Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Equating science with faith
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 106 of 326 (461064)
03-21-2008 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Cold Foreign Object
03-21-2008 7:02 PM


Re: Correction: equating Darwinian "science" with blind faith
quote:
Acceptance of evolution means that God is punishing said persons for denying Him credit as Creator. This explains why a theory with no evidence is accepted.
No evidence? Or more likely evidence you don't like, therefore you don't classify as evidence, a typical creationist response. And you are obviously dishonestly tying your interpretation of Genesis to what Christanity actually means. Where does Evolution state that God was not responsible at all?
quote:
Evolution was never science and will never be science - it is Materialism.
This jumped out at me, signaling a complete lack of any understanding of science on your part. Science studies the natural world, what exists and can be tested. How can science not be materialism? Furthermore, how can evolution be materialism yet not science?
Or is that you are completely redefining words to suit your bad arguments in an attempt to avoid just how weak they are?
Name me one fact of ID. Furthermore, how can one have blind faith in evolution when various sciences all use it? I know someone who works at ExxonMobile and their methods of finding oil rely on evolution's timeline. Chevron drills specifically in areas where it is believed to have been high concentrations of ancient plankton which was compressed into oil. Care to explain how two of the largest fossil fuel companies in the world are using 'blind faith?' Or are you going to simply pretend it doesn't exist, plug your ears and go "i'm not listening?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 03-21-2008 7:02 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 03-21-2008 8:08 PM obvious Child has replied
 Message 108 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 03-21-2008 8:48 PM obvious Child has replied
 Message 112 by Beretta, posted 03-22-2008 9:47 AM obvious Child has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 107 of 326 (461066)
03-21-2008 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by obvious Child
03-21-2008 7:57 PM


Re: Correction: equating Darwinian "science" with blind faith
Where does Evolution state that God was not responsible at all?
Materialism does not presuppose Deism, but Atheism.
Evolution says intelligence is not seen in reality and that God is not the Creator, that is why all Atheists support.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by obvious Child, posted 03-21-2008 7:57 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by obvious Child, posted 03-22-2008 2:06 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 123 by ramoss, posted 03-22-2008 5:30 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 108 of 326 (461072)
03-21-2008 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by obvious Child
03-21-2008 7:57 PM


Re: Correction: equating Darwinian "science" with blind faith
This jumped out at me, signaling a complete lack of any understanding of science on your part.
We already know that Atheists believe that anyone who does not believe what they believe to not have science understanding, what is your point?
Science studies the natural world, what exists and can be tested. How can science not be materialism?
Because Materialism presupposes the non-existence of God in reality and denies the existence of all evidence that contradicts. This idea corresponds to Atheism and the same is not science, but Materialism. Science does not deny the existence of evidence, but recognizes its existence and attempts to explain it.
Or is that you are completely redefining words to suit your bad arguments in an attempt to avoid just how weak they are?
When we remember that you are a Materialist your opinion about persons who accept science is explained and, of course, entirely predictable.
Furthermore, how can one have blind faith in evolution when various sciences all use it? I know someone who works at ExxonMobile and their methods of finding oil rely on evolution's timeline. Chevron drills specifically in areas where it is believed to have been high concentrations of ancient plankton which was compressed into oil. Care to explain how two of the largest fossil fuel companies in the world are using 'blind faith?' Or are you going to simply pretend it doesn't exist, plug your ears and go "i'm not listening?"
You have misunderstood.
Evolutionary theory is not science, but scientism.
The issue is the inclusion of evolution to be part of science.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by obvious Child, posted 03-21-2008 7:57 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Otto Tellick, posted 03-22-2008 1:39 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 111 by obvious Child, posted 03-22-2008 2:11 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 109 of 326 (461089)
03-22-2008 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Cold Foreign Object
03-21-2008 8:48 PM


