Thanks. - talk.origins | Google Groups

Message from discussion Thanks.

All-Seeing-I

View profile

More options Nov 7 2009, 9:05 pm

Newsgroups: talk.origins

From: All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com>

Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:05:52 -0800 (PST)

Local: Sat, Nov 7 2009 9:05 pm

Subject: Re: Thanks.

  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

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.

> > 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.

> >>> I do not intend to invalidate evolution. I question the authority that
> >>> science in general claims over what is and is not acceptable data.
> >>> Especially in the light that scientific data itself, is flawed.
> >> Question all you like, but you have provided no reasons why your "data"
> >> should be accepted at all, much less on an equal basis with empirical data.

> > Any construct of mankind will have an equal chance of being correct.
> > Religion and science are both man-made explanations.

> I deny that any construct has an equal chance. That's just nonsense.
> Suppose I flip a coin. You say it will come up heads. I say it will come
> up Cincinnati. Do we have an equal chance of being correct?

Of course not. Why? Cincinnati is not part of the equation and,
because Cincinnati is not a condition. Let a third party flip a coin
and you and I will have an equal chance of getting the call of heads
or tails right or wrong.

> >>> It seems reasonable at this juncture in man's history that evolution
> >>> takes a faith just like belief in God takes a faith.
> >> It seems reasonable to you. Not to me. And since you seem largely
> >> unacquainted with the evidence for evolution, I'm not sure how you
> >> manage to decide that belief in it takes faith.

> > Well, first, science has to presuppose it's interpretation of the
> > evidence is correct. I have shown you how and why interpretations can
> > be incorrect. So it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the
> > next step that you have to have faith in your evidence since the
> > evidence could be wrong or have more then one interpretation.

> > That is the same kind of faith it takes to believe "God created".

> You have hit on something. Science does require a few basic assumptions,
> and one is that humans are capable of understanding the world; i.e. that
> evidence can determine truth. If it can't, however, we can know nothing
> about anything. Now of course you have an alternative source of
> knowledge: faith. And pure faith would be self-contained: you know the
> truth because you know it's true because you know it. But you don't
> really work that way. You don't have a self-contained revelation about
> everything. You have some documents that you assume are true and
> properly interpreted, but they don't tell you everything. You too assume
> that you are typing and not peeling potatoes, and your revelation
> presumably didn't tell you that. You too rely on empirical data for much
> in life. So why reject it here and now?

Your analogy is an exaggeration.

> By the way, I have to ask. Are there two of you? This exchange is so
> unlike the adman of my past experience as to suggest that some other
> hand has taken over.

I was going to ask you the same thing.

Forward