Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,572 Year: 4,829/9,624 Month: 177/427 Week: 90/85 Day: 7/20 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   One Question for Evo-Bashers
Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 102 (25760)
12-06-2002 2:31 PM


Given the broad spectrum of religious beliefs held by evolutionists
[ Christians, Moslems, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, deists, agnostics...etc. you name it. ] - the only commonality being the acceptance of mainstream science...
Please explain why there are no secular creationists ?
Those being persons that accept the creationist's 'science' and evidences without any religious affiliation.
Surely creation science is based soley on evidence.
Why hasn't this evidence convinced a single, solitary, secular scientist to side with the creationists ? ( pardon the alliteration )
regards,
jeff
------------------
"Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Brad McFall, posted 12-06-2002 3:26 PM Jeff has not replied
 Message 3 by DanskerMan, posted 12-06-2002 4:56 PM Jeff has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5109 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 2 of 102 (25766)
12-06-2002 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jeff
12-06-2002 2:31 PM


Beacuse the "science" hasnt made any standard breakthrus. I am however to continually "cook" up ideas in biology that are not even on the radar screen by using creationist influence to NOT think like an evolutionist and some day one of my many suggestions is bound to be the standard since now I am back at the high school level. Creationist "science" does indeed exist but it is like the specialization one has never heard of remaining the the objective subjectivity of its "credible" practioners. This was the word used to distinguish different kinds of taxonomists and it applies as well to creationism as whole for those who wish not a denominational affilation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jeff, posted 12-06-2002 2:31 PM Jeff has not replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 102 (25773)
12-06-2002 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jeff
12-06-2002 2:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jeff:
Please explain why there are no secular creationists ?

Because it's an oxymoron, you cannot realize and accept God and that "natural un-guided processes" were NOT the cause of the world, and remain "secular". Once the veil is lifted off your mind, you will invariably become a christian scientist (creationist).
------------------
Romans 1:20
From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jeff, posted 12-06-2002 2:31 PM Jeff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by wj, posted 12-07-2002 11:10 PM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 5 by Mammuthus, posted 12-09-2002 5:33 AM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 8 by Jeff, posted 12-10-2002 12:17 PM DanskerMan has replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 102 (25896)
12-07-2002 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by DanskerMan
12-06-2002 4:56 PM


I think sonnikke has it the wrong way around. Such persons believe in a creator and then go looking for the "evidence" to support their belief.
And why a christian creator? I see the same "evidence" of a creator being cited by fundamentalist jews and moslems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by DanskerMan, posted 12-06-2002 4:56 PM DanskerMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Brad McFall, posted 12-09-2002 11:21 AM wj has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6552 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 5 of 102 (26014)
12-09-2002 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by DanskerMan
12-06-2002 4:56 PM


S:
Because it's an oxymoron, you cannot realize and accept God and that "natural un-guided processes" were NOT the cause of the world, and remain "secular". Once the veil is lifted off your mind, you will invariably become a christian scientist (creationist).
M: That is why there are scientists who are christians but "christian science" as practiced (LOL!) by groups like ICR is not science. They tack on the word science to give themselves the appearance of credibility that they do not posess.
"Because it's an oxymoron, you cannot realize and accept God and that "natural un-guided processes" were NOT the cause of the world, and remain "secular". "
M: You sure put a lot of limits on your god...he/she/it seems to be shrinking progressively by your constraints.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by DanskerMan, posted 12-06-2002 4:56 PM DanskerMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Brad McFall, posted 12-09-2002 11:30 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5109 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 6 of 102 (26026)
12-09-2002 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by wj
12-07-2002 11:10 PM


WJ- this is a very fine hair to split being essentail spirtual. While I can "perceive" the way around you attempt I can not 'conceive' the same. Similarly not, the evidence, by which I take it you meant it in a LEGAL and not Academic maNNer, being in part scientific IS NOT (iN mY Opinion). You may "see" it his way and even be willing to tesitfy in a cour of law that this is how you have seen it and believe you will continue to 'saw' it etc but I THINK ( this is not belief"")in the next 100yrsetc this will not be so different to you as you think. \
And that seems to be your "point" or 'position'? For me the "evidentairy nature" in creationISM of any eval asseses a difference that even when two or three are gathered togehether in agreement does not seem to come out expressed the same. You may assert that my creationism is at fault and you are entitled to you own opnion. It would repay to read Galelio's LINE in Cantor's point-set. There is still SPITRUAL room for reconciliation but if the elastic is confused with the electirc in this nature even the science without being sensitve to this religious point WILL NOT be able to think God's thoughts after him. I could as well be in Nepal for this matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by wj, posted 12-07-2002 11:10 PM wj has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5109 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 7 of 102 (26028)
12-09-2002 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mammuthus
12-09-2002 5:33 AM


