either agree or disagree with what it means.
Spiritual "observations", if they happen at all, cannot be repeated by anyone else. That makes them untestable and far more likely to be either mental problems or just plain lies. Not only has the interpretation of the observation have to be done but the observation data itself is suspect.
So how do you tell whether the priest who tells you that god speaks directly to him is a schizophrenic, a pathological liar or is telling the truth?
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 04:55:25 -0500, All-seeing-I wrote (in article <9fc4ddeb-7a0e-418d-826b-ec57d4f21...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
> Don't get me wrong. People have a right to believe what they wish to > believe, But if you ask me, atheism is being subtly promoted en mass > as it hides behind science in the classrooms. Which is cowardly and > subverts the teachings of the individual family.
I went to Church schools from elementary school to university. Are you saying that the Catholic Church promoted atheism when it ensured that all, repeat, all of those who graduated from my high school knew at least the basics of science, including biology, and most especially including the theory of evolution? Please elaborate.
On Nov 7, 12:09 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> 1) You do not look deep enough into the issue for the truth and 2) > Physical observations are objective, as you said. But when you look > one level deeper into the comparison the interpretation of those > observations are NOT objective. They are quite subject to various > interpretations based on human abilities that are quite limited.
actually they're not. because they're the best method we have ever invented (cf shelby foote). science is the ONLY method humanity has developed to investigate nature
creationism, OTOH, has ALWAYS been wrong
> OTOH Spiritual observations are subjective, The interpretations of > those observations are based on the same abilities used to iinterpret > the physical observations.
well no they're not. 'spiritual' observations are not observations at all. they are metaphysical guesswork based on subjective criteria as you yourself prove. you were unable to prove the book of exodus is literally true even though you assert it is.
> So either one has the same chance to be valid or invalid.
take a walk out a 10th story window. let me know about your subjective view, m'kay?
creationists are always telling us about 'subjectivity' but when their balls are on the line they whimper like puppies.
On Nov 7, 3:05 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> You are misunderstanding. All of the testing is meaingless if it is > incomplete or inaccurate. Just like man did not know certain > frequences existed in the past,
nothing could show the failure of creationism better than this example the creationist himself provides
creationism, for 2000 years didn't know 'frequencies' existed. hell, they didn't even know AIR existed
yet the creationist is here to lecture us on why a 2000 year history of failure is not a reason to exclude their 'wizard of oz' view of nature from the discussion
there may be other data that you
> cannot percieve at this point in history due to mankinds limited > physical abilities..
and creationism, with its methodological inability to tell us ANYTHING about nature is in NO position to tell us about limitations. creationism doesnt have the potential even to HAVE limitiations since it's useless
So the outcome of any tests may be skewed and you
> would not even know it.
yeah you'd know that. for 2000 years you guys looked for demons as causes of diseases and earthquakes. and you were too stupid to realize your 'tests' were skewed....but now you're here to tell us why science...which HAS been successful...is a failure while creationism...which is superstition...is a success.
> Nihilism is science. It is not me that will bow to no authority and > accepts no doctrine, however widespread, that is not supported by > proof. Actually, that sounds a lot like Kermit now that I think about > it.
except, of course, the herd mentality of creatoinism. creationism says 'a bunch of dead guys decided something was true, so it's true'.
and the creationist says 'that's good enough for me!'
THEN he tells us how independent he is. he relies on gossip and hearsay...and tells us of his independence
it's like the kid who smokes while acting the rebel, not realizing cigaret companies are huge businesses.
> Next, you are correct. I can misinterpret data from ancient texts; you > can misinterpret data from science. That is the point.
there is no way to interpret data from ancient texts. your METHOD is wrong and leads to wrong conclusions. that's why creationsits couldnt even tell us AIR existed, let alone about evolution.
> Maybe those that have spoken to God were given perception abilities > that outreach the average man's perception. IOW God may be standing in > front of you right now but you do not have the ability to perceive him > just like you cannot perceive certain sounds that some animals can > perceive.
All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in news:db93c743-b0f4-49b8-a0b4- 1182e166f...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> Next. > The tone that many of your posts shared was that there is no evidence > for God but, there is in fact evidence for evolution using science. > This was a main point made over and over.
