Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
July 25, 2014, 06:52:27 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 11   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Dawkins vs creationist  (Read 7111 times)
james_hetfield
Getbig III
***
Posts: 423

Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #100 on: March 02, 2012, 02:58:09 PM »

Dawkins is losing is touch.  However, to be fair, this woman keeps her composure.  I do find it strange that when an atheist is asked of scientific proof of species-to-species evolution (and can't produce and direct evidence), the religious folks cheer.  Then the athiests ask the religious folks for the scientific proof of God (and can't produce direct evidence), then they cheer too.

Dawkins is wrong in saying that the theory of evolution is 'scientific fact'.  It's not.  Were it so, I'd say just about everybody would know about it.  Yes, it sure does look like fact but just cause Dawkins says so don't make it so.  And you would think that, with the amount of fossils of dinosaur dicks and monkey tits found daily that there would be at least one fossil of the species that existed between man and ape.  Yet they haven't found it.

God folks should stick to what they know. 

This woman made some good points: it's the atheists who came up with eugenics.  But the religious tyrants of the world have caused plenty of death and suffering in the name of any number of 'gods'.

Both camps are in the wrong.  If you believe in God, you don't need science to prove it to you.  That's why it's called faith.  And for those who don't believe, that's their decision.  It's when these two groups try to convert the other...what's the point?  This debate will never be solved, ever. 

But Dawkins needs a paycheck somehow, doesn't he?  I wonder what Christopher Hitchens is doing right....now...

AS FOR ME, it's TIME FOR SOME OILY THONGED MUSCLEMEN to PRANCE AROUND FOR ENJOYMENT OF MANY!


Good points. When I was first introduced to Dawkins I found the guy to be interesting but as it turns out hes a one trick pony. The guy gets off on arguing with religious people for no fucking reason at all. Keep your ideas to your lectures. It annoys the shit out of me seeing his smug face every time he thinks hes making a fool of someone.  
Report to moderator   Logged
slate
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1805


View Profile
« Reply #101 on: March 02, 2012, 07:21:28 PM »

none of them are really talking about evolution.

that is just a proxy for much bigger structures of belief, I mean: who defines what is right, how is that decision made, etc
They are coming from such different points of view, and with no intention to listen to the other person that there is no point in talking other than propaganda war

 discussions like these are just pissing contents. they are useful if they help spread the 'rationalist' point of view but they are definitely not a place where you will find anything  interesting

i believe there is no reason to believe that 'god' exists , and plenty of good ones to believe it does not (just like the tooth fairy)  but Dawkins is the kind of 'professional atheist' that makes me cringe

the only reason i am not totally anti -dawkins is because i half hope that his net contribution for the propaganda war is positive
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3712


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


View Profile
« Reply #102 on: March 02, 2012, 08:03:22 PM »

this is a good post. except the part where you said creationists dismiss logic outright. there is much logic behind the idea of a creator. just no logic sufficient to prove such a thing exists.  certainly the concept of causality seems to indicate some kind of cause for the universe. the idea of substance itself, any kind of substance, seems to require some kind of supernatural origin being that anything that extends is infinitely divisible. the human experience and the existence of life out of lifeless material grabs me by the balls and makes me think there is definitely a reason for life to exist.. and reproduction is just simply not it.

of course none of that proves anything. but its all stil based in the realm of logical ideas. 

Creationist do dismiss logic in the sense that they posit a supernatural explanation and the supernatural is outside the purview of logic.

Here's where I think your argument goes wrong: "causality seems to indicate some kind of cause for the universe." No, that's wrong. Causality is a property of the Universe we live in (up to quantum events, but that's another discussion). But it doesn't follow from that that causality applies to the Universe itself.

You say that certain things make you think there's more to life. And that's perfectly fine. But it's also outside of the realm of science, which is the point I was trying to make.