M, you may "say" this is *not* science especially since Wolfram kind has achieved print but the scientists behind such an instutition as this are not 'selling' the hydrodynamical details short as Wolfram could be or have done. They insist on a more historically tight view on the pedagogy of entropy and in this balance the future of biology hangs. No mere snake systemitist will turn the dillma's tide even if one beat up Bill Clinton aka ACLU in court. It was wrong how sex got taught in shools and now with vedio violence the same per education dollars should not be misspent. Biology has a burden that physics never had ethically until the nukes. There is however no albatross.
I undetstand the difference between Scientific Creationism and Creation Science but Ruse, maybe like you, thought this was something akin to a philosophers real word play. Problem is that philosophy of biology as philosophy of science has not done its job but remains attached largerly to the idea post-Russel that Kant had been chained out of all but asthetic interest. This was and is not true. The point here is that "tacking" or 'Brad nailing' the word "science" in here in fact inheres when one Spritually considers a difference between this as SCIENCE and so-called "Biblical Creationism" but if you refuse to consider where the faith is expressed or do not follow the 'spritual nature of it' then the elastic seems to yield and you model may only have ONE electron in it. NOw that can not really be the correct perspective on it no matter which side you look at it on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mammuthus, posted 12-09-2002 5:33 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 102 (26208)
12-10-2002 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by DanskerMan
12-06-2002 4:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by sonnikke:
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff:
Please explain why there are no secular creationists ?

Because it's an oxymoron, you cannot realize and accept God and that "natural un-guided processes" were NOT the cause of the world, and remain "secular". Once the veil is lifted off your mind, you will invariably become a christian scientist (creationist).

But if Creation Science is truly science, then evidence is all that is required. It sounds as if you're adding requirements to Creation Science that regular 'secular' science does fine without.
How would " realiz(ing) and accept(ing) God as... the cause of the world" be scientifically verified ?
IOW, how is personal, subjective revelation a part of objective science ?
If one insists on including these parameters in their science, these parameters must be testable, verifyable or falsifyable.
Otherwise, what you have is no longer science.
quote:
Once the veil is lifted off your mind, you will invariably become a christian scientist (creationist).

Is there a prescribed process we might follow to verify this claim ?
Perhaps a new drug that can medically " lift the veil off your mind " is in order ? ...maybe shock therapy ?
regards,
jeff
------------------
"Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by DanskerMan, posted 12-06-2002 4:56 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by DanskerMan, posted 12-17-2002 12:15 PM Jeff has not replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 102 (26995)
12-17-2002 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Jeff
12-10-2002 12:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jeff:

But if Creation Science is truly science, then evidence is all that is required. It sounds as if you're adding requirements to Creation Science that regular 'secular' science does fine without.
How would " realiz(ing) and accept(ing) God as... the cause of the world" be scientifically verified ?
IOW, how is personal, subjective revelation a part of objective science ?
If one insists on including these parameters in their science, these parameters must be testable, verifyable or falsifyable.
Otherwise, what you have is no longer science.
regards,
jeff

Well, it's the "design argument", the evidence lies in the fact that we can conclude a Designer was behind the visible attributes we see around us.
We have no problem realizing that cars, houses, watches, airplanes, etc etc, all have an intelligent designer behind them. How do we scientifically prove that? We can't see the designer, we don't know who they are, but we know with certainty, that those things did not arrange themselves from 1000's of individual parts, into an organized, specialized, and fully functioning machine, as it were, without careful planning, design, function, and intelligence behind it.
I suppose that the "veil" comment was exactly related to that very problem.
Best wishes,
Sonnikke
------------------
Romans 1:20
From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Jeff, posted 12-10-2002 12:17 PM Jeff has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by John, posted 12-17-2002 12:31 PM DanskerMan has replied
 Message 12 by David unfamous, posted 12-17-2002 12:49 PM DanskerMan has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 102 (27000)
12-17-2002 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by DanskerMan
12-17-2002 12:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by sonnikke:
We have no problem realizing that cars, houses, watches, airplanes, etc etc, all have an intelligent designer behind them.
We have no problem recognizing that because we know who made them. We have evidence for the designer that does NOT rest on the analysis of the design.
quote:
How do we scientifically prove that?
I know you are serious, but questions like this really destroy your credibility.
quote:
We can't see the designer, we don't know who they are, but we know with certainty, that those things did not arrange themselves from 1000's of individual parts, into an organized, specialized, and fully functioning machine, as it were, without careful planning, design, function, and intelligence behind it.
What you can do is trace the plane's, for example, origin back to the factory and the blueprints and the people who made the blueprints. We don't conclude that planes were designed because they "show evidence of design." We conclude they were designed because we know damn well what we build, how we build it, and what stuff we build looks like. It is pattern recognition.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 12-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by DanskerMan, posted 12-17-2002 12:15 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by DanskerMan, posted 12-17-2002 12:46 PM John has replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 102 (27002)
12-17-2002 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by John
12-17-2002 12:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:

What you can do is trace the plane's, for example, origin back to the factory and the blueprints and the people who made the blueprints. We don't conclude that planes were designed because they "show evidence of design." We conclude they were designed because we know damn well what we build, how we build it, and what stuff we build looks like. It is pattern recognition.