> While I respect science for all of the great things it has given > mankind; science has flaws. Science has flaws because humans have > flaws, Sciencentific ability will only go as far as mankinds ability > to percieve and interpretate data will go. But there are many animals > that have a higher level of perception then the average human.
> So there is no evidence for God. But science offers data. Data that > may be incomplete or even incorrect due to the flaws in mankind's > abilities to percieve and interpretate data.
Data is data. It is not incorrect, it just is. Science attempts to use the data to understand nature. It does that by developing explanations of the data. The explanations can be wrong. They are tested by using them to predict where and how to find more data, or what the data should be if it is found. If the data discovered does not match the predictions then the explanations are either thrown out or modified. Eventually, a powerful viable explanation, or theory is built. And science moves on.
> Basically one has to use the same kind of faith (call it trust if you > like) that a creationist uses to believe God created, to believe > scientific theories such as evolution.
Not even. Theories, as I said, are built on evidence, or data. Religion is built on personal revelation and the religious traditions of ignorant ancient peoples. No testing, no evidence, no attempt to verify,.
> it seems to be THAT simple.
> -- > The All Seeing I
-- Dick #1349 "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com email: dic...@gmail.com
>On Nov 6, 6:48 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote: >> chris thompson wrote: >> > In the category, STFU with those big words!
>> >>>> So there is no evidence for God. But science offers data. Data that >> >>>> may be incomplete or even incorrect due to the flaws in mankind's >> >>>> abilities to percieve and interpretate data. >> >>>> Basically one has to use the same kind of faith (call it trust if you >> >>>> like) that a creationist uses to believe God created, to believe >> >>>> scientific theories such as evolution. >> >>>> it seems to be THAT simple. >> >>> It all comes down to a question of epistemology. >> >> No, it doesn't. It comes down to world views.
>> Epistemology, you supporter of woman abusers, is not synonymous with the >> notion of a world view.
>> LOL
>Support? Hell, they worship ole`Bob
>That makes them worshipers of women abusers!
Don't you think it is really about time you stopped lying?
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to? Certainly I don't.
> " I would like to thank everyone that responded to the thread > entitled: A few serious Questions for the Evolutionist." I was amazed > at the thoughtfulness of some of the replies. Many of you are quite > intelligent and articulate. Again thanks.
> Likewise, i was not suprised to see a few of the same old characters > posting the same old crap.
> Anyway. My sincerest thanks to those that took the time to give the > thoughtful and thought provoking replies.
> Next. > The tone that many of your posts shared was that there is no evidence > for God but, there is in fact evidence for evolution using science. > This was a main point made over and over.
I suggest there can be no evidence for God. There is no way to know what evidence for God would look like. How would one test data to determine it is evidence for God? I believe in God, by faith, and do not find it necessary to look for evidence to shore up my faith.
> While I respect science for all of the great things it has given > mankind; science has flaws. Science has flaws because humans have > flaws, Sciencentific ability will only go as far as mankinds ability > to percieve and interpretate data will go. But there are many animals > that have a higher level of perception then the average human.
I assume you are referring to sensory perception in other animal species, not suggesting they have cognitive reasoning ability enabling them to deduce the existance of quarks or leptons...
> So there is no evidence for God. But science offers data. Data that > may be incomplete or even incorrect due to the flaws in mankind's > abilities to percieve and interpretate data.
> Basically one has to use the same kind of faith (call it trust if you > like) that a creationist uses to believe God created, to believe > scientific theories such as evolution.
> it seems to be THAT simple.
> -- > The All Seeing I
Well, no. Scientific belief has to do with the idea that a prediction scheme that works will continue to do so. We have dropped marbles many times, they always fell to the ground. We dropped other objects, they also fell. We infer that the next time we drop a marble it will again fall to the ground.
Religious faith has to do with believing in possibilities counter to the way things are observed to work (such as miracles) because these beliefs appeal to spiritual sensibilities (for which there is no evidence). It depends on feelings that divine revelation has occured (for which there is likewise no evidence).
> They've taken methodological atheism too seriously. It started out as a practical tool to evaluate apparently impersonal mechanisms in nature.
But they began to see it as evidence for atheism. It's a psychological problem.
