Thanks.
All-Seeing-I
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.
--
The All Seeing I
wf3h
>
> 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.
really? how many animals can detect an x ray burster? the flashing of
a rotating pulsar?
oh. none.
well...there goes THAT little chestnut...
>
> 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.
and therefore belief in god has no basis. if our EVIDENCE is wrong
then there's no reason...AT ALL...to believe in god.
>
> 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.
uh...wrong. step out a 10th story window. see if faith saves you.
there is a real world. that world functions by laws. those laws are
discovered by science
any creationist who disagrees is welcome to test his faith by a walk
out a 10th story window
AND...since creationism is meaningless....'all seeing' will respond
with an insult.
Boikat
> " 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.
This is where you start to derail.
>
> 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.
You're starting to tip sideways.
>
> 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.
This is where you jump the tracks.
>
> it seems to be THAT simple.
It only "seems" that simple to you because you want it to. You want
it to "seem" like science depends upon the same sort of faith as a
belief in a god because that way you can claim, in your mind, that
your views are just as valid as a scientific view. Wrong. The
scientific "faith" is based upon observation and verifiable evidence.
"I have "faith" that the sun will rise over the eastern horizon
tomorrow" is not the same "faith" used in the phrase "I have faith in
the existance of God." You do not have evidence, you have pure
belief, and nothing more.
Boikat
John Harshman
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.
Nashton
No, it doesn't. It comes down to world views.
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.)
That is very wrong. why would anyone need further revelation and how did
you arrive at this conclusion? What if what we have in our possession as
far as revelation is sufficient? And it is.
>
> 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.
That's so wrong, it's hard to keep a straight face. We have more than
empirical knowledge to go by, its merely a matter of choice derived from
world views.
>
> And faith doesn't enter into it, except for the assumption (which I
> would not call faith) that empirical evidence is meaningful.
Perhaps faith is irrelevant in your view, but that's merely your opinion.
>
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
There are other evidences that are equally as valid as evidence
discovered with a science that is only as good as human ability.
Pity you cannot see any further then your nose.
John Harshman
How is that not epistemology? It's an argument about how we can know
what's true.
>> 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.)
>
> That is very wrong. why would anyone need further revelation and how did
> you arrive at this conclusion? What if what we have in our possession as
> far as revelation is sufficient? And it is.
How, then, did you decide which of the many contradictory revelations
were really true, and after doing that, how did you sort among the
differing interpretations of those revelations?
>> 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.
>
> That's so wrong, it's hard to keep a straight face. We have more than
> empirical knowledge to go by, its merely a matter of choice derived from
> world views.
That's your epistemological position. I think your position is silly.
>> And faith doesn't enter into it, except for the assumption (which I
>> would not call faith) that empirical evidence is meaningful.
>
> Perhaps faith is irrelevant in your view, but that's merely your opinion.
Yes. If you could read, you would have noticed that I was in fact
talking about my opinion.
Caranx latus
> On Nov 6, 6:08 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> It only "seems" that simple to you because you want it to. You want
>> it to "seem" like science depends upon the same sort of faith as a
>> belief in a god because that way you can claim, in your mind, that
>> your views are just as valid as a scientific view. Wrong. The
>> scientific "faith" is based upon observation and verifiable evidence.
>> "I have "faith" that the sun will rise over the eastern horizon
>> tomorrow" is not the same "faith" used in the phrase "I have faith in
>> the existance of God." You do not have evidence, you have pure
>> belief, and nothing more.
>
> There are other evidences that are equally as valid as evidence
> discovered with a science that is only as good as human ability.
*Why* are they equally valid?
chris thompson
wf3h
> There are other evidences that are equally as valid as evidence
> discovered with a science that is only as good as human ability.
no, there's not.
>
> Pity you cannot see any further then your nose.-
says pinocchio.
Boikat
So you keep saying to the point of being a meaningless clishe.
>
> Pity you cannot see any further then your nose.
Sorry, I'm not into mind altering drugs, like you.
Boikat
wf3h
> John Harshman wrote:
>
> > It all comes down to a question of epistemology.
>
> No, it doesn't. It comes down to world views.
which is a meaningless statement...but typical for a creationist.
>
> 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.)
>
> That is very wrong. why would anyone need further revelation and how did
> you arrive at this conclusion? What if what we have in our possession as
> far as revelation is sufficient? And it is.
because how would you know that a revelation is true without ANOTHER
revelation to tell you that...and ANOTHER to tell you that...and
ANOTHER>...
there are LOTS of revelations. plenty. human history is littered with
the damn things. we have on this very newsgroup, francis m. klug
telling us of revelations from st. joseph
are those real?
how do you know your revelation is suffiicient? why isn't the qur'an
relevant? the book of mormon?
IOW revelation is meaningless. only science can tell us about the
natural world. that's a concept that's too radical for creationists
because they are locked into their 2000 year history of failure
but it's a fact
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> That's so wrong, it's hard to keep a straight face. We have more than
> empirical knowledge to go by, its merely a matter of choice derived from
> world views.
really? again, step out a 10th story window. let me know about your
worldview, m'kay?
natural laws are the same for everyone. science is the same for
everyone.
revelation is completely subjective and useless.
>
>
>
> > And faith doesn't enter into it, except for the assumption (which I
> > would not call faith) that empirical evidence is meaningful.
>
> Perhaps faith is irrelevant in your view, but that's merely your opinion.
if you believe that, try your opinion on a 100 foot walk out a window,
OK?
where's your faith, man?
Nashton
Epistemology, you supporter of woman abusers, is not synonymous with the
notion of a world view.
LOL
kalkidas
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message news:db93c743-b0f4-49b8...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
They've taken methodological atheism too seriously. It started out as a practical tool to evaluate apparently impersonal mechanisms in nature. But they began to see it as evidence for atheism. It's a psychological problem.
All-seeing-I
Empirical data is very important. Dare I say, "Science" is very
important. That does not mean your beliefs follow.
Even evolutionary science has furthered mankind's knowledge regarding
such things as disease. But that does not mean your beliefs follow.
The problem as I see it: There are too many that will /only/ accept
empirical data. But there are other forms of data and other types of
evidences that can be equally as valid. 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.
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.
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.
It seems reasonable at this juncture in man's history that evolution
takes a faith just like belief in God takes a faith.
wf3h
>
> They've taken methodological atheism too seriously. It started out as a practical tool to evaluate apparently impersonal mechanisms in nature. But they began to see it as evidence for atheism. It's a psychological problem.-
go abuse an untouchable
AusShane
Love to see you actually cite one in the real world?
John Harshman
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.
> 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?
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
Will in New Haven
Laughing at your own feeble attempt at humor is really stupid. "World-
View," when it is an excuse for willful ignorance, is not enough
excuse. People who have a "world-view" that says you can ignore what
the natural world tells you are simply inferior. It is a miracle that
you can tie your damn shoes.
--
Will in New Haven
Will in New Haven
Oddly enough, I was going to suggest that he go attempt to burn a
widow on her dead husband's funeral pyre when I decided that would be
insensitive and improper.
So I called him a stupid mother-fucker.
It is very odd being in a thread where (M)adman seems pleasant and
reasonable compared to his allies.
Will in New Haven
Look, you stupid mother-fucker, there is no evidence for atheism. But
there is no evidence for theism either. Also, none of the other
theists on here would piss on you if you were on fire.
Cordially as always
Free Lunch
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
It seems that you made no effort to learn anything from those answers.
Thanks for showing us how "honest" you were in asking the question.
Only religious folks who hold to dogma that is opposed to reality seem
to feel the need to lie to us, again and again. Could you explain why
you feel the need to lie to us?
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
So you claim but cannot support.
>Pity you cannot see any further then your nose.
Pity you worship ignorance.
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
You really have no clue what you are talking about Nashty.