We've had this conversation here before. And while I respect your opinion, I disagree. Again, you are discrediting creationism not on it's scientific merit or ability to explain observed phenomena, but based on your definition of science. Evolution and Creation Science can explain similarities in DNA, but Creation science isn't a valid explanation because evolutionists (who are mostly atheists, and fervent atheists at that) demand a naturalistic explanation. Again, this definition is a human construct. Why can't a God be the author of life? Oh yeah, because philosophers and rabid atheistic evolutionists have told us that God doesn't exist. See, this isn't a scientific argument. It's a philosophical one, which personally, makes me uneasy.

I don't remember us having this conversation before, but we may very well have had it. In which case hi! Wink I think you misunderstand the points I'm trying to make. For a theory to qualify as scientific it must have at least the following properties:

  • It must be falsifiable. In other words, it must be possible to show to be incorrect. Every theory -- from gravity to the Big Bang -- makes specific claims that could, arguendo, be disproven. Creationism makes no falsifiable claims. What predictions does Creationism make that can be tested, and perhaps shown to be wrong?
  • It must be internally consistent, from a logical point of view. In other words, it mustn't, at some point, use 2+2=5. Intelligent Design starts with the premise that natural life is so complex that it must have been designed and created by a designing intelligence. And that's where it ends, because that's the inconsistency. Depending on the variant, either this designing intelligence "just is" (which contradicts the premise that complex natural life requires a designer/creator) or it makes the designer something supernatural.

Let's look at what questions does Intelligent Design answer and how does it answer them? Under ID, we're told that the Universe was created. By who? Someone. How was it created? Somehow. But the problem is that these aren't answers. How does ID advance knowledge? What predictions does it make and how can they be tested?

You ask "why can't a God be the author of life?" But that's an irrelevant question from the point of view of science, which is what we're talking about here because Intelligent Design purports to be a scientific theory. But it's not internally consistent, it isn't falsifiable, it makes no predictions and, ultimately, it offers no answers. I don't want to be too blunt or rude, but your argument about the "definition of science" is a cop out.

Speaking philosophically, can God be the author of life? My answer is "who knows? Let's look into it. First we need to define what God is, and what 'authorship' means in the context of life."
Report to moderator   Logged
che
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 12875



View Profile
« Reply #103 on: March 02, 2012, 08:37:24 PM »

''Maybe God didnt always exist. I actually think that he created himself. which implies that there was a period of non-existence, and then god created himself... got lonely, and created existence.''

                                                                                            TBOMBZ
Report to moderator   Logged
ilalin
Getbig II
**
Posts: 126

Боже правде


View Profile
« Reply #104 on: March 02, 2012, 08:45:20 PM »

Creationist do dismiss logic in the sense that they posit a supernatural explanation and the supernatural is outside the purview of logic.

Here's where I think your argument goes wrong: "causality seems to indicate some kind of cause for the universe." No, that's wrong. Causality is a property of the Universe we live in (up to quantum events, but that's another discussion). But it doesn't follow from that that causality applies to the Universe itself.

You say that certain things make you think there's more to life. And that's perfectly fine. But it's also outside of the realm of science, which is the point I was trying to make.



I don't remember us having this conversation before, but we may very well have had it. In which case hi! Wink I think you misunderstand the points I'm trying to make. For a theory to qualify as scientific it must have at least the following properties:

  • It must be falsifiable. In other words, it must be possible to show to be incorrect. Every theory -- from gravity to the Big Bang -- makes specific claims that could, arguendo, be disproven. Creationism makes no falsifiable claims. What predictions does Creationism make that can be tested, and perhaps shown to be wrong?
  • It must be internally consistent, from a logical point of view. In other words, it mustn't, at some point, use 2+2=5. Intelligent Design starts with the premise that natural life is so complex that it must have been designed and created by a designing intelligence. And that's where it ends, because that's the inconsistency. Depending on the variant, either this designing intelligence "just is" (which contradicts the premise that complex natural life requires a designer/creator) or it makes the designer something supernatural.

Let's look at what questions does Intelligent Design answer and how does it answer them? Under ID, we're told that the Universe was created. By who? Someone. How was it created? Somehow. But the problem is that these aren't answers. How does ID advance knowledge? What predictions does it make and how can they be tested?