At this point, it has become one of the major arguments for atheism and I will go as far as to say that it's another aspect of the ideology which I like to call the Brownien ideology.
Free Lunch wrote: > On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:48:44 -0400, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote in > talk.origins:
>> chris thompson wrote: >>> In the category, STFU with those big words!
>>>>>> So there is no evidence for God. But science offers data. Data that >>>>>> may be incomplete or even incorrect due to the flaws in mankind's >>>>>> abilities to percieve and interpretate data. >>>>>> Basically one has to use the same kind of faith (call it trust if you >>>>>> like) that a creationist uses to believe God created, to believe >>>>>> scientific theories such as evolution. >>>>>> it seems to be THAT simple. >>>>> It all comes down to a question of epistemology. >>>> No, it doesn't. It comes down to world views. >> Epistemology, you supporter of woman abusers, is not synonymous with the >> notion of a world view.
>> LOL
> You really have no clue what you are talking about Nashty.
Care to elaborate, or just blowing even *more* evocheerleader hot air out of your orifice?
> > They've taken methodological atheism too seriously. It started out as a practical tool to evaluate apparently impersonal mechanisms in nature.
> But they began to see it as evidence for atheism. It's a psychological > problem.
which, even if true, has nothing to do with evolution. all dogs are 4 legged animals; not all 4 legged animals are dogs
creationists have poor critical thinking skills
> At this point, it has become one of the major arguments for atheism and > I will go as far as to say that it's another aspect of the ideology > which I like to call the Brownien ideology.
well...no. atheism existed long before darwin. nando, a creationist fanatic, doesn't know the history of christianity, or the history of atheism
>> > They've taken methodological atheism too seriously. It started out as a practical tool to evaluate apparently impersonal mechanisms in nature.
>> But they began to see it as evidence for atheism. It's a psychological >> problem.
>which, even if true, has nothing to do with evolution. all dogs are 4 >legged animals;
The average leg count is less than 4.
> not all 4 legged animals are dogs
>creationists have poor critical thinking skills
>> At this point, it has become one of the major arguments for atheism and >> I will go as far as to say that it's another aspect of the ideology >> which I like to call the Brownien ideology.
>well...no. atheism existed long before darwin. nando, a creationist >fanatic, doesn't know the history of christianity, or the history of >atheism
group when s/he wrote: >Free Lunch wrote: >> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:48:44 -0400, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote in >> talk.origins:
>>> chris thompson wrote: >>>> In the category, STFU with those big words!
>>>>>>> So there is no evidence for God. But science offers data. Data that >>>>>>> may be incomplete or even incorrect due to the flaws in mankind's >>>>>>> abilities to percieve and interpretate data. >>>>>>> Basically one has to use the same kind of faith (call it trust if you >>>>>>> like) that a creationist uses to believe God created, to believe >>>>>>> scientific theories such as evolution. >>>>>>> it seems to be THAT simple. >>>>>> It all comes down to a question of epistemology. >>>>> No, it doesn't. It comes down to world views. >>> Epistemology, you supporter of woman abusers, is not synonymous with the >>> notion of a world view.
>>> LOL
>> You really have no clue what you are talking about Nashty.
>Care to elaborate, or just blowing even *more* evocheerleader hot air >out of your orifice?
> On Nov 8, 7:19 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote: >> kalkidas wrote:
>>> They've taken methodological atheism too seriously. It started out as a >>> practical tool to evaluate apparently impersonal mechanisms in nature.
>> But they began to see it as evidence for atheism. It's a psychological >> problem.
> which, even if true, has nothing to do with evolution. all dogs are 4 > legged animals; not all 4 legged animals are dogs
> creationists have poor critical thinking skills
>> At this point, it has become one of the major arguments for atheism and >> I will go as far as to say that it's another aspect of the ideology >> which I like to call the Brownien ideology.
> well...no. atheism existed long before darwin. nando, a creationist > fanatic, doesn't know the history of christianity, or the history of > atheism
Atheism existed before _Christianity_. Socrates, for example, was convicted of 'corrupting the minds of youth' in part 'cause he promoted what his enemies said was 'atheism'. As he died in 399 BC...