Kent
Science is marked by successful predictions. Oddly enough false
prophets and wrong theories are marked by the same thing -- false
predictions (see Deuteronomy 18:21-22 and Karl Popper)
David Hare-Scott
If there are other sources of information about the world other than
empirical data what are they?
If information from a source other than empirical data contradicts the
empirical data how should we resolve the conflict?
David
All-seeing-I
They are both constructs of human imagination that are based on
perceptions. One is based on perceived physical observations the other
is based on perceived spiritual observations.
If mankind's perceptions can be trusted, then either explanation could
be valid. Because they are both based on man's perceptions and
experiences.
Sapient Fridge
<db93c743-b0f4-49b8...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> writes
>" 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.
Yep, mantis shrimps can see 12 colours. Pretty cool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantis_shrimps
>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.
*All* the scientific data that has been collected so far on the subject
points to evolution, none points to creation. or any god. Yes, some of
that data might be wrong (and some probably is) but it's very unlikely
that all of it is because thousands upon thousands of scientists (and
non-scientists) have been checking and testing it for the last 150
years!
Entire organisations have been set up to look for flaws in the ToE,
without finding anything. They end up resorting to lies, quote mines
and distortion instead. Very moral I'm sure.
In other words, on one side is a vast amount of data supporting the
theory of evolution and on the other there is nothing supporting
creation or the presence of a god. Yet you say they are equal because
the data supporting evolution *might* be wrong.
That doesn't seem at all reasonable to me, but there you go.
In addition we can use the ToE to make predictions and to solve
problems. For example I used it in my beastly_maths.pl program to solve
Spinny's maths problem. If the theory is wrong then how come it can
be applied to solve *real* problems?
http://www.spamsights.org/misc/beastly_maths.txt
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
All-seeing-I
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.
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?
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.
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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".
All-seeing-I
> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in messagenews:db93c743-b0f4-49b8...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Yeah. I would tend to agree with this. The origin of this phenomena,
or psychological problem if you want to call it that, seems to stem
from books written by just a hand full of authors. Evidence of this is
the use of the same quotes being given as answerers over and over as
if they were memorized and then parroted. Which further suggest the
scientific part of evolution has been hijacked by the atheist as a
substitute belief.
Don't get me wrong. People have a right to believe what they wish to
believe, But if you ask me, atheism is being subtly promoted en mass
as it hides behind science in the classrooms. Which is cowardly and
subverts the teachings of the individual family.
All-seeing-I
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 15:46:22 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your answers were the typical parroted nonsense, This post is an
example.
All-seeing-I
wrote:
> In message
> <db93c743-b0f4-49b8-a0b4-1182e166f...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes
Bull shit.
What has been happening for the last 150 years is evolution evolving.
When evolution is compared piece by piece it does not hold water. And
most of you know this.
>
> Entire organisations have been set up to look for flaws in the ToE,
> without finding anything. They end up resorting to lies, quote mines
> and distortion instead. Very moral I'm sure.
>
> In other words, on one side is a vast amount of data supporting the
> theory of evolution and on the other there is nothing supporting
> creation or the presence of a god. Yet you say they are equal because
> the data supporting evolution *might* be wrong.
>
> That doesn't seem at all reasonable to me, but there you go.
It seems to me that you have the Rooster in charge of the Hen house.
IOW Peer review is not as honerable as it once was.
>
> In addition we can use the ToE to make predictions and to solve
> problems. For example I used it in my beastly_maths.pl program to solve
> Spinny's maths problem. If the theory is wrong then how come it can
> be applied to solve *real* problems?
Don't you pay attention?
Burkhard
the respondents were not atheists, and the rest with oen exception makes
it clear that their atheism was unrelated to the ToE in specific,
science in general and on a personal not not involved with them becoming
athists, you still conclude that evolution theory is identical with
atheism? Why bother wish asking the question when you made up your mind
anyway and ignore all the answers that were given? Or do you think your
lying looks more convincing when based on a survey whose results you
ignore?
raven1
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Nov 6, 6:35 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I wrote:
>> > On Nov 6, 6:08 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> It only "seems" that simple to you because you want it to. You want
>> >> it to "seem" like science depends upon the same sort of faith as a
>> >> belief in a god because that way you can claim, in your mind, that
>> >> your views are just as valid as a scientific view. Wrong. The
>> >> scientific "faith" is based upon observation and verifiable evidence.
>> >> "I have "faith" that the sun will rise over the eastern horizon
>> >> tomorrow" is not the same "faith" used in the phrase "I have faith in
>> >> the existance of God." You do not have evidence, you have pure
>> >> belief, and nothing more.
>>
>> > There are other evidences that are equally as valid as evidence
>> > discovered with a science that is only as good as human ability.
>>
>> *Why* are they equally valid?
>
>They are both constructs of human imagination that are based on
>perceptions. One is based on perceived physical observations the other
>is based on perceived spiritual observations.
Epic fail. Physical observations are objective, in that they can be
either falsified, or confirmed to a high degree of accuracy.
"Spiritual observations" are completely subjective, to the point where
they are indistinguishable from imagination.
>If mankind's perceptions can be trusted, then either explanation could
>be valid. Because they are both based on man's perceptions and
>experiences.
I always find it amusing that Post-Modernism seems to have become the
last refuge for theists who realize that they have nothing to back
their claims.
Caranx latus
> On Nov 6, 6:35 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I wrote:
>>> On Nov 6, 6:08 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> It only "seems" that simple to you because you want it to. You want
>>>> it to "seem" like science depends upon the same sort of faith as a
>>>> belief in a god because that way you can claim, in your mind, that
>>>> your views are just as valid as a scientific view. Wrong. The
>>>> scientific "faith" is based upon observation and verifiable evidence.
>>>> "I have "faith" that the sun will rise over the eastern horizon
>>>> tomorrow" is not the same "faith" used in the phrase "I have faith in
>>>> the existance of God." You do not have evidence, you have pure
>>>> belief, and nothing more.
>>> There are other evidences that are equally as valid as evidence
>>> discovered with a science that is only as good as human ability.
>> *Why* are they equally valid?
>
> They are both constructs of human imagination that are based on
> perceptions. One is based on perceived physical observations the other
> is based on perceived spiritual observations.
The really interesting thing is that the physical observations can be
confirmed by everyone, while the spiritual observations can be confirmed
by no-one.
> If mankind's perceptions can be trusted, then either explanation could
> be valid. Because they are both based on man's perceptions and
> experiences.
How does one develop trust in one's perceptions? By having them confirmed.
raven1
So what did you learn from the responses?
Ye Old One
>On Nov 6, 6:35 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I wrote:
>> > On Nov 6, 6:08 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> It only "seems" that simple to you because you want it to. You want
>> >> it to "seem" like science depends upon the same sort of faith as a
>> >> belief in a god because that way you can claim, in your mind, that
>> >> your views are just as valid as a scientific view. Wrong. The
>> >> scientific "faith" is based upon observation and verifiable evidence.
>> >> "I have "faith" that the sun will rise over the eastern horizon
>> >> tomorrow" is not the same "faith" used in the phrase "I have faith in
>> >> the existance of God." You do not have evidence, you have pure
>> >> belief, and nothing more.
>>
>> > There are other evidences that are equally as valid as evidence
>> > discovered with a science that is only as good as human ability.
>>
>> *Why* are they equally valid?
>
>They are both constructs of human imagination
Your god is a construct of the human imagination.
>that are based on
>perceptions. One is based on perceived physical observations the other
>is based on perceived spiritual observations.
>
>If mankind's perceptions can be trusted, then either explanation could
>be valid. Because they are both based on man's perceptions and
>experiences.
One, and it isn't yous, has a basis in reality.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Boikat
> On Nov 6, 6:35 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > All-seeing-I wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 6:08 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > >> It only "seems" that simple to you because you want it to. You want
> > >> it to "seem" like science depends upon the same sort of faith as a
> > >> belief in a god because that way you can claim, in your mind, that
> > >> your views are just as valid as a scientific view. Wrong. The
> > >> scientific "faith" is based upon observation and verifiable evidence.
