|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again bluegenes,
Of course you will want to pursue this off-topic nonsense.
Zen Deist quoting dictionary definition of why writes: 1. for what? for what reason, cause, or purpose?: Why did you behave so badly? This is a mistake you've been making for a few years on this board. Will I have to explain the word "or" to you? Reason, cause or purpose. Will I have to explain the word "or" to you? Why does it rain? For what reason does it rain? What causes rain? What is the cause of rain? You need to pay closer attention to the way those words are used in the definition: For what does it rain?For what reason does it rain? For what cause does it rain? For what purpose does it rain? Let's stick to the blue sky rather than follow you down another rabbit hole of red herrings, and try to keep this in the context offered: Who What Where When Why and How.
quote: Who is it about: the sky.What happened: it appears to be blue. Where did it take place: over my back yard. When did it happen: January 2, 2012 at 11:00 am est. How did it happen: sunlight photons were absorbed by molecules in the atmosphere and spontaneously re-emitted in random directions, an affinity for blue light by the absorbing molecules means that more blue light was absorbed and re-emitted than other wavelengths, and the random scatter from all visible sectors of the atmosphere results in the appearance of a blue sky, even though the sky is technically transparent. Now it's your turn: why did it happen? Note that to provide a complete answer you need to provide something not already covered by the other questions. Enjoy,by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Buzsaw writes: For examples, science sweeps under the rug, the whys of the zero/singularity event, the whys of before space/time existed, the logics of how life, managed to manage biogenesis through the early stages of emergence from chaotic soup to amazingly complex life systems, the whys of the fact that all recorded historical cultures have been religious, the whys their assumption of uniformitarion expansion all the way down through the billions of alleged years from the alleged singularity, the whys of the alleged extension of all dinosaurs, all the while, the survival of the other species, etc, etc, etc......... This is terribly jumbled and mostly unitelligable, but I take it that you think science is avoiding questions in these areas? If so, you're just plain wrong - the only thing science IS interested in is understanding the natural world; that's all of it. Why would it not be interested in fully understanding such things? This is a really weird thing to say.Life, don't talk to me about life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
Tangle writes: This is terribly jumbled and mostly unitelligable, but I take it that you think science is avoiding questions in these areas? If so, you're just plain wrong - the only thing science IS interested in is understanding the natural world; that's all of it. Why would it not be interested in fully understanding such things? This is a really weird thing to say. Anyone capable of understanding what is is should have no problem with the message. You're right. Science is too narrow minded, illogical and un-objective to be interested in researching anything pertaining to intelligence of a higher capability than what we experience on our tiny planet. It's not weird at all. It's just science's secularistic bent, so as to avoid any accountability to a higher authority. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future. Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined:
|
It's a good point.
The failures of science are logical, too. Even to proceed with a natural theory,(in regards to origins and designed life) logically you are not stating your full assumptions, that you have completely removed the very best possible answer to all such problems, an all-wise mind. Logically, this can be shown to be the potentially best answer, in many, many ways. To remove that premise alone means that your inferences can be skewed, logically. You sum it up succinctly in the phrase, "It's just science's secularistic bent, so as to avoid any accountability to a higher authority." Of course, it's not a statement a none-believer can fully grasp. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Buzsaw writes: Science is too narrow minded, illogical and un-objective to be interested in researching anything pertaining to intelligence of a higher capability than what we experience on our tiny planet. Science is interested in anything that has an effect in the natural world. It would also have an interest in anything in the supernatural world if it had any means of detecting its existence. What specifically do you think there is for science to investigate?
It's just science's secularistic bent, so as to avoid any accountability to a higher authority. That's an even weirder thing to say. You think the entirety of the scientific community is engaged in a conspiracy to avoid studying something (what?) in order to avoid accountability to your god? Really? Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Life, don't talk to me about life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
You are the evolutionists perfect mascot, the perfect stereotype.
They praised me the same when I became evolutionist for a time. Not that I had achieved anything of any intellectual credence, I was actually just in a state of depression, confusion and doubt. When I was evolutionist I was far more ignorant than I am now, but sure - I got a lot of pats on the back, naturally, at a place like this. You might have been an idiot. The point is that you can be a creationist idiot, or an ignorant evolutionist idiot, I have experienced both clever creationists, knowledgeable and brilliant, and evolutionists that are complete ignoramuses and vice-versa. I don't think becoming an atheist is an achievement, it is a matter of the heart, not the intellect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2504 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Zen Deist writes: You need to pay closer attention to the way those words are used in the definition: You need to understand for what reason those words were used. You need to understand why they were used. Explain clearly what your links to an article about journalism has to do with the question of whether or not "why" questions are asked in science. Please give your reasons as to why it's easy to find thousands of "why" questions in scientific papers if science doesn't ask "why" questions. Suggested exercise: google "why are plants green". Then google "how are plants green". Then go to google scholar and do the same thing. Dawn Bertot seems to be coming up with his version of something that is commonly said by certain religious people. Science answers the "how" questions, and religion answers the "why" questions. When they say this, they make the incorrect assumption that "why" implies intentional purpose. You're inadvertently supporting Dawn in making this mistake.
RAZD writes: Who is it about: the sky. Are you turning into Dawn?
Zen Deist writes: Now it's your turn: why did it happen? Because the earth has evolved a certain type of atmosphere and because an animal with a certain type of vision aligned its eyes towards the sky. You might try the exercise of looking for "because" answers in the conclusions sections of scientific papers, as well. You'll find plenty. And note that, as I said in my first post on this subject, the scientific "whys" can also involve intended purpose as well as reason and cause (if the animal had looked at the sky intentionally, for example). Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given. Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given. Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
I applaud your first statement, it is an honest one.