> In message > <0dac9bec-f6e1-45b5-934f-8cbfce4c0...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
> >On Nov 7, 5:32 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> >> I always find it amusing that Post-Modernism seems to have become the > >> last refuge for theists who realize that they have nothing to back > >> their claims.- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -
> >On the surface it may appear that you are correct. But you are quite > >mistaken.
> >Why you ask? Two things.
> >1) You do not look deep enough into the issue for the truth and 2) > >Physical observations are objective, as you said. But when you look > >one level deeper into the comparison the interpretation of those > >observations are NOT objective. They are quite subject to various > >interpretations based on human abilities that are quite limited.
> >OTOH Spiritual observations are subjective, The interpretations of > >those observations are based on the same abilities used to iinterpret > >the physical observations.
> >So either one has the same chance to be valid or invalid.
> Your yourself said that "Physical observations are objective", so at > least everyone can observe the same data and either agree or disagree > with what it means.
> Spiritual "observations", if they happen at all, cannot be repeated by > anyone else. That makes them untestable and far more likely to be > either mental problems or just plain lies. Not only has the > interpretation of the observation have to be done but the observation > data itself is suspect.
> So how do you tell whether the priest who tells you that god speaks > directly to him is a schizophrenic, a pathological liar or is telling > the truth?
> The answer is you can't. You have no way of telling. That makes it > utterly useless as data, even if the priest thinks he is telling the > truth.
they seem comparable to dreams to me. I have dreams so I'm happy to accept that other people do. But I don't subscribe any meaning to themin the actual world. I dreamed I was a galaxy fighting another galaxy by throwing globular clusters at it. Do you think this really happened?
All-Seeing-I wrote: > On Nov 7, 8:29 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> All-seeing-I wrote: >>> On Nov 6, 9:27 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >>>> All-seeing-I wrote: >>>>> On Nov 6, 6:16 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >>>>>> All-Seeing-I wrote: >>>>>>> " I would like to thank everyone that responded to the thread >>>>>>> entitled: A few serious Questions for the Evolutionist." I was amazed >>>>>>> at the thoughtfulness of some of the replies. Many of you are quite >>>>>>> intelligent and articulate. Again thanks. >>>>>>> Likewise, i was not suprised to see a few of the same old characters >>>>>>> posting the same old crap. >>>>>>> Anyway. My sincerest thanks to those that took the time to give the >>>>>>> thoughtful and thought provoking replies. >>>>>>> Next. >>>>>>> The tone that many of your posts shared was that there is no evidence >>>>>>> for God but, there is in fact evidence for evolution using science. >>>>>>> This was a main point made over and over. >>>>>>> While I respect science for all of the great things it has given >>>>>>> mankind; science has flaws. Science has flaws because humans have >>>>>>> flaws, Sciencentific ability will only go as far as mankinds ability >>>>>>> to percieve and interpretate data will go. But there are many animals >>>>>>> that have a higher level of perception then the average human. >>>>>>> So there is no evidence for God. But science offers data. Data that >>>>>>> may be incomplete or even incorrect due to the flaws in mankind's >>>>>>> abilities to percieve and interpretate data. >>>>>>> Basically one has to use the same kind of faith (call it trust if you >>>>>>> like) that a creationist uses to believe God created, to believe >>>>>>> scientific theories such as evolution. >>>>>>> it seems to be THAT simple. >>>>>> It all comes down to a question of epistemology. If you consider >>>>>> revelation to be the most important source of knowledge, one that trumps >>>>>> empirical data, then your beliefs follow directly. (You have the >>>>>> additional problem that you need further revelation do determine which >>>>>> among many conflicting revelations are the correct ones, but that's a >>>>>> comparatively minor problem.) >>>>>> Then again, if you consider empirical data important, my beliefs follow. >>>>>> None of your objections apply without that assumption that revelation >>>>>> trumps evidence. Sure, our data are incomplete, but they're all we have >>>>>> to go by. There is no other source of knowledge. >>>>>> And faith doesn't enter into it, except for the assumption (which I >>>>>> would not call faith) that empirical evidence is meaningful. >>>>> Empirical data is very important. Dare I say, "Science" is very >>>>> important. That does not mean your beliefs follow. >>>> Not just from that, no. However, it happens that the data do support my >>>> beliefs. In fact, that's where my beliefs come from in the first place. >>>> They aren't a priori positions. >>> Sure they are. Knowledge is cumulative. So you have to take a priori >>> position if you have not made a direct scientific observation >>> yourself, The same holds true for believing the bible and miracles. >>> One has to accept the fact that the cumulative knowledge of past >>> events as described are true. This is why many say it takes the same >>> kind of faith to believe man evolved that it takes to believe God >>> created. >> I don't agree. There are important differences. In science, you can test >> prior results, and in the normal course of doing science an incorrect >> prior result will cause contradiction in the structure of knowledge that >> will invite re-examination. Consistency with other results and new data >> provides a constant check. Again, no faith required. I can go out and >> check human evolution within a few minutes, just by downloading some >> randomly selected DNA sequences from GenBank, aligning them, and doing a >> phylogenetic analysis.