> > >> "I have "faith" that the sun will rise over the eastern horizon
> > >> tomorrow" is not the same "faith" used in the phrase "I have faith in
> > >> the existance of God." You do not have evidence, you have pure
> > >> belief, and nothing more.
>
> > > There are other evidences that are equally as valid as evidence
> > > discovered with a science that is only as good as human ability.
>
> > *Why* are they equally valid?
>
> They are both constructs of human imagination that are based on
> perceptions. One is based on perceived physical observations the other
> is based on perceived spiritual observations.
Since science does not deal with "spiritual" observation (Oh, please
provide an example of a "spiritual observation"), they have no
validity in science.
>
> If mankind's perceptions can be trusted, then either explanation could
> be valid. Because they are both based on man's perceptions and
> experiences.-
So far, all "spiritual observations" appear totally subjective,
unverifiable, and untestable. Equally valid? NOT!
Boikat
Boikat
Apparently, nothing.
Boikat
raven1
All scientific theories evolve as better data becomes available.
That's a strength, not a weakness. Religious explanations for
phenomena don't evolve as better data becomes available. That's a
weakness, not a strength.
Also, since you seem to be fairly forgetful, let me remind you that in
science, a theory is a data-based model that explains an observed
phenomenon (ex: gravity is an observed phenomenon, General Relativity
a theory that describes it). Biological evolution is also an observed
phenomenon; the ToE describes how it works based on the best data
available. Better data can give cause to modify (or overturn) a model
(ex: phlogiston, aether, et al), but will not alter the fact that the
phenomenon itself occurs.
>When evolution is compared piece by piece
Compared to what?
> it does not hold water. And
>most of you know this.
As you show no evidence of understanding even the rudiments of the
ToE, you're hardly in a position to judge such a thing. This is what
makes it endlessly frustrating trying to discuss anything with you:
you literally have no concept of what it is you're criticizing, you
just know that you disagree with it because of "common sense", or
because "it's just that simple". Science doesn't work that way; it's
based on "what does the evidence indicate?", to which you offer in
response that there are different ways to interpret the evidence, but
you can't possibly know that, given that you obviously haven't taken
the slightest bit of time or effort to find out exactly what the
evidence is.
Even if one was to grant your premise about different ways of
interpreting evidence, in the case of the ToE, the choice is
practically binary: either evolution occurs, or some trickster has
deliberately planted massive amounts false evidence in the fossil
record, morphology, and DNA, that all points in one direction to
deceive scientists into thinking it does, and left no trace of
evidence that contradicts it.
>
>>
>> Entire organisations have been set up to look for flaws in the ToE,
>> without finding anything. They end up resorting to lies, quote mines
>> and distortion instead. Very moral I'm sure.
>>
>> In other words, on one side is a vast amount of data supporting the
>> theory of evolution and on the other there is nothing supporting
>> creation or the presence of a god. Yet you say they are equal because
>> the data supporting evolution *might* be wrong.
>>
>> That doesn't seem at all reasonable to me, but there you go.
>
>It seems to me that you have the Rooster in charge of the Hen house.
>
>IOW Peer review is not as honerable as it once was.
Based on what?
>> In addition we can use the ToE to make predictions and to solve
>> problems. For example I used it in my beastly_maths.pl program to solve
>> Spinny's maths problem. If the theory is wrong then how come it can
>> be applied to solve *real* problems?
>
>Don't you pay attention?
Yes. Do you? You seem not to have grasped a single thing anyone has
said to you in your entire time on this NG.
Augray
<ap...@email.com> wrote in
<46eb3c71-b25c-43c1...@15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com> :
>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.
Science is important, but it shouldn't be believed?
>Even evolutionary science has furthered mankind's knowledge regarding
>such things as disease. But that does not mean your beliefs follow.
>
>The problem as I see it: There are too many that will /only/ accept
>empirical data. But there are other forms of data and other types of
>evidences that can be equally as valid.
Such as?
>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.
How does one recognize valid data?
>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.
That's an unsupported, and unsupportable, claim, since your
perceptions are flawed by your own admission.
>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.
But you yourself do the same thing. The Book of Enoch says that the
Sun crosses the sky in a chariot, but you reject *that*, don't you?
Assuming you do, *why* do you reject it? After all, your perceptions
are flawed.
>It seems reasonable at this juncture in man's history that evolution
>takes a faith just like belief in God takes a faith.
I would suggest that this is only because you're unaware of the data
in support of it.
John Harshman
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.
> 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.
> 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.
>>> 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?
>>> 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.
>>> 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?
>>> 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?
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.
Sapient Fridge
<aa059731-3482-4862...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>On Nov 7, 3:07�am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
<snip>
>> *All* the scientific data that has been collected so far on the subject
>> points to evolution, none points to creation. or any god. �Yes, some of
>> that data might be wrong (and some probably is) but it's very unlikely
>> that all of it is because thousands upon thousands of scientists (and
>> non-scientists) have been checking and testing it for the last 150
>> years!
>
>Bull shit.
>What has been happening for the last 150 years is evolution evolving.
Of course it has. That's how science works. As time goes on our
understanding of what is going on improves. For example, Darwin didn't
know about DNA but we do and of course discoveries like that are going
to refine our understanding. He got the basics right though. Bright
chap.
>When evolution is compared piece by piece it does not hold water.
I call your bluff. Demonstrate a single piece of evolutionary theory
that "does not hold water". You can't can you?
Like all creationists you assert that the theory evolution has lots of
problems but you fail to give any explanation or evidence of these
holes. When asked for more detail the thread is abandoned, only for the
same lies to be repeated a few days later in a new thread.
The funny thing is that you tell these lies along with childish insults
at the same time as claiming your morals are superior. Who do you think
you are kidding?
> And most of you know this.
I don't know of *any* part of evolutionary theory that doesn't hold
water so you will have to explain in detail. Not that you will.
<snip>
>> In addition we can use the ToE to make predictions and to solve
>> problems. For example I used it in my beastly_maths.pl program to solve
>> Spinny's maths problem. � �If the theory is wrong then how come it can
>> be applied to solve *real* problems?
>
>Don't you pay attention?
Don't you answer questions?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<db93c743-b0f4-49b8...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
> 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.
No. You continue to embrace heresy rather than truth. In particular you
embrace the heresy that a book (any book, including the Bible) is more
important than the actual facts. Men write books (including the Bible) but
God wrote the rocks and the stars and, well, the universe. By insisting that
a book (any book, even the Bible) is superior to the actual work of God you
are denying God. You're a heretic, pure and simple.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
VoiceOfReason
"Spiritual perceptions" vary from individual to individual, even
within the same religious sect. Between religious sects they are
often mutually exclusive. That's why they're useless outside of the
spiritual realm.
Scientific perceptions are consistent across all races and creeds.
Hence the universal strength of science.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
I've never heard of methodological atheism. Presumably that is another
anti-science strawman invented by self-styled Christians who hate
knowledge. It is possible that you are speaking of methodological
naturalism which has no comment about gods or religions.
>Yeah. I would tend to agree with this. The origin of this phenomena,
>or psychological problem if you want to call it that, seems to stem
>from books written by just a hand full of authors. Evidence of this is
>the use of the same quotes being given as answerers over and over as
>if they were memorized and then parroted. Which further suggest the
>scientific part of evolution has been hijacked by the atheist as a
>substitute belief.
Project much?
Once again, you show that you do not understand science. Since you do
not understand it, you are unable to offer a coherent critique of it.
>Don't get me wrong. People have a right to believe what they wish to
>believe, But if you ask me, atheism is being subtly promoted en mass
>as it hides behind science in the classrooms. Which is cowardly and
>subverts the teachings of the individual family.
Your opinion is noted and dismissed as founded on falsehoods and
ignorance. Your hatred of learning is pathetic.