You ask "why can't a God be the author of life?" But that's an irrelevant question from the point of view of science, which is what we're talking about here because Intelligent Design purports to be a scientific theory. But it's not internally consistent, it isn't falsifiable, it makes no predictions and, ultimately, it offers no answers. I don't want to be too blunt or rude, but your argument about the "definition of science" is a cop out.

Speaking philosophically, can God be the author of life? My answer is "who knows? Let's look into it. First we need to define what God is, and what 'authorship' means in the context of life."

end of thread
Report to moderator   Logged
suckmymuscle
Guest
« Reply #105 on: March 02, 2012, 09:24:54 PM »

As an undergrad, you should have taken a course called "Intro to Logic" or somesuch. They're usually offered by the Philosophy Department. But since you obviously didn't, let's take a look at this together, shall we:

The question your undergrad friend asked was incorrect; creationism is a religious belief. Religious beliefs are outside the realm of science and logic, and purely a matter of faith. No amount of science and logic can refute creationism simply because creationism doesn't adhere to or rely on logic: it relies on faith and dismisses logic outright. Frankly any Professor worth his salt would have made that point eloquently, and I assume that the Professor in question did, even though you obviously didn't like the reply.

This simple answer was the reason some creationists thought long and hard and came up with the brilliant idea of taking creationism and dressing it up in a pink tutu that says "I LOVE SCIENCE!" in sparkly letters, calling it Intelligent Design and claiming that it should be given just as much consideration as any other scientific theory.

Under the Intelligent Design "theory" they argue that complex natural life forms can only be created by something they term a designing intelligence.

Of course, the pink tutu changes nothing and doesn't a scientific theory make.

If we allow the creating intelligence to be natural, by the original premise of intelligent design, it too must have a creating intelligence that created it, and so on. And so intelligent design becomes an infinite regress. So, how to go about breaking it? Why by positing a supernatural creating intelligence.

But the moment that proponents of intelligent design choose that option they instantly take their pet theory outside the realm of science -- which deals with the natural and not the supernatual -- and thus automatically forfeit equal status to scientific theories.

See, you paid all that money to get edumacated at University and you could have come to getbig and get help growing your mind as well as your muscles  Smiley

  Brutal ownage.
  
  Avxxo, you are pretty much the only one in this board besides myself with something between his ears.

  Don't bother arguing with "Tbombz", though. When crushed by logic, he resorts to curtailing the debate with semantics, circular reasoning and straw man arguments. You know that he is pulling your leg, and he knows it too, but he does it anyway to save face in a debate he knows he lost.

SUCKMYMUSCLE
Report to moderator   Logged
suckmymuscle
Guest
« Reply #106 on: March 02, 2012, 09:34:50 PM »

''Maybe God didnt always exist. I actually think that he created himself. which implies that there was a period of non-existence, and then god created himself... got lonely, and created existence.''

                                                                                            TBOMBZ

  Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha...what a fucking retard!!!!!!!! He posits several contraditory statements and then passes them as "logic" for the cause of the Universe.

  "A period of non-existence."

  What the fuck does this even mean? A period by defintion involves time, namely, "something". And if it is something, then ergo, it exists.

  See, "Tbombz" is just an idiot who grinds arguments down with semantics and circular reasoning.

SUCKMYMUSCLE
Report to moderator   Logged
poldaktalos
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3902


You boob!


View Profile
« Reply #107 on: March 02, 2012, 10:09:50 PM »

Creationist do dismiss logic in the sense that they posit a supernatural explanation and the supernatural is outside the purview of logic.

Here's where I think your argument goes wrong: "causality seems to indicate some kind of cause for the universe." No, that's wrong. Causality is a property of the Universe we live in (up to quantum events, but that's another discussion). But it doesn't follow from that that causality applies to the Universe itself.

You say that certain things make you think there's more to life. And that's perfectly fine. But it's also outside of the realm of science, which is the point I was trying to make.