> You are misunderstanding. All of the testing is meaingless if it is > incomplete or inaccurate. Just like man did not know certain > frequences existed in the past, there may be other data that you > cannot percieve at this point in history due to mankinds limited > physical abilities.. So the outcome of any tests may be skewed and you > would not even know it. Therefore you presuppose any testing will be > accurate because you feel the checks and balances are adaquate enough > to determine a dergree of accuracy. But they may not be.
Again, this isn't an argument against evolution. It's an argument against all knowledge whatsoever. Is it your position that we don't know anything at all?
>>> But here is the catch. Mankind's data is based on observations while >>> using abilities that are not perfect. How do you know your data is >>> accurate if you cannot trust your own perceptions of the observation >>> being made? >> That's nihilism. We do indeed assume that we are not hopelessly wrong >> about every perception, and that a misperception will generate >> inconsistencies. But that objection applies to all knowledge whatsoever, >> including yours. How do you know your ancient texts are right, or that >> you are reading them correctly? I can at least test my knowledge against >> the world.
> Nihilism is science. It is not me that will bow to no authority and > accepts no doctrine, however widespread, that is not supported by > proof. Actually, that sounds a lot like Kermit now that I think about > it.
I suggest you look up the definition of nihilism.
> Next, you are correct. I can misinterpret data from ancient texts; you > can misinterpret data from science. That is the point.
No, that isn't the point. The point is that you make the same necessary assumption as science does -- that your ability to perceive the world is correct -- but add the additional assumption that your favorite revelation is correct. Science requires no such additional assumption.
>>> For instance. Many animals can percieve frequences that mankind cannot >>> percieve. >>> For a long time those frequences did not exist from man's perspective >>> without a device. The frequences would still not be percievable and >>> therefore nonexistant from man's perspective without such a device. >>> With that in mind, man's interpretation of the data could be >>> incomplete or even inaccurate based on mankind's limited perception >>> ability alone. >> It's always possible. But if such frequencies exist and have any >> effects, they will generate inconsistencies in our explanations of the >> data. And so we will have to postulate them.
> Mankind did not even know the frequencies existed. Only certain > animals could hear them. Which does not generate inconsistencies. But > it does generate the possibility that you can miss something with > tests and research that you won't even know you are missing. Why? > Because you cannot perceive them. So you miss the evidence.
Such perceptions can be tested. We don't need to perceive them ourselves, as long as the animals can, and will react differently in their presence than in their absence. And by the way, of course we knew about high-frequency sound; it's a consequence of the wave nature of sound.
> Maybe those that have spoken to God were given perception abilities > that outreach the average man's perception. IOW God may be standing in > front of you right now but you do not have the ability to perceive him > just like you cannot perceive certain sounds that some animals can > perceive.
>>>>> Even evolutionary science has furthered mankind's knowledge regarding >>>>> such things as disease. But that does not mean your beliefs follow. >>>> Well, some of my beliefs follow from that. >>>>> The problem as I see it: There are too many that will /only/ accept >>>>> empirical data. >>>> And the problem as I see it is that there are too few. >>>>> But there are other forms of data and other types of >>>>> evidences that can be equally as valid. >>>> I disagree. What are they, and how do we know they're valid? >>> How can you lay claim to validity when, the very senses you posses to >>> gather and interpret data are limited? If your data is not 100% >>> correct then there could be other data that is equally as valid. >>> That is just common sense. >> No it isn't. It's nihilism. If your argument is correct, you have >> established that it's impossible for us to know anything whatsoever. I >> think I'm typing now. But what if my senses are imperfect and I'm really >> peeling potatoes? What if your revelations are false? How would you know?