Nick Keighley
> On Nov 6, 7:02 pm, "kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> > "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in messagenews:db93c743-b0f4-49b8...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> > > 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.
yes but the flaws are less fundamental than the other sources of
knowledge. If someone measures the charge on the electron they get the
sam eanswer every time. Or rather the same answer +/- error bars and
assuming the measurement is carefully performed. We cannot measure
correcponding values with corresponding accuracy and repeatability
with "spritual knowledge".
<snip>
> > > 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.
no. See above about repeatability. This repeatabilty of science based
measurements gives an objective reason to trust empirical knowledge.
We have none to trust spiritual knowledge.
> > They've taken methodological atheism too seriously.
many people distinguish methodological naturalism (you seemed to
mispell the term above...) from philosophical naturalism. Science is
firmly based in MN. Scientists can hold religious views. I believe
there are respected Jesuit astronomers who can present papers on
stellar processes (or whatever) whilst going to matins in the evening.
Their opinions on astronomy are respected by other scientists so long
as they don't start saying things like "the star went super-nova
because god told the angels to make it so".
I am an atheist because I don't believe in god. I see no evidence for
him and find the collection of biblical myths interesting but not
evidential. I also subscribe to both MN and PN. Occam's Razor seems a
quite compelling reason for PN. The universe appears to be a wholly
natural phenomenon so why not take the logical step of simply assuming
it really is? Minimises the number of assumptions.
> It started out as a practical
> tool to evaluate apparently impersonal mechanisms in nature. But they began to
> see it as evidence for atheism. It's a psychological problem.
no I don't take MN to be evidence for atheism. Obviously I don't see
my views as a problem!
> Yeah. I would tend to agree with this. The origin of this phenomena,
> or psychological problem if you want to call it that, seems to stem
> from books written by just a hand full of authors.
Nope. I had formed my views well before I read Dawkins' "Selfish
Gene" (great book!) or even the "God Delusion" (tedious, repetitive
and "you don't say"), Sagan's "Demon Haunted World" (could have been
shorter) and I have yet to read Origins. Hitchens I just found
unreadable I just skimmed it. It was TGD but even more of a tedious
rant.
So no, these "few books" did not program me
> Evidence of this is
> the use of the same quotes being given as answerers over and over as
> if they were memorized and then parroted.
if you parrot the same stupid questions and opinions what do you
expect?
> Which further suggest the
> scientific part of evolution has been hijacked by the atheist as a
> substitute belief.
It's not a belief. I'm an atheist I don't have any beliefs.
> Don't get me wrong. People have a right to believe what they wish to
> believe, But if you ask me, atheism is being subtly promoted en mass
> as it hides behind science in the classrooms. Which is cowardly and
> subverts the teachings of the individual family.
You are mistaken. Atheism is not taught in the class room (well, maybe
in North Korea).
I came from a fairly unreligious family and was taught religion at
school. Was my family being subverted?
nick keighley
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Nov 7, 3:07�am, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
>wrote:
...
>> Entire organisations have been set up to look for flaws in the ToE,
>> without finding anything. �They end up resorting to lies, quote mines
>> and distortion instead. �Very moral I'm sure.
>>
>> In other words, on one side is a vast amount of data supporting the
>> theory of evolution and on the other there is nothing supporting
>> creation or the presence of a god. �Yet you say they are equal because
>> the data supporting evolution *might* be wrong.
>>
>> That doesn't seem at all reasonable to me, but there you go.
>
>It seems to me that you have the Rooster in charge of the Hen house.
But you demand that the fox be put in charge.
...
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
On the surface it may appear that you are correct. But you are quite
mistaken.
Why you ask? Two things.
1) You do not look deep enough into the issue for the truth and 2)
Physical observations are objective, as you said. But when you look
one level deeper into the comparison the interpretation of those
observations are NOT objective. They are quite subject to various
interpretations based on human abilities that are quite limited.
OTOH Spiritual observations are subjective, The interpretations of
those observations are based on the same abilities used to iinterpret
the physical observations.
So either one has the same chance to be valid or invalid.
Damn, some of you can be sooooooooo dumb at times!
Augray
<ap...@email.com> wrote in
<0dac9bec-f6e1-45b5...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> :
>On the surface it may appear that you are correct. But you are quite
>mistaken.
>
>Why you ask? Two things.
>
>1) You do not look deep enough into the issue for the truth
And you have???
>and 2)
>Physical observations are objective, as you said. But when you look
>one level deeper into the comparison the interpretation of those
>observations are NOT objective. They are quite subject to various
>interpretations based on human abilities that are quite limited.
>
>OTOH Spiritual observations are subjective, The interpretations of
>those observations are based on the same abilities used to iinterpret
>the physical observations.
But what if one "spiritual observation" contradicts another? What
then?
>So either one has the same chance to be valid or invalid.
That's an unsupported assertion.
>Damn, some of you can be sooooooooo dumb at times!
And you can't?
All-Seeing-I
> chris thompson wrote:
> > In the category, STFU with those big words!
>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>> like) that a creationist uses to believe God created, to believe
> >>>> scientific theories such as evolution.
>
> notion of a world view.
>
> LOL
Support? Hell, they worship ole`Bob
That makes them worshipers of women abusers!
All-Seeing-I
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.
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.
Ye Old One
Evolution is a fact. Only a real fool disagrees with that.
Sure, in the 150 years since Darwin published OTOOS we have learned a
lot more. He laid the foundations for thousands of scientists to build
our modern understanding of the subject.
>When evolution is compared piece by piece it does not hold water. And
>most of you know this.
What most of us know is that you don't understand the subject, that
you are scientifically illiterate and that you lie far too much.
>
>>
>> Entire organisations have been set up to look for flaws in the ToE,
>> without finding anything. They end up resorting to lies, quote mines
>> and distortion instead. Very moral I'm sure.
>>
>> In other words, on one side is a vast amount of data supporting the
>> theory of evolution and on the other there is nothing supporting
>> creation or the presence of a god. Yet you say they are equal because
>> the data supporting evolution *might* be wrong.
>>
>> That doesn't seem at all reasonable to me, but there you go.
>
>It seems to me that you have the Rooster in charge of the Hen house.
>
>IOW Peer review is not as honerable as it once was.
Creationists try to use that excuse for nothing being published to
support their twisted ideas.
But then we know that creationist don't do science.
>
>>
>> In addition we can use the ToE to make predictions and to solve
>> problems. For example I used it in my beastly_maths.pl program to solve
>> Spinny's maths problem. If the theory is wrong then how come it can
>> be applied to solve *real* problems?
>
>Don't you pay attention?
Yes, he does. Clearly you don't - as your past record of stupidity
shows.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Sapient Fridge
<0dac9bec-f6e1-45b5...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>On Nov 7, 5:32�am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> I always find it amusing that Post-Modernism seems to have become the
>> last refuge for theists who realize that they have nothing to back
>> their claims.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>On the surface it may appear that you are correct. But you are quite
>mistaken.
>
>Why you ask? Two things.
>
>1) You do not look deep enough into the issue for the truth and 2)
>Physical observations are objective, as you said. But when you look
>one level deeper into the comparison the interpretation of those
>observations are NOT objective. They are quite subject to various
>interpretations based on human abilities that are quite limited.
>
>OTOH Spiritual observations are subjective, The interpretations of
>those observations are based on the same abilities used to iinterpret
>the physical observations.
>
>So either one has the same chance to be valid or invalid.
Your yourself said that "Physical observations are objective", so at
least everyone can observe the same data and either agree or disagree
with what it means.
Spiritual "observations", if they happen at all, cannot be repeated by
anyone else. That makes them untestable and far more likely to be
either mental problems or just plain lies. Not only has the
interpretation of the observation have to be done but the observation
data itself is suspect.
So how do you tell whether the priest who tells you that god speaks
directly to him is a schizophrenic, a pathological liar or is telling
the truth?