Re: Correction: equating Darwinian "science" with blind faith
Cold Foreign Object writes:
Science does not deny the existence of evidence, but recognizes its existence and attempts to explain it.
Wow... A reasonably correct statement about science, from Cold Foreign Object. Good show, man!
Actually, I would rephrase it a bit: science does better than simply 'not denying the existence of evidence.' Science actively pursues evidence, and works hard to figure out how to look for and and where to find evidence. There's also more to it than 'attempting to explain' the evidence. The basic idea is: having seen some evidence, and having attempted to come up with an explanation for it, science then takes this very important additional set of steps:
  1. In order to determine whether a particular explanation is a good one, figure out something that has not yet been observed -- something for which there is not yet any evidence -- such that one specific outcome would support this explanation, while some (or any) other outcome would contradict it.
  2. Having figured out what sort of "test case" would clarify the goodness or badness of the explanation, now figure out how such an observation could be made -- how to locate and gather the relevant evidence.
  3. Do what it takes to make the relevant observations -- do it multiple times, if you can -- being as careful as possible to avoid or neutralize any biases or interference that might skew the results and yield outcomes for reasons that have nothing to do with the explanation being tested.
  4. Accept the results and retain, amend or abandon the tested explanation, as appropriate, with an informed understanding about the limits of accuracy in measurements, the limits of representativeness in sampling from a larger pool of possible observations, and the limits of what the explanation really is able to account for.
That is what science does. It is intrinsically materialistic. But apparently, materialism is a dirty word for you, because you equate it with evolution and atheism as stuff to be rejected for some reason, because it's "dogmatic" in some way. I find that kind of confusing -- like maybe you are using the term "evolution" to refer to something very different from what everyone else means by "the theory of evolution", which is an explanation that was derived from observed evidence, and has been tested and supported repeatedly by the scientific method as described above (which you seem to understand and consider acceptable). It looks to me like an inconsistency in your position.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 03-21-2008 8:48 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 110 of 326 (461090)
03-22-2008 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Cold Foreign Object
03-21-2008 8:08 PM


Re: Correction: equating Darwinian "science" with blind faith
quote:
Evolution says intelligence is not seen in reality and that God is not the Creator, that is why all Atheists support.
Come again? Where in the statement of "the change in allele frequencies over time" states that God is not the creator?
Show me a single respectable textbook that even mentions the word "God."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 03-21-2008 8:08 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Beretta, posted 03-22-2008 10:00 AM obvious Child has replied

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 111 of 326 (461091)
03-22-2008 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Cold Foreign Object
03-21-2008 8:48 PM


Re: Correction: equating Darwinian "science" with blind faith
quote:
We already know that Atheists believe that anyone who does not believe what they believe to not have science understanding, what is your point?
I'm not an atheist. But you from your history seem to lack a basic fundamental understanding of what science actually is. Looking at your history, you also seem to run away from a virtually every post and argument you make.
quote:
Because Materialism presupposes the non-existence of God in reality and denies the existence of all evidence that contradicts.
Define contradicting evidence. I suspect you are thinking of evidence free concepts such as faith. Hardly good evidence. What actual evidence exists for God for Materialism to reject? I'd love to see how you define this. Creationists have a long history of dishonestly redefining words and terms to fit their poorly constructed arguments.
quote:
Science does not deny the existence of evidence, but recognizes its existence and attempts to explain it.
What? Do you even understand what science is? Science examines evidence to see what conclusion evidence supports. Science does not explain evidence, it uses evidence to explain what happened. As I suspected, your post signals a complete lack of any understanding of science on your part.
quote:
When we remember that you are a Materialist your opinion about persons who accept science is explained and, of course, entirely predictable.
Do you regularly cast everyone who disagrees with your bad arguments as an atheist?
quote:
You have misunderstood.
Evolutionary theory is not science, but scientism.
The issue is the inclusion of evolution to be part of science.
It would help if you actually knew what science was, which you clearly do not.
I brought up a perfectly valid example of practical application of evolution in every day products and now you're back peddling.
How predictable.
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 03-21-2008 8:48 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 112 of 326 (461107)
03-22-2008 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by obvious Child
03-21-2008 7:57 PM


Exxonmobile
How exactly does Exxon mobile depend on the evolution timescale for its drilling? The dates that the evolutionary timescale uses are based on assumptions of age. They may drill in specific areas but they don't need dates to do that, they just need to recognize patterns.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by obvious Child, posted 03-21-2008 7:57 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by lyx2no, posted 03-22-2008 9:56 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 124 by obvious Child, posted 03-22-2008 9:44 PM Beretta has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 113 of 326 (461108)
03-22-2008 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Beretta
03-22-2008 9:47 AM


Re: Exxonmobile (three cheers)
Those patterns are the history of the Earth writ large. They proclaim evolution.