> No it is not. > Your explanation is an over exaggeration anyway.
>>>>> Maybe science would have some >>>>> new "revelations" if it would consider information that has been >>>>> recorded for posterity rather then dismiss everything that does not >>>>> fit a scientific framework for acceptable data, Scientific data can be >>>>> flawed based on mankind's ability to 1)Find data 2) Interpret ate the >>>>> data and 3) Communicate the data. >>>> I don't know what you mean by that. >>>>> It is rather amusing to hear the evolutionist invalidate all of the >>>>> other unscientific data when science's data itself is flawed. It is >>>>> flawed because human understanding and perceptions are flawed. If they >>>>> were not flawed we would be able to pinpoint the origins of man with >>>>> no need for further revision. >>>> By this you perhaps mean that all our understanding must be provisional, >>>> and that we don't have complete information. Still, that doesn't mean we >>>> know nothing, or that we don't know some things with near certainty. We >>>> may not know exactly which fossils are our ancestors, or by what pathway >>>> (and I'm sure I've mentioned that it's practically impossible to tell >>>> whether a fossil is an ancestor or a cousin), but we do know with fair
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:19:18 -0400, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote in talk.origins:
>kalkidas wrote:
>> They've taken methodological atheism too seriously. It started out as a practical tool to evaluate apparently impersonal mechanisms in nature.
> But they began to see it as evidence for atheism.
No.
>It's a psychological problem.
No.
>At this point, it has become one of the major arguments for atheism and >I will go as far as to say that it's another aspect of the ideology >which I like to call the Brownien ideology.
Atheism is the default position of belief in the supernatural. As long as there is no evidence to support claims for gods or mysticism or other supernatural events or beings, atheism is the only reasonable conclusion. It is not evidence that supports atheism, but the lack of evidence. Your religion appears to be completely bogus and you have no evidence to show that it is in any way valid.
> All-Seeing-I wrote: > > On Nov 7, 8:29 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> All-seeing-I wrote: > >>> On Nov 6, 9:27 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >>>> All-seeing-I wrote: > >>>>> On Nov 6, 6:16 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >>>>>> All-Seeing-I wrote: > >>>>>>> " I would like to thank everyone that responded to the thread > >>>>>>> entitled: A few serious Questions for the Evolutionist." I was amazed > >>>>>>> at the thoughtfulness of some of the replies. Many of you are quite > >>>>>>> intelligent and articulate. Again thanks. > >>>>>>> Likewise, i was not suprised to see a few of the same old characters > >>>>>>> posting the same old crap. > >>>>>>> Anyway. My sincerest thanks to those that took the time to give the > >>>>>>> thoughtful and thought provoking replies. > >>>>>>> Next. > >>>>>>> The tone that many of your posts shared was that there is no evidence > >>>>>>> for God but, there is in fact evidence for evolution using science. > >>>>>>> This was a main point made over and over. > >>>>>>> While I respect science for all of the great things it has given > >>>>>>> mankind; science has flaws. Science has flaws because humans have > >>>>>>> flaws, Sciencentific ability will only go as far as mankinds ability > >>>>>>> to percieve and interpretate data will go. But there are many animals > >>>>>>> that have a higher level of perception then the average human. > >>>>>>> So there is no evidence for God. But science offers data. Data that > >>>>>>> may be incomplete or even incorrect due to the flaws in mankind's > >>>>>>> abilities to percieve and interpretate data. > >>>>>>> Basically one has to use the same kind of faith (call it trust if you > >>>>>>> like) that a creationist uses to believe God created, to believe > >>>>>>> scientific theories such as evolution. > >>>>>>> it seems to be THAT simple. > >>>>>> It all comes down to a question of epistemology. If you consider > >>>>>> revelation to be the most important source of knowledge, one that trumps > >>>>>> empirical data, then your beliefs follow directly. (You have the > >>>>>> additional problem that you need further revelation do determine which > >>>>>> among many conflicting revelations are the correct ones, but that's a > >>>>>> comparatively minor problem.) > >>>>>> Then again, if you consider empirical data important, my beliefs follow. > >>>>>> None of your objections apply without that assumption that revelation > >>>>>> trumps evidence. Sure, our data are incomplete, but