The answer is you can't. You have no way of telling. That makes it
utterly useless as data, even if the priest thinks he is telling the
truth.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<9fc4ddeb-7a0e-418d...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
> Don't get me wrong. People have a right to believe what they wish to
> believe, But if you ask me, atheism is being subtly promoted en mass
> as it hides behind science in the classrooms. Which is cowardly and
> subverts the teachings of the individual family.
I went to Church schools from elementary school to university. Are you saying
that the Catholic Church promoted atheism when it ensured that all, repeat,
all of those who graduated from my high school knew at least the basics of
science, including biology, and most especially including the theory of
evolution? Please elaborate.
wf3h
>
> 1) You do not look deep enough into the issue for the truth and 2)
> Physical observations are objective, as you said. But when you look
> one level deeper into the comparison the interpretation of those
> observations are NOT objective. They are quite subject to various
> interpretations based on human abilities that are quite limited.
actually they're not. because they're the best method we have ever
invented (cf shelby foote). science is the ONLY method humanity has
developed to investigate nature
creationism, OTOH, has ALWAYS been wrong
>
> OTOH Spiritual observations are subjective, The interpretations of
> those observations are based on the same abilities used to iinterpret
> the physical observations.
well no they're not. 'spiritual' observations are not observations at
all. they are metaphysical guesswork based on subjective criteria as
you yourself prove. you were unable to prove the book of exodus is
literally true even though you assert it is.
>
> So either one has the same chance to be valid or invalid.
take a walk out a 10th story window. let me know about your subjective
view, m'kay?
creationists are always telling us about 'subjectivity' but when their
balls are on the line they whimper like puppies.
wf3h
>
> 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,
nothing could show the failure of creationism better than this example
the creationist himself provides
creationism, for 2000 years didn't know 'frequencies' existed. hell,
they didn't even know AIR existed
yet the creationist is here to lecture us on why a 2000 year history
of failure is not a reason to exclude their 'wizard of oz' view of
nature from the discussion
there may be other data that you
> cannot percieve at this point in history due to mankinds limited
> physical abilities..
and creationism, with its methodological inability to tell us ANYTHING
about nature is in NO position to tell us about limitations.
creationism doesnt have the potential even to HAVE limitiations since
it's useless
So the outcome of any tests may be skewed and you
> would not even know it.
yeah you'd know that. for 2000 years you guys looked for demons as
causes of diseases and earthquakes. and you were too stupid to realize
your 'tests' were skewed....but now you're here to tell us why
science...which HAS been successful...is a failure while
creationism...which is superstition...is a success.
>
> 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.
except, of course, the herd mentality of creatoinism. creationism says
'a bunch of dead guys decided something was true, so it's true'.
and the creationist says 'that's good enough for me!'
THEN he tells us how independent he is. he relies on gossip and
hearsay...and tells us of his independence
it's like the kid who smokes while acting the rebel, not realizing
cigaret companies are huge businesses.
>
> Next, you are correct. I can misinterpret data from ancient texts; you
> can misinterpret data from science. That is the point.
there is no way to interpret data from ancient texts. your METHOD is
wrong and leads to wrong conclusions. that's why creationsits couldnt
even tell us AIR existed, let alone about evolution.
>
> 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.
given the fact man has made gods of:
-trees
-rocks
-mountains
-the moon
-cats
-dogs
-fish
how does this help your case? it seems man is subject to mythology and
ignorance masquerading as a knowledge of god.
compare: there's only 1 theory of the atom: quantum physics; 1 theory
of evolution
there are 38,000 christian denominations, not counting other
religions.
so tell us about this 'true' view of god.
>
> Oh please. Much of what you study and research can be viewed as common
> design as well.
wrong. there is no such thing as 'common design'. it's a useless,
throwaway term for the weak and halt of mind.
if this term had meaning you'd be able to tell us how design works.
you can't.
Dick C.
1182e1...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> 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.
Data is data. It is not incorrect, it just is. Science attempts to use
the data to understand nature. It does that by developing explanations
of the data. The explanations can be wrong. They are tested by using
them to predict where and how to find more data, or what the data should
be if it is found. If the data discovered does not match the predictions
then the explanations are either thrown out or modified.
Eventually, a powerful viable explanation, or theory is built.
And science moves on.
>
> 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.
Not even. Theories, as I said, are built on evidence, or data. Religion
is built on personal revelation and the religious traditions of ignorant
ancient peoples.
No testing, no evidence, no attempt to verify,.
>
> it seems to be THAT simple.
>
> --
> The All Seeing I
>
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.com
Ye Old One
Don't you think it is really about time you stopped lying?
R. Baldwin
1182e1...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> " 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.
I suggest there can be no evidence for God. There is no way to know what
evidence for God would look like. How would one test data to determine
it is evidence for God? I believe in God, by faith, and do not find it
necessary to look for evidence to shore up my faith.
>
> 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.
I assume you are referring to sensory perception in other animal
species, not suggesting they have cognitive reasoning ability enabling
them to deduce the existance of quarks or leptons...
>
> 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.
>
> --
> The All Seeing I
>
Well, no. Scientific belief has to do with the idea that a prediction
scheme that works will continue to do so. We have dropped marbles many
times, they always fell to the ground. We dropped other objects, they
also fell. We infer that the next time we drop a marble it will again
fall to the ground.
Religious faith has to do with believing in possibilities counter to the
way things are observed to work (such as miracles) because these beliefs
appeal to spiritual sensibilities (for which there is no evidence). It
depends on feelings that divine revelation has occured (for which there
is likewise no evidence).
The two kinds of belief are inherently different.
Nashton
>
> They've taken methodological atheism too seriously. It started out as a practical tool to evaluate apparently impersonal mechanisms in nature.
But they began to see it as evidence for atheism. It's a psychological
problem.
>
At this point, it has become one of the major arguments for atheism and
I will go as far as to say that it's another aspect of the ideology
which I like to call the Brownien ideology.
Nashton
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:48:44 -0400, Nashton <na...@na.ca> wrote in
> talk.origins:
>
>> chris thompson wrote:
>>> In the category, STFU with those big words!
>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>> No, it doesn't. It comes down to world views.
>> Epistemology, you supporter of woman abusers, is not synonymous with the
>> notion of a world view.
>>
>> LOL
>
>
Care to elaborate, or just blowing even *more* evocheerleader hot air
out of your orifice?
LOL
wf3h
> kalkidas wrote:
>
> > They've taken methodological atheism too seriously. It started out as a practical tool to evaluate apparently impersonal mechanisms in nature.
>
> But they began to see it as evidence for atheism. It's a psychological
> problem.
>
which, even if true, has nothing to do with evolution. all dogs are 4
legged animals; not all 4 legged animals are dogs
creationists have poor critical thinking skills
>
>
> At this point, it has become one of the major arguments for atheism and
> I will go as far as to say that it's another aspect of the ideology
> which I like to call the Brownien ideology.
well...no. atheism existed long before darwin. nando, a creationist
fanatic, doesn't know the history of christianity, or the history of
atheism
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 8, 7:19 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>> kalkidas wrote:
>>
>> > They've taken methodological atheism too seriously. It started out as a practical tool to evaluate apparently impersonal mechanisms in nature.
>>
>> But they began to see it as evidence for atheism. It's a psychological
>> problem.
>>
>
>which, even if true, has nothing to do with evolution. all dogs are 4
>legged animals;
The average leg count is less than 4.
> not all 4 legged animals are dogs
>
>creationists have poor critical thinking skills
>
>>
>>
>> At this point, it has become one of the major arguments for atheism and
>> I will go as far as to say that it's another aspect of the ideology
>> which I like to call the Brownien ideology.
>
>well...no. atheism existed long before darwin. nando, a creationist
>fanatic, doesn't know the history of christianity, or the history of
>atheism
Nando doesn't know anything about anything.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
Oh look at the little trollslob dance.
--
Bob.