I don't remember us having this conversation before, but we may very well have had it. In which case hi! Wink I think you misunderstand the points I'm trying to make. For a theory to qualify as scientific it must have at least the following properties:

  • It must be falsifiable. In other words, it must be possible to show to be incorrect. Every theory -- from gravity to the Big Bang -- makes specific claims that could, arguendo, be disproven. Creationism makes no falsifiable claims. What predictions does Creationism make that can be tested, and perhaps shown to be wrong?
  • It must be internally consistent, from a logical point of view. In other words, it mustn't, at some point, use 2+2=5. Intelligent Design starts with the premise that natural life is so complex that it must have been designed and created by a designing intelligence. And that's where it ends, because that's the inconsistency. Depending on the variant, either this designing intelligence "just is" (which contradicts the premise that complex natural life requires a designer/creator) or it makes the designer something supernatural.

Let's look at what questions does Intelligent Design answer and how does it answer them? Under ID, we're told that the Universe was created. By who? Someone. How was it created? Somehow. But the problem is that these aren't answers. How does ID advance knowledge? What predictions does it make and how can they be tested?

You ask "why can't a God be the author of life?" But that's an irrelevant question from the point of view of science, which is what we're talking about here because Intelligent Design purports to be a scientific theory. But it's not internally consistent, it isn't falsifiable, it makes no predictions and, ultimately, it offers no answers. I don't want to be too blunt or rude, but your argument about the "definition of science" is a cop out.

Speaking philosophically, can God be the author of life? My answer is "who knows? Let's look into it. First we need to define what God is, and what 'authorship' means in the context of life."

Great post.
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19158


Psalms 150


View Profile
« Reply #108 on: March 02, 2012, 10:40:25 PM »

Creationist do dismiss logic in the sense that they posit a supernatural explanation and the supernatural is outside the purview of logic. 

if you mean to say that when someone asserts that a creator does indeed exist that they are making an assertion without evidence and thus either mislead or misleading... that they are not using logic properly to decide if their idea is a fact..    then i would agree.. 

Here's where I think your argument goes wrong: "causality seems to indicate some kind of cause for the universe." No, that's wrong. Causality is a property of the Universe we live in (up to quantum events, but that's another discussion). But it doesn't follow from that that causality applies to the Universe itself.

Is causality a property of the universe? or is it just a concept we made up in our minds? i have certainly never seen anything that didnt have some kind of cause behind it. but im not sure if the universe was caused. this issue about the origin of the universe is incomprehensible...  but  i think what tips the scales for me in favor of an uncaused/self caused God instead of an uncaused/self caused universe is the simple fact that life exists. I exist! my gut says there must be a reason. 

You say that certain things make you think there's more to life. And that's perfectly fine. But it's also outside of the realm of science, which is the point I was trying to make.


these are your words

"Let's look at what questions does Intelligent Design answer and how does it answer them? Under ID, we're told that the Universe was created. By who? Someone. How was it created? Somehow. But the problem is that these aren't answers. How does ID advance knowledge? What predictions does it make and how can they be tested?"


you say that "god created the universe" isnt an answer to the question "how was the universe created"..   but the fact is, and this is well within the realm of science, that God is the only thing that could possibly even attempt to be an answer to that question.



Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3712


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


View Profile
« Reply #109 on: March 02, 2012, 10:48:56 PM »

you say that "god created the universe" isnt an answer to the question "how was the universe created"..   but the fact is, and this is well within the realm of science, that God is the only thing that could possibly even attempt to be an answer to that question.

I was addressing a very specific point, after having already discussed a whole host of other things. The problem with looking at my quote in isolation is that the question of "how was the universe created" can only be asked (and, thus, answered) after the question "was the Universe created" is asked and answered. You can't skip that step if you want to be intellectually honest.

Is causality a property of the universe?

Yes. It is.

[...] or is it just a concept we made up in our minds?

No. It's not.

i have certainly never seen anything that didnt have some kind of cause behind it.