they're all we have > >>>>>> to go by. There is no other source of knowledge. > >>>>>> And faith doesn't enter into it, except for the assumption (which I > >>>>>> would not call faith) that empirical evidence is meaningful. > >>>>> Empirical data is very important. Dare I say, "Science" is very > >>>>> important. That does not mean your beliefs follow. > >>>> Not just from that, no. However, it happens that the data do support my > >>>> beliefs. In fact, that's where my beliefs come from in the first place. > >>>> They aren't a priori positions. > >>> Sure they are. Knowledge is cumulative. So you have to take a priori > >>> position if you have not made a direct scientific observation > >>> yourself, The same holds true for believing the bible and miracles. > >>> One has to accept the fact that the cumulative knowledge of past > >>> events as described are true. This is why many say it takes the same > >>> kind of faith to believe man evolved that it takes to believe God > >>> created. > >> I don't agree. There are important differences. In science, you can test > >> prior results, and in the normal course of doing science an incorrect > >> prior result will cause contradiction in the structure of knowledge that > >> will invite re-examination. Consistency with other results and new data > >> provides a constant check. Again, no faith required. I can go out and > >> check human evolution within a few minutes, just by downloading some > >> randomly selected DNA sequences from GenBank, aligning them, and doing a > >> phylogenetic analysis.
> > You are misunderstanding. All of the testing is meaingless if it is > > incomplete or inaccurate. Just like man did not know certain > > frequences existed in the past, there may be other data that you > > cannot percieve at this point in history due to mankinds limited > > physical abilities.. So the outcome of any tests may be skewed and you > > would not even know it. Therefore you presuppose any testing will be > > accurate because you feel the checks and balances are adaquate enough > > to determine a dergree of accuracy. But they may not be.
> Again, this isn't an argument against evolution. It's an argument > against all knowledge whatsoever. Is it your position that we don't know > anything at all?
This is probably not a position he is taking happily. He is backed into a corner. Reality says evolution has happened and is continuing to happen. He doesn't believe that his faith and evolution can co- exist. So he has become so hysterical about evolution that he denies that we know what we clearly do know. Because he and his ilk have failed so miserably in denying the fossil and genetic evidence, he has decided to argue, perhaps even believe, that we _cannot_ know. This sophomoric approach has no future.
If theists draw _this_ line in the sand, that acceptance of evolution is incompatible with religion, they run into the philosophical problem of "Who do you believe, Gladys, me or your own eyes?" and Gladys gets less gullible as we go along. So they know they have to fight education. It is the only chance they think they have.
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:19:18 -0400, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote in > talk.origins:
>>kalkidas wrote:
>>> They've taken methodological atheism too seriously. It started out >>> as a practical tool to evaluate apparently impersonal mechanisms in >>> nature.
>> But they began to see it as evidence for atheism.
> No.
>>It's a psychological problem.
> No.
>>At this point, it has become one of the major arguments for atheism >>and I will go as far as to say that it's another aspect of the >>ideology which I like to call the Brownien ideology.
> Atheism is the default position of belief in the supernatural. As long > as there is no evidence to support claims for gods or mysticism or > other supernatural events or beings, atheism is the only reasonable > conclusion. It is not evidence that supports atheism, but the lack of > evidence. Your religion appears to be completely bogus and you have no > evidence to show that it is in any way valid.
But you've done exactly what I said: you are demanding so-called "evidence", but only that “evidence” that fits the methodological atheistic paradigm. In other words, you want to study God by methods that do not refer to God. Since that is impossible, you claim that there is no “evidence” for God.
However, there is abundant evidence for God, provided one does not attempt to apply methodological atheistic methods. Since God is not an impersonal mechanism of nature, but is the personal, transcendental source of nature, He may not be known by the methods used to study material nature, any more than a thermometer will tell you the distance from New York to Paris.