If brains were taxed, you would get a rebate.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<db375424-2fb3-4e77...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>):
Atheism existed before _Christianity_. Socrates, for example, was convicted
of 'corrupting the minds of youth' in part 'cause he promoted what his
enemies said was 'atheism'. As he died in 399 BC...
Nick Keighley
wrote:
> In message
> <0dac9bec-f6e1-45b5-934f-8cbfce4c0...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
they seem comparable to dreams to me. I have dreams so I'm happy to
accept that other people do. But I don't subscribe any meaning to
themin the actual world. I dreamed I was a galaxy fighting another
galaxy by throwing globular clusters at it. Do you think this really
happened?
John Harshman
Again, this isn't an argument against evolution. It's an argument
against all knowledge whatsoever. Is it your position that we don't know
anything at all?
>>> 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.
I suggest you look up the definition of nihilism.
> Next, you are correct. I can misinterpret data from ancient texts; you
> can misinterpret data from science. That is the point.
No, that isn't the point. The point is that you make the same necessary
assumption as science does -- that your ability to perceive the world is
correct -- but add the additional assumption that your favorite
revelation is correct. Science requires no such additional assumption.
>>> 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.
Such perceptions can be tested. We don't need to perceive them
ourselves, as long as the animals can, and will react differently in
their presence than in their absence. And by the way, of course we knew
about high-frequency sound; it's a consequence of the wave nature of sound.
> 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.
Maybe. But what's the evidence?
>>>>> 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.
I notice you have made no argument here. Why?
It could. It could also be viewed as a jelly donut. But neither of those
explanations fits the data as well as common descent. Again, you don't
seem to be in a position to judge, since you know very little of what I
study and research, or about the evidence for common descent in general.
>>>>> 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.
My point is that just because there are two positions, that doesn't
imply a 50% chance that either of them is correct. You are wrong when
you claim that any construct of mankind has an equal chance of being
correct. Consider another example. We come upon a flat tree stump. You
say there was a tree here, but it was cut down with a chain saw. I say
that someone carefully constructed a tree stump out of sawdust and
Elmer's glue, and placed it here. Is there an equal chance that we are
each correct? Same with common descent. The data overwhelmingly favor
it, not your idea of separate creation.
>>>>> 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.
Do you have any argument to back that up? Just saying "you're wrong"
isn't an argument, you know.
>> 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.
I doubt that. I think that was just an automatic, defensive response.
Never mind, then.
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
>kalkidas wrote:
>
>>
>> They've taken methodological atheism too seriously. It started out as a practical tool to evaluate apparently impersonal mechanisms in nature.
>
> But they began to see it as evidence for atheism.
No.
>It's a psychological problem.
No.
>At this point, it has become one of the major arguments for atheism and
>I will go as far as to say that it's another aspect of the ideology
>which I like to call the Brownien ideology.
Atheism is the default position of belief in the supernatural. As long
as there is no evidence to support claims for gods or mysticism or other
supernatural events or beings, atheism is the only reasonable
conclusion. It is not evidence that supports atheism, but the lack of
evidence. Your religion appears to be completely bogus and you have no
evidence to show that it is in any way valid.
Will in New Haven
This is probably not a position he is taking happily. He is backed
into a corner. Reality says evolution has happened and is continuing
to happen. He doesn't believe that his faith and evolution can co-
exist. So he has become so hysterical about evolution that he denies
that we know what we clearly do know. Because he and his ilk have
failed so miserably in denying the fossil and genetic evidence, he has
decided to argue, perhaps even believe, that we _cannot_ know. This
sophomoric approach has no future.
If theists draw _this_ line in the sand, that acceptance of evolution
is incompatible with religion, they run into the philosophical problem
of "Who do you believe, Gladys, me or your own eyes?" and Gladys gets
less gullible as we go along. So they know they have to fight
education. It is the only chance they think they have.
--
Will in New Haven
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMkD_qrItsA&feature=related
"Let the Mystery Be" - Iris Dement
Kalkidas
news:tkodf5ht3v0ujabpq...@4ax.com:
But you've done exactly what I said: you are demanding so-called
"evidence", but only that �evidence� that fits the methodological
atheistic paradigm. In other words, you want to study God by methods that
do not refer to God. Since that is impossible, you claim that there is no
�evidence� for God.
However, there is abundant evidence for God, provided one does not
attempt to apply methodological atheistic methods. Since God is not an
impersonal mechanism of nature, but is the personal, transcendental
source of nature, He may not be known by the methods used to study
material nature, any more than a thermometer will tell you the distance
from New York to Paris.
wf3h
>
> But you've done exactly what I said: you are demanding so-called
> "evidence", but only that “evidence” that fits the methodological
> atheistic paradigm. In other words, you want to study God by methods that
> do not refer to God. Since that is impossible, you claim that there is no
> “evidence” for God.
if god were a useful concept for exploring nature, scientists would
use it. creationism had a 3000 year head start on science
yet explained nothing. ever. not a single time. no feature of nature
was ever explained by creationism
>
> However, there is abundant evidence for God, provided one does not
> attempt to apply methodological atheistic methods.
really? how does your view predict the precession of mercury's orbit?
how does it predict the hybridization of sp2 orbitals?
care to tell us?
Since God is not an
> impersonal mechanism of nature, but is the personal, transcendental
> source of nature, He may not be known by the methods used to study
> material nature, any more than a thermometer will tell you the distance
> from New York to Paris.-
and yet creationists say science is wrong and that wizard of oz magic
is right
in spite of 3000 years of failure
Desertphile
Atheism existed before humans existed.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
> kalkidas wrote:
>> They've taken methodological atheism too seriously.
>> It started out as a practical tool to evaluate apparently
>> impersonal mechanisms in nature.
> But they began to see it as evidence for atheism. It's a psychological
> problem.
Dear nutcase. Atheism is an observed fact, as everyone is and was
born an atheist. Deal with it.
Free Lunch
in talk.origins:
>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
>news:tkodf5ht3v0ujabpq...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:19:18 -0400, Nashton <na...@na.ca> wrote in
>> talk.origins:
>>
>>>kalkidas wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> They've taken methodological atheism too seriously. It started out
>>>> as a practical tool to evaluate apparently impersonal mechanisms in
>>>> nature.
>>>
>>> But they began to see it as evidence for atheism.
>>
>> No.
>>
>>>It's a psychological problem.
>>
>> No.
>>
>>>At this point, it has become one of the major arguments for atheism
>>>and I will go as far as to say that it's another aspect of the
>>>ideology which I like to call the Brownien ideology.
>>
>> Atheism is the default position of belief in the supernatural. As long
>> as there is no evidence to support claims for gods or mysticism or
>> other supernatural events or beings, atheism is the only reasonable
>> conclusion. It is not evidence that supports atheism, but the lack of
>> evidence. Your religion appears to be completely bogus and you have no
>> evidence to show that it is in any way valid.
>
>But you've done exactly what I said: you are demanding so-called
>"evidence", but only that �evidence� that fits the methodological
>atheistic paradigm.
Since you are clearly admitting that you have no real, testable
evidence, why don't you tell me how you will provide evidence? Stop
making excuses for your inability to support your claims.
> In other words, you want to study God by methods that
>do not refer to God. Since that is impossible, you claim that there is no
>�evidence� for God.
By what method can you study God? Show me.
>However, there is abundant evidence for God,
So, you whine when I ask for evidence for God, but then claim that there
is evidence.
>provided one does not
>attempt to apply methodological atheistic methods.
as long as you redefine evidence not to mean evidence.
>Since God is not an
>impersonal mechanism of nature, but is the personal, transcendental
>source of nature, He may not be known by the methods used to study
>material nature, any more than a thermometer will tell you the distance
>from New York to Paris.
Really? Why don't you show me how I can study God since you claim you
know that?