Kindly
******
If you have nothing nice to say say nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Beretta, posted 03-22-2008 9:47 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Beretta, posted 03-22-2008 11:44 AM lyx2no has replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 114 of 326 (461109)
03-22-2008 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by obvious Child
03-22-2008 2:06 AM


Change in allele frequencies over time
Where in the statement of "the change in allele frequencies over time" states that God is not the creator?
This allele frequency thing is only a small portion of what is implied by the word 'evolution'. Change in allele frequencies with time is fine as far as it goes but these small changes are supposed to add up to big changes according to the big picture of 'evolution'. That's where the materialism comes in. Where did the genes come from originally? According to the big 'evolution' picture, they come from dead chemicals that supposedly came alive billions of years ago. If that's true, then God is out of a job.Particularly the God of the Bible who said he created life.
The actualevidence that we have suggests that life only comes from pre-existing life. The philisophical thinking of evolutionists suggests that life actually came from non-living chemicals by a natural process and pure chance. Any room for God there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by obvious Child, posted 03-22-2008 2:06 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Dr Jack, posted 03-22-2008 10:13 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 116 by lyx2no, posted 03-22-2008 10:23 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 117 by Percy, posted 03-22-2008 11:40 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 125 by obvious Child, posted 03-22-2008 9:47 PM Beretta has replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 115 of 326 (461110)
03-22-2008 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Beretta
03-22-2008 10:00 AM


Re: Change in allele frequencies over time
According to the big 'evolution' picture, they come from dead chemicals that supposedly came alive billions of years ago.
So... how do I tell the difference between "dead" chemicals and "alive" chemicals?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Beretta, posted 03-22-2008 10:00 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Beretta, posted 03-22-2008 11:46 AM Dr Jack has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 116 of 326 (461111)
03-22-2008 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Beretta
03-22-2008 10:00 AM


Re: Change in allele frequencies over time
You’re making up your own brand of evolution. The official brand of Evolution™ makes no claims about how life originated whatsoever. So, if you want to shoot down your own creation, go for it.
I’ve little doubt that most Evolutionist® do believe that life developed from nonliving matter. I’ve also little doubt that most Evolutionist® do believe that the peanut butter should go inside the sandwich. But neither are tenets of ToE™.

Kindly
******
If you have nothing nice to say say nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Beretta, posted 03-22-2008 10:00 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Beretta, posted 03-23-2008 1:55 AM lyx2no has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 117 of 326 (461116)
03-22-2008 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Beretta
03-22-2008 10:00 AM


Re: Change in allele frequencies over time
Beretta writes:
According to the big 'evolution' picture, they come from dead chemicals that supposedly came alive billions of years ago. If that's true, then God is out of a job. Particularly the God of the Bible who said he created life.
Putting this in context and on-topic, claims such as those found in the Bible that are based upon faith rather than evidence will inevitably clash with reality. This thread addresses the "Oh yeah? Well so are you!" approach of some creationists who while conceding that creationist beliefs are based upon faith charge that scientific theories are, too.
Clashes are unavoidable when religion claims God did something in the real world, because science will often uncover evidence pointing to natural processes. That's the risk religion runs when it makes claims absence of real world evidence. This isn't a case of science saying anything about God, but of religion making claims that are demonstrably false.
The actual evidence that we have suggests that life only comes from pre-existing life.
Actually, the evidence of simpler and more primitive life with each preceding epoch back in time tells us that at some point life was so simple that it was just chemistry. This is a scientific position based upon evidence, not faith. Yes, it contradicts the beliefs of many religions, but as their positions are faith-based it should come as no surprise when they don't measure up against real world evidence.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Beretta, posted 03-22-2008 10:00 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Beretta, posted 03-23-2008 3:24 AM Percy has replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 118 of 326 (461117)
03-22-2008 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by lyx2no
03-22-2008 9:56 AM


Re: Exxonmobile (three cheers)
Those patterns are the history of the Earth writ large. They proclaim evolution.
No they don't -they proclaim sudden appearance followed by general stasis. You have to believe in evolution before you imagine the proclamation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by lyx2no, posted 03-22-2008 9:56 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by lyx2no, posted 03-22-2008 1:57 PM Beretta has replied
 Message 122 by Taz, posted 03-22-2008 2:29 PM Beretta has replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 119 of 326 (461118)
03-22-2008 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Dr Jack
03-22-2008 10:13 AM


Re: Change in allele frequencies over time
So... how do I tell the difference between "dead" chemicals and "alive" chemicals?
It's the difference between chemistry and biology -a big difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Dr Jack, posted 03-22-2008 10:13 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Dr Jack, posted 03-22-2008 1:24 PM Beretta has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 120 of 326 (461123)
03-22-2008 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Beretta
03-22-2008 11:46 AM


Re: Change in allele frequencies over time
So... how do I tell? What's the diffence between a "living" chemical, and a "dead" chemical? What can I see under the microscope that will let me tell the difference? What properties are different?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Beretta, posted 03-22-2008 11:46 AM Beretta has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024