There's no need to curse. Yes, you are correct, that's entirely possible, however, without going to all that trouble, it is still evident that a plane is designed simply by observing its features, mechanisms, layout, details, etc... deciphering a non designed object from a designed object is easy to do (ie. an eroded rock vs. a designed stone spearhead).
Likewise, we can infer design in life.
------------------
Romans 1:20
From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by John, posted 12-17-2002 12:31 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by John, posted 12-17-2002 1:00 PM DanskerMan has replied
 Message 31 by nator, posted 12-18-2002 9:08 AM DanskerMan has not replied

  
David unfamous
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 102 (27004)
12-17-2002 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by DanskerMan
12-17-2002 12:15 PM


quote:
Well, it's the "design argument", the evidence lies in the fact that we can conclude a Designer was behind the visible attributes we see around us.

I'm sure you can show me this conclusive evidence without using analogies...
quote:
We have no problem realizing that cars, houses, watches, airplanes, etc etc, all have an intelligent designer behind them. How do we scientifically prove that? We can't see the designer, we don't know who they are...

Take any airplane, car, house etc, and you'll be able to learn of every designer involved. You could get their name, see their picture, shake their hand (unless they're dead of course).
quote:
...those things did not arrange themselves from 1000's of individual parts, into an organized, specialized, and fully functioning machine, as it were, without careful planning, design, function, and intelligence behind it.

And there's the analogy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by DanskerMan, posted 12-17-2002 12:15 PM DanskerMan has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 102 (27005)
12-17-2002 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by DanskerMan
12-17-2002 12:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by sonnikke:
There's no need to curse.
"Damn" isn't cursing. God says it all the time.
quote:
Yes, you are correct, that's entirely possible, however, without going to all that trouble, it is still evident that a plane is designed simply by observing its features, mechanisms, layout, details, etc...
It wouldn't be evident if we didn't already have knowledge of our own designs. Take the example of tribal and isolated cultures thinking that planes are birds or gods. They don't assume, based on design characteristics, that such things were built by humans.
quote:
deciphering a non designed object from a designed object is easy to do (ie. an eroded rock vs. a designed stone spearhead).
Because we have examples of both to compare. Since we can make comparisons between manufactured stone tools-- via wear patterns which indicate usage-- and naturally fragmented rock, we can determine that other rocks are or are not manufactured. However, it is worth noting that the most primative stone tools are debatably not chipped into any real pattern, but just broken in half and used as best as could be.
quote:
Likewise, we can infer design in life.
Which are the designed life forms and which are the not-designed ones? With the ability to make that comparison, there is no way to infer design.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 12-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by DanskerMan, posted 12-17-2002 12:46 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by DanskerMan, posted 12-17-2002 2:09 PM John has replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 102 (27033)
12-17-2002 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by John
12-17-2002 1:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:

"Damn" isn't cursing. God says it all the time.

I assume you're joking of course..
quote:

It wouldn't be evident if we didn't already have knowledge of our own designs. Take the example of tribal and isolated cultures thinking that planes are birds or gods. They don't assume, based on design characteristics, that such things were built by humans.

We are speculating here, and I would venture to say that even the most primitive tribe would recognize design, since they would have designs of their own (ie. spearheads) and could decipher the difference between a hut they built, and a pile of lumber that had washed ashore.
quote:

Because we have examples of both to compare. Since we can make comparisons between manufactured stone tools-- via wear patterns which indicate usage-- and naturally fragmented rock, we can determine that other rocks are or are not manufactured. However, it is worth noting that the most primative stone tools are debatably not chipped into any real pattern, but just broken in half and used as best as could be.

Again, we're speculating.
quote:

Which are the designed life forms and which are the not-designed ones? With the ability to make that comparison, there is no way to infer design.

I'm not 100% sure what you're saying here.
Best wishes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by John, posted 12-17-2002 1:00 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by John, posted 12-17-2002 2:26 PM DanskerMan has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 102 (27038)
12-17-2002 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by DanskerMan
12-17-2002 2:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by sonnikke:
We are speculating here, and I would venture to say that even the most primitive tribe would recognize design, since they would have designs of their own (ie. spearheads) and could decipher the difference between a hut they built, and a pile of lumber that had washed ashore.
Nope. Not speculating. It is field of study called cultural anthropology. Sure, I suspect pretty much anyone could distinguish between a hut THEY BUILT and a pile of lumber. This is exactly the point. They know huts are designed because they build them.
quote:
Again, we're speculating.
No we are not. This is a field called paleoanthropology and this is precisely the methods used to determine what is a manufactured tool.
quote:
I'm not 100% sure what you're saying here.
We infer design based upon comparison with things that are not designed, like stone tools vs. rocks, or like a cave vs. an excavated shelter. We have no way to make this comparison with life in general. We need both known designed life forms and known not-designed lifeforms which we can then compare and work out the indicative differences between them. Then we can apply these differences to other life forms to determine if those are designed or not.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by DanskerMan, posted 12-17-2002 2:09 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by DanskerMan, posted 12-17-2002 2:41 PM John has replied
 Message 18 by peter borger, posted 12-17-2002 7:42 PM John has not replied
 Message 38 by Jeff, posted 12-18-2002 7:54 PM John 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