Ye Old One
>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
>news:tkodf5ht3v0ujabpq...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:19:18 -0400, Nashton <na...@na.ca> wrote in
>> talk.origins:
>>
>>>kalkidas wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> They've taken methodological atheism too seriously. It started out
>>>> as a practical tool to evaluate apparently impersonal mechanisms in
>>>> nature.
>>>
>>> But they began to see it as evidence for atheism.
>>
>> No.
>>
>>>It's a psychological problem.
>>
>> No.
>>
>>>At this point, it has become one of the major arguments for atheism
>>>and I will go as far as to say that it's another aspect of the
>>>ideology which I like to call the Brownien ideology.
>>
>> Atheism is the default position of belief in the supernatural. As long
>> as there is no evidence to support claims for gods or mysticism or
>> other supernatural events or beings, atheism is the only reasonable
>> conclusion. It is not evidence that supports atheism, but the lack of
>> evidence. Your religion appears to be completely bogus and you have no
>> evidence to show that it is in any way valid.
>
>But you've done exactly what I said: you are demanding so-called
>"evidence", but only that ?vidence?that fits the methodological
>atheistic paradigm. In other words, you want to study God by methods that
>do not refer to God. Since that is impossible, you claim that there is no
>?vidence?for God.
No, we don't want to study god. We may want to try to understand the
minds of those who invented him but that is totally different.
>
>However, there is abundant evidence for God,
Produce some.
> provided one does not
>attempt to apply methodological atheistic methods.
Then you admit you have no evidence.
>Since God is not an
>impersonal mechanism of nature, but is the personal, transcendental
>source of nature,
Gods, all gods without exception, are the invention of man.
> He may not be known by the methods used to study
>material nature, any more than a thermometer will tell you the distance
>from New York to Paris.
--
Bob.
Have you ever wondered what your life would be like if you had had
enough oxygen at birth?
kalkidas
"Desertphile" <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in message news:890ef5p6b9snsonh2...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:19:18 -0400, Nashton <na...@na.ca> wrote:
>
>> kalkidas wrote:
>
>>> They've taken methodological atheism too seriously.
>>> It started out as a practical tool to evaluate apparently
>>> impersonal mechanisms in nature.
>
>> But they began to see it as evidence for atheism. It's a psychological
>> problem.
>
> Dear nutcase. Atheism is an observed fact, as everyone is and was
> born an atheist. Deal with it.
Dear queen-doth-protest-too-much: why are you wasting your time talking to a "nutcase"? Everyone knows that "nutcases", like Darwinists, can never be persuaded that they're wrong.
Will in New Haven
> "Desertphile" <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote in messagenews:890ef5p6b9snsonh2...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:19:18 -0400, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
> >> kalkidas wrote:
>
> >>> They've taken methodological atheism too seriously.
> >>> It started out as a practical tool to evaluate apparently
> >>> impersonal mechanisms in nature.
>
> >> But they began to see it as evidence for atheism. It's a psychological
> >> problem.
>
> > Dear nutcase. Atheism is an observed fact, as everyone is and was
> > born an atheist. Deal with it.
>
> Dear queen-doth-protest-too-much: why are you wasting your time talking to a "nutcase"? Everyone knows that "nutcases", like Darwinists, can never be persuaded that they're wrong.
You are correct. Trying to convince a nutcase the he or she is wrong
is a waste of time. I'm not trying to convince you that you are wrong,
you obsessive piece of shit. I'm making FUN of you.
Nashton
>
> Gods, all gods without exception, are the invention of man.
So is science, you flagrant woman abuser.
Boikat
> Ye Old One wrote:
>
> > Gods, all gods without exception, are the invention of man.
>
> So is science,
So, you agree that "god" is a construct.
> you flagrant woman abuser.
You keep making that acusation, yet do not seem to ever back it up.
How un-strange.
Boikat
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>Ye Old One wrote:
>
>>
>> Gods, all gods without exception, are the invention of man.
>
>So is science, you flagrant woman abuser.
Is it actually possible for you to make a post without looking like a
lying idiot?
>
>>
>>> He may not be known by the methods used to study
>>> material nature, any more than a thermometer will tell you the distance
>>>from New York to Paris.
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
Nashton
>
You're really not equipped to participate in such a discussion and why
anyone would bother trying to educate your sorry behind is beyond me.
Nashton
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:19:18 -0400, Nashton <na...@na.ca> wrote:
>
>> kalkidas wrote:
>
>>> They've taken methodological atheism too seriously.
>>> It started out as a practical tool to evaluate apparently
>>> impersonal mechanisms in nature.
>
>> But they began to see it as evidence for atheism. It's a psychological
>> problem.
>
> Dear nutcase. Atheism is an observed fact, as everyone is and was
> born an atheist. Deal with it.
>
>
Not so sure about humans being born atheists (as if we are supposed to
be born with spiritual attributes), I know that *you* were born stooopid.
You are, after all, Desertphile.
Nashton
The most important proof of the existence of God is the fact that the
world exists. It sounds pedantic, but most profound truths are quite
simple to express.
Their atheistic dogma is based on axioms that cannot be experimentally
replicated (Big Bang/ToE anyone) where all matter comes into existence
out of nothing at all and where life came into existence by pure chance
even though there is no proof it actually did, for the latter.
Judeo Christian thought is based on creation by God, aka Creator out of
nothing at all, also.
There is also mathematical proof for parallel universes, for which we
have no proof of their existence and yet, their existence is accepted by
mainstream mathematicians and physicists.
It's painfully apparent that when they ask for proof of the existence of
God when they actually inhabit this world, is very akin to cognitive
behavior from severely retarded children.
Boikat
> Kalkidas wrote:
> > Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
> >news:tkodf5ht3v0ujabpq...@4ax.com:
>
The most important proof of the existence of [Fill in the blank with
diety or uber-advanced alien species of your choice here] is the fact
that the world exists
Your idea of "proof" is infantile.
<snip remaining blathercrap>
Boikat
Nashton
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:02:54 -0400, Nashton <na...@na.ca> enriched this
> group when s/he wrote:
>
>> Ye Old One wrote:
>>
>>> Gods, all gods without exception, are the invention of man.
>> So is science, you flagrant woman abuser.
>
> Is it actually possible for you to make a post without looking like a
> lying idiot?
So are you saying that science is *not* a human invention?
Let's see what is dumber:
Science is a human construct.
All modern drugs are derived from the TOE.
All-Seeing-I
Why do you avoid my direct challenge of your capability to accurately
interpret the data? This is not an inditement against all knowledge,
so why shift my question to that? My question is regarding science's
ability to correctly percieve scientific data with such limited human
ability. Clearly I have shown you that even the Animals have a keener
sense of perception then man has. So what makes you so sure you are
not missing data based on the fact that you cannot percieve all of the
data?
>
> >>> 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.
>
> I suggest you look up the definition of nihilism.
There are several uses for the word. Make yourself clear
>
> > Next, you are correct. I can misinterpret data from ancient texts; you
> > can misinterpret data from science. That is the point.
>
> No, that isn't the point. The point is that you make the same necessary
> assumption as science does -- that your ability to perceive the world is
> correct -- but add the additional assumption that your favorite
> revelation is correct. Science requires no such additional assumption.
Oh really? What about when your assumptions are not observed? Anyone
can test micro evolution in their own back yard with a garden or by
selectively breeding animals to have specific traits. This form of
evolution can be observed by everyone. But you cannot make that claim
for macro evolution. Therefore you are interpretating the evidence for
macro evolution with the additional assumption that your data is
correct.
Because macro evolution cannot be manipulated by everyone and observed
by everyone like micro evolution can be, you have to put 'faith' in
your other data. I have clearly shown you that your data and
interpretations can only be as reliable as your abilities are. But
your perception abilities are not as good as a common house pet such
as a cat or dog. So where does that leave your data?