The second statement, you have to be a mature believer to fully understand what it means. It is nothing like a conspiracy, it is a matter of biblical understanding. The bible tells us there are only two forces at work in this world. That is God, and His will, and sin and the enemy. Evolutionary scientists, atheists, secularists, do not have the Holy Spirit, they can be completely honest, think they are completely correct, and yet be totally ignorant of how the history of the world has been influenced by the enemy, as the enemy wants to de-face and destroy God's image, in any clever way possible. Even to disbelieve in God can lead to realities in this world, influences that lead to other things. It is a bit like the book by C.S.Lewis, the Screwtape Letters. If I ask you to do a small thing, make me a bearing, and send it to me, you can be completely ignorant that I am building a machine to kill you and your family. You are seeing this from a very un-enlightened point of view which can not be explained easily to a none-believer, as you have a veil on your eyes. Even innocent people have this veil. This world was created by God. Just looking at this world, the bible tells us, gives us no excuse. When people like Charles Lyell, the birther of uniformatarianism, said he wanted to remove Moses from science, he might not have realized just how motivated he was to do that. Darwin, because of the death of his daughter, might not have known how much he wanted to answer the problem by ridding God from the picture. These tiny occurrences had major historical implications. Can you honestly say that if people did not doubt God, that science today would be the same? That first statement you made is vital - science is too small for origins. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
You do not start doing science with an answer, the answer comes as a conclusion based on evidence.
If and when you actually present evidence of an all wise mind, then that evidence can be tested.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
But that is an answer you start with. You start with an answer, that the creation can be explained without God. You are dismissing what 100% of the evidence shows, that there is a creator. The negative is also a conclusion, it is not neutral. But why tell you anything, you don't listen to anything that I state, it becomes futile to talk to someone when they do this.
If and when you actually present evidence of an all wise mind, then that evidence can be tested. I have presented many sound examples of a consequent given an antecedant, of, "If there is a God then". If there is a God we would expect to see good design. I have shown this. Saying I have not shown this again and again, Jar, will not prove anything because it is a fallacy called ad nauseum. Have you understood what evidence is yet? Did you read what I wrote about confirmation evidence, falsification evidence, tautologous evidence etc? You state the same things ad nauseum, as though by stating them, the same, every time, again and again, proves something. This is the fallacy of ad nauseum. You don't actually provide an argument, you just say the same thing, and this way you can never be wrong. You can stick your fingers in your ears and say, "no evidence, no evidence, no evidence" to my posts a thousand times, but be under no delusions, logically you have not shown anything, all you have done it shown that you want to propose a lie about me, therefore I can conclude that there is no truth in you, nor the desire for it. Please stop stating false things about me without debating, or I will have to take steps to get you banned as a spammer. I GET that you are against me, and everything I say - okay, you have made your point, please now just do not state anything, if there is no information in those statements. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Mike the Wiz writes: Can you honestly say that if people did not doubt God, that science today would be the same? Yes, of course. Not all scientists doubt god. In fact it's fair to say that until the 20th century almost all scientists were also believers. There's no such thing as Christian science or Islamic science or atheist science. Science is neutral - facts are facts, they either stand up to examination or they don't.Life, don't talk to me about life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
MtW writes: If there is a God we would expect to see good design. I have shown this. I am intrigued as to what you think the world would look like if there wasn't a god? How can we differentiate between a designed world and an undesigned one?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Not exactly even close Mike.
I do not start with an assumption that life can be explained without God. Bring on the evidence and I will happily consider it. I could write "If there is a gritchnitch then ..." It is without meaning just as your assertion is without meaning.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
I agree, I just think that the theory of evolution and chemical evolution, are not neutral.
Facts are indeed facts, I never dispute them. The ToE is not a fact. It is a factual theory, it deals in facts such as mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, etc.... Logically, and scientifically, a theory is not allowed to be a fact because of the rules of falsification. I think these theories go too far, they are a MASSIVE stretch of the imagination and they favour the negative, that there is not a literal creator, which is a logical fallacy, you can't conclude that and then proceed logically, or you will always and ONLY ever infer a skewed conclusion. Science should stick to what it can prove, not what it can't in the least. People just aren't stupid, no matter how sophisticated the evolution theories, the facts show complete designs, complete worlds and a complete universe with viable laws. We do not see an evolving universe, we see a finished one. Now breathing in oxygen and out carbon dioxide, that's fine, science can handle that as such things are factually experimentally shown to be parsimonious without God, they are not show to be caused without God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
No, it is not without meaning because you don't understand logic.
Neutrally, you start with a position the organisms do not require a literal designer. You can only start with that negative. Darwin did not arrive at an evolutionary conclusion, without including the premise that there was a God-designer not involved. Logically, you can only conclude this in order to proceed. That you don't understand this doesn't mean that my assertions are empty. From experience, I know that you do not understand why what I say is correct, you have supplied me with enough evidence that you are not able to understand the points I am making, and you put your fingers in your ears and state the same thing. "You have not. You have not shown, you must do this and that!." Stating those things does not mean I have not provided. I have provided, you have not understood, that's all.
I do not start with an assumption that life can be explained without God. Bring on the evidence and I will happily consider it. You start with the assumption that organisms were not designed by God, you start with an un-stated premise that there is not actual, direct, special creation. There is plenty of evidence for this. You state there isn't, I state there is. I show and explain what evidence is, painstakingly, you show nothing and simply state the same thing. That's good spamming, but that's all.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024