|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Some Evidence Against Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6011 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
I don't give a flying fudge what Daniel Harbour says. If he says what you say he's saying - and I'm not convinced he is - he's completely out of synch with the general usage of the word.
Moreover, this is not simply a case of definition - your "defintion" makes claims about how the world really is. It's as if I said "Birds are the branch of humans that have feathers". I can claim that that's how I define bird, but it's still not true that birds are humans. Neither is scientism part of science.
quote: Actually, any of the definitions in Schrafinator's post will do. I'm not sure what you're going on about in the rest of your post, other than repeating the absurdity that "the reason for being" of neo-Darwinism is to exclude God. If you truly believe that, then why are there Christian darwinists? I know some personally. You also might have heard of this guy called "the Pope". I hear he's a Christian theist. [This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 12-17-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Given your problem with what Milton was or was not saying. Perhaps you could lift some quotes from your sources so we could read for ourselves what they said?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6011 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
quote: Really? Then what exactly does this mean?
quote: Maybe I'm not reading you correctly, but this seems awfully clear. Maybe you miswrote?
quote: In the interim you've been given an array of definitions, none of which agree with you.
quote: You sure like calling people ignorant. Is it OK if I call you by the kinder term "educationally disadvantaged"? Darwin was a Christian for much of his life, ended his life an agnostic, but was never, as far as I can tell, an atheist. I've read biographies of Darwin, so I consider myself rather well-informed on Darwin's religious beliefs, thank you very much.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6011 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
Ok, let me try a different approach.
1. What, specifically, in his own words, does Daniel Harbour say about scientism. It's not like he's the final authority on the meaning of words, but it might be instructive to all involved to know what he actually says. 2. You seem very certain that neo-Darwinism is based on the non-existence of a god, and is part of scientism, and that anyone who denies this is either "ignorant" or "playing games". WHY do you believe this? What are your reasons for believing this? Assume I am not playing games, merely ignorant or misled. Take this opportunity to educate me on these basic points.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Daniel Harbour's book analyzes the two major world views: theism and atheism.
He establishes that atheism arrives at truth via rational enquiry; that this method assumes the least in its starting assunptions; only accepts as truth that which is supported by facts; and is always flexible and open when new facts are introduced. Harbour places neo-Darwinism in this world view and he doesn't explain or justify or evidence it - he just assumes neo-Darwinism in this camp. He establishes theism to assume the most and determines truth subjectively via the Priest, Rabbi, or cleric etc.etc.; and is infamously rigid and non-flexible. Now I am not debating Harbour's conclusions in this reply I have already done so in post #112. The point being to be the location of neo-Darwinism in the atheism worldview. You mentioned in your post that you know of christians who are neo-Darwinist. I believe you but this is not allowed because neo-Darwinism exists as the alternative explanation of the origin of life in place of creationism. Persons challenging this common knowledge (if you will) I have never encountered except in this room/debate. Many posters have constantly interjected the existence of theistic evolutionists and in response I have constantly reminded that T E is not the subject. What I do not get is the average atheist in this debate never conceding anything as if we are in a courtroom, not only for the sake of argument is the rigidity pointless but it becomes a debate killer when the atheist consensus cannot even admit that neo-Darwinism IS the atheist belief that opposes creationism. Now scientism is the general term used by we creationists to describe this entire world view that has in its starting assumptions that God does not exist. I respectfully say that it is not a matter of opinion that it is not in dispute that the evidence offered by neo-Darwinism supporting ToE is also presented in the atheist world view, which by definition means that God does not exist or is not the Creator. Do you at least understand what I am saying (as opposed to agreement). Thank you for your post which plainly convinced me that you wanted to listen. W.T.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
For the record we creationists believe scientism IS THE BRANCH OF SCIENCE THAT EXCLUDES/ASSUMES THE NON-EXISTENCE OF GOD. Thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Your belief is wrong, then. It isn't "science" at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rand Al'Thor Inactive Member |
Willowtree,
Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the creation of life. Evolution explains what happens after life has been formed. I repeat, evolution is not about the beginning of life. That being said I see no reason why you have to conclude that god and evolution aren't compatible. Now if I understand you correctly you are saying that any part of science that doesn't start with the assumption that god is exists is biased and part of this "scientism". But, if that is true then pretty much all of science would be as you say "scientism". Which god(s) should the scientist assume exists? Is it still science if the scientist believes in say Allah? Can something only be by your definition "true science" if those involved believe in the christian god? If this is truly what you believe are you really willing to classify "creation science" as the only true unbiased science?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
Willowtree, I have started a new thread - Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution. Its purpose is to examine the scientific evidence you offer against evolution rather than have it lost amongst your numerous posts on philosophy, atheism, scientism, conspiracy theories, hero worship etc.
I invite you to provide all and only scientific evidence in that thread and others to respond with science-based rebuttal. I've even started the ball rolling by suggesting a test for your Miltonian worldview vis a vis neo-Darwinian evolution. ----- By edit - This topic now closed - Adminnemooseus [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-17-2003]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024