On Nov 8, 11:13 am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> But you've done exactly what I said: you are demanding so-called > "evidence", but only that “evidence” that fits the methodological > atheistic paradigm. In other words, you want to study God by methods that > do not refer to God. Since that is impossible, you claim that there is no > “evidence” for God.
if god were a useful concept for exploring nature, scientists would use it. creationism had a 3000 year head start on science
yet explained nothing. ever. not a single time. no feature of nature was ever explained by creationism
> However, there is abundant evidence for God, provided one does not > attempt to apply methodological atheistic methods.
really? how does your view predict the precession of mercury's orbit? how does it predict the hybridization of sp2 orbitals?
care to tell us?
Since God is not an
> impersonal mechanism of nature, but is the personal, transcendental > source of nature, He may not be known by the methods used to study > material nature, any more than a thermometer will tell you the distance > from New York to Paris.-
and yet creationists say science is wrong and that wizard of oz magic is right
<try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote: > On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 08:19:03 -0500, wf3h wrote > (in article > <db375424-2fb3-4e77-ac5e-125756a1c...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>):
> > On Nov 8, 7:19 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote: > >> kalkidas wrote:
> >>> They've taken methodological atheism too seriously. It started out as a > >>> practical tool to evaluate apparently impersonal mechanisms in nature.
> >> But they began to see it as evidence for atheism. It's a psychological > >> problem.
> > which, even if true, has nothing to do with evolution. all dogs are 4 > > legged animals; not all 4 legged animals are dogs
> > creationists have poor critical thinking skills > >> At this point, it has become one of the major arguments for atheism and > >> I will go as far as to say that it's another aspect of the ideology > >> which I like to call the Brownien ideology. > > well...no. atheism existed long before darwin. nando, a creationist > > fanatic, doesn't know the history of christianity, or the history of > > atheism > Atheism existed before _Christianity_. Socrates, for example, was convicted > of 'corrupting the minds of youth' in part 'cause he promoted what his > enemies said was 'atheism'. As he died in 399 BC...
Atheism existed before humans existed.
-- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:19:18 -0400, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote: > kalkidas wrote: >> They've taken methodological atheism too seriously. >> It started out as a practical tool to evaluate apparently >> impersonal mechanisms in nature. > But they began to see it as evidence for atheism. It's a psychological > problem.
Dear nutcase. Atheism is an observed fact, as everyone is and was born an atheist. Deal with it.
-- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:19:18 -0400, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote in >> talk.origins:
>>>kalkidas wrote:
>>>> They've taken methodological atheism too seriously. It started out >>>> as a practical tool to evaluate apparently impersonal mechanisms in >>>> nature.
>>> But they began to see it as evidence for atheism.
>> No.
>>>It's a psychological problem.
>> No.
>>>At this point, it has become one of the major arguments for atheism >>>and I will go as far as to say that it's another aspect of the >>>ideology which I like to call the Brownien ideology.
>> Atheism is the default position of belief in the supernatural. As long >> as there is no evidence to support claims for gods or mysticism or >> other supernatural events or beings, atheism is the only reasonable >> conclusion. It is not evidence that supports atheism, but the lack of >> evidence. Your religion appears to be completely bogus and you have no >> evidence to show that it is in any way valid.
>But you've done exactly what I said: you are demanding so-called >"evidence", but only that “evidence” that fits the methodological >atheistic paradigm.
Since you are clearly admitting that you have no real, testable evidence, why don't you tell me how you will provide evidence? Stop making excuses for your inability to support your claims.
> In other words, you want to study God by methods that >do not refer to God. Since that is impossible, you claim that there is no >“evidence” for God.
By what method can you study God? Show me.
>However, there is abundant evidence for God,
So, you whine when I ask for evidence for God, but then claim that there is evidence.
>provided one does not >attempt to apply methodological atheistic methods.
as long as you redefine evidence not to mean evidence.
>Since God is not an >impersonal mechanism of nature, but is the personal, transcendental >source of nature, He may not be known by the methods used to study >material nature, any more than a thermometer will tell you the distance >from New York to Paris.
Really? Why don't you show me how I can study God since you claim you know that?
|