Everyone can test the theory of gravity by dropping a ball to the
ground. We can safely assume the data is correct because we can
observe the ball hit the ground and the interpretation matches the
data. But like I said above, we cannot observe macro evolution
happening. So science takes data and then makes the additional
assumption that the data is accurate and complete. But you really do
not know that. So you have to infer. An inference can be prejudice
based on the individual's personal beliefs.
So how is the interpretation the bible any different then
interpretation evolutionary science? It's not. Both have an equal
chance to be valid based on personal interpretations.
>
> >>> 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.
>
> Such perceptions can be tested. We don't need to perceive them
> ourselves, as long as the animals can, and will react differently in
> their presence than in their absence. And by the way, of course we knew
> about high-frequency sound; it's a consequence of the wave nature of sound.
At one time man did not have the divices to pick up and play back
those frequences. To mankind those frequences did not exist. You may
be missing data right now that you simply do not have the ability or
tools to see and understand. Just like man did not know the frequences
existed at one time.
>
> > 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.
>
> Maybe. But what's the evidence?
There is none right now. But there was no evidence for the frequences
at one time either.
> >>>>> 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.
>
> I notice you have made no argument here. Why?
Why should I reply to an over exaggeration on your part?
[]
Will in New Haven
Were you looking in a MIRROR when you typed that?
All-Seeing-I
wrote:
Actually, this would describe you. The more shrill the response the
more i realize you understand what i am saying. Science is only going
to be as accurate as man is.
Next. The form of evolution known as variation within the same
species, (namely "micro evolution"), follows the principal of "each
after his own kind" and is exactly reconciled with the bible. I can
observe it myself and even manipulate it my self.
That cannot be said for macro evolution and therefore macro evolution
does not reconcile to the bible. Anyone that believe it does has weak
faith in the bible.
>
> If theists draw _this_ line in the sand, that acceptance of evolution
> is incompatible with religion, they run into the philosophical problem
> of "Who do you believe, Gladys, me or your own eyes?" and Gladys gets
> less gullible as we go along. So they know they have to fight
> education. It is the only chance they think they have.
Quite the contrary. There needs to be a line in the sand drawn. We
need to draw a line to exactly what is observable and testable by
everyone. That would be micro evolution or variation within the same
species.
In the case of Macro Evolution we have to ask ourselves "Gladys, will
you believe someone else's story with no observation"?
Right now you can observe micro evolution in your own back yard with a
garden or by selectively breeding animals for specific traits.This
lines up with the bible and such stories as Jacob breeding goats for
specific colors.
You cannot say the same for macro evolution.
It really is THAT simple.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Next. The form of evolution known as
There is only one form of evolution you idiot.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Garamond Lethe
All the "best people" from the gentlemen's clubs, and all the frantic fascist
captains, united in common hatred of Socialism and bestial horror at the rising
tide of the mass revolutionary movement, have turned to acts of provocation, to
foul incendiarism, to medieval legends of poisoned wells, to legalize their own
destruction of proletarian organizations, and rouse the agitated
petty-bourgeoise to chauvinistic fervor on behalf of the fight against the
revolutionary way out of the crisis.
[Yes, it is relevant. Google is your friend.]
All-Seeing-I
> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote innews:tkodf5ht3v0ujabpq...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:19:18 -0400, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote in
>
> - Show quoted text -
I found this to be a most amusing and self limiting concept when I
first began to read this NG. They ask for evidence that they already
know cannot be given and then smugly sit back as if they proved a
valid point.
I am to the conclusion that many of them actually believe there was no
form of valid human understanding until 150 years ago. Furthermore,
most of them know how intellectually dishonest they are by asking for
scientific evidence of God, or they can be sold swamp land in Florida
very easily. It has got to be one or the other.
In FreeLunch's case, i think he bought some swamp land.
Will in New Haven
But of course we can. This is what has you frothing at the mouth. The
fossil record and the genetic record are real and testable and confirm
the case for evolution. Not _everyone_ can see them, I will concede
this. People who don't bother to acquire an education won't be able
to. Your agenda to keep people ignorant is acknowledged.
And it doesn't even matter who believes what. Evolution _is_
Will in New Haven
How twisted your logic and stupid your conclusions. People ask for
evidence and you think the fact that you can't provide any is evidence
that you are right.
Imbecile.
Boikat
You don't think the inability to support a claim does not "prove" a
point?
>
> I am to the conclusion that many of them actually believe there was no
> form of valid human understanding until 150 years ago.
Wrong.
> Furthermore,
> most of them know how intellectually dishonest they are by asking for
> scientific evidence of God,
No, it's not dishonest, it illustrates a point in logic. No wonder
that point in beyond you perceptive abilities; It involves logic.
> or they can be sold swamp land in Florida
> very easily. It has got to be one or the other.
Actually, you have no idea how valuable some "swamp land" in Florida
is now days (provided you restore an equal amount of land to "swamp"
conditions).
>
> In FreeLunch's case, i think he bought some swamp land.
If so, his land may be worth millions.
Boikat
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Where is the evidence for such an assertion?
Are their any memories recorded from the moment of birth that clearly
show we are all born Athiest?
Oh darn. I'm sorry. I forgot this:
"Evolutionst Trickery #112" which allows the Atheist to make
outrageous claims
AND this:
"Evolutionist Double Standard #2" which state the atheist can make
assertions with no evidence but creationist can't.
Silly me. Carry on.
Ye Old One
He is better equipped than you are - after all he does have a working
brain and he is honest.
Neither, of course, can be said about you.
--
Bob.
If brains were taxed, you would get a rebate.
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>Ye Old One wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:02:54 -0400, Nashton <na...@na.ca> enriched this
>> group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>> Ye Old One wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gods, all gods without exception, are the invention of man.
>>> So is science, you flagrant woman abuser.
>>
>> Is it actually possible for you to make a post without looking like a
>> lying idiot?
>
>So are you saying that science is *not* a human invention?
A human discovery would be a better description.
>
>Let's see what is dumber:
>
>Science is a human construct.
>
>All modern drugs are derived from the TOE.
Thank you for proving you cannot make a post without a lying.
>
>
--
Bob.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you're abusing the privilege.
Will in New Haven
> On Nov 8, 12:20 pm, Will in New Haven
>
>
>
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 1:11 pm, "kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > > "Desertphile" <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote in messagenews:890ef5p6b9snsonh2...@4ax.com...
> > > > On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:19:18 -0400, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
> > > >> kalkidas wrote:
>
> > > >>> They've taken methodological atheism too seriously.
> > > >>> It started out as a practical tool to evaluate apparently
> > > >>> impersonal mechanisms in nature.
>
> > > >> But they began to see it as evidence for atheism. It's a psychological
> > > >> problem.
>
> > > > Dear nutcase. Atheism is an observed fact, as everyone is and was
> > > > born an atheist. Deal with it.
>
> > > Dear queen-doth-protest-too-much: why are you wasting your time talking to a "nutcase"? Everyone knows that "nutcases", like Darwinists, can never be persuaded that they're wrong.
>
> > You are correct. Trying to convince a nutcase the he or she is wrong
> > is a waste of time. I'm not trying to convince you that you are wrong,
> > you obsessive piece of shit. I'm making FUN of you.
>
> > --
> > Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Where is the evidence for such an assertion?
>
> Are their any memories recorded from the moment of birth that clearly
> show we are all born Athiest?
That claim wasn't mine. It is a logical position that people who are
not influenced by others into belief will be atheists but it isn't
something I would claim to be true.
Your claim that people asking you for proof were being unfair because
they knew that no proof is possible is sickening. That no proof is
possible, and that your claim cannot be falsified either, means that
it doesn't belong in a discussion of a scientific subject.
All-Seeing-I
You have a few bones relative to millions of years and the genetic
record can also show common design.
The more shrill the response the more i realize you understand what i
am saying. Science is only going to be as accurate as man is. Which is
less then the average house cat.
>
> And it doesn't even matter who believes what. Evolution _is_
Is this your human version of a dog wagging it's tail after urinating
on the rug?