That's causality is a property of the Universe we live in (up to quantum effects, at any rate)


what tips the scales for me in favor of an uncaused/self caused God instead of an uncaused/self caused universe is the simple fact that life exists. I exist! my gut says there must be a reason.

Why does an uncaused God make more sense than an uncaused Universe? You simply pushed the level of uncausability one level farther off. How does that help with anything, gut feelings aside.
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19158


Psalms 150


View Profile
« Reply #110 on: March 02, 2012, 10:54:25 PM »

your a very smart guy.

i think the problem here is you are too far detached from your experience of being human

the "proof" isnt in ink on paper.

i can do a very good job at expressing my feelings in logical, analytical terms using scientific concepts and facts to bolster the legitemacy of my gut feeling.. to make it understood that i do understand science and i do not reject it or deny it, that my feeling on the issue is rooted in knowledge. but knowledge of experience and the things that exist.

however the universe is completely unknowable. and i know this. it makes me smile. its part of the reason why i think god exists.   Cheesy
Report to moderator   Logged
jr
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2702


No homo of peace


View Profile
« Reply #111 on: March 02, 2012, 11:05:42 PM »

God wants us to be big ripped musclemen. He allows us to do gay for pay if we are desperate for money to buy drugs and food. Praise Allah,  Amen.
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19158


Psalms 150


View Profile
« Reply #112 on: March 02, 2012, 11:10:06 PM »

God wants us to be big ripped musclemen. He allows us to do gay for pay if we are desperate for money to buy drugs and food. Praise Allah,  Amen.
no, he wants you to be miserable, abstain from every kind of pleasure, only think to yourself about how shitty you are for being so infinitely inferior to him, and pretend to suck his cock all day long. duh.
Report to moderator   Logged
jr
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2702


No homo of peace


View Profile
« Reply #113 on: March 02, 2012, 11:16:14 PM »

no, he wants you to be miserable, abstain from every kind of pleasure, only think to yourself about how shitty you are for being so infinitely inferior to him, and pretend to suck his cock all day long. duh.

Hi Uberman
Report to moderator   Logged
RadOncDoc
Getbig II
**
Posts: 185


View Profile
« Reply #114 on: March 02, 2012, 11:44:22 PM »

Creationist do dismiss logic in the sense that they posit a supernatural explanation and the supernatural is outside the purview of logic.

Here's where I think your argument goes wrong: "causality seems to indicate some kind of cause for the universe." No, that's wrong. Causality is a property of the Universe we live in (up to quantum events, but that's another discussion). But it doesn't follow from that that causality applies to the Universe itself.

You say that certain things make you think there's more to life. And that's perfectly fine. But it's also outside of the realm of science, which is the point I was trying to make.



I don't remember us having this conversation before, but we may very well have had it. In which case hi! Wink I think you misunderstand the points I'm trying to make. For a theory to qualify as scientific it must have at least the following properties:

  • It must be falsifiable. In other words, it must be possible to show to be incorrect. Every theory -- from gravity to the Big Bang -- makes specific claims that could, arguendo, be disproven. Creationism makes no falsifiable claims. What predictions does Creationism make that can be tested, and perhaps shown to be wrong?
  • It must be internally consistent, from a logical point of view. In other words, it mustn't, at some point, use 2+2=5. Intelligent Design starts with the premise that natural life is so complex that it must have been designed and created by a designing intelligence. And that's where it ends, because that's the inconsistency. Depending on the variant, either this designing intelligence "just is" (which contradicts the premise that complex natural life requires a designer/creator) or it makes the designer something supernatural.

Let's look at what questions does Intelligent Design answer and how does it answer them? Under ID, we're told that the Universe was created. By who? Someone. How was it created? Somehow. But the problem is that these aren't answers. How does ID advance knowledge? What predictions does it make and how can they be tested?

You ask "why can't a God be the author of life?" But that's an irrelevant question from the point of view of science, which is what we're talking about here because Intelligent Design purports to be a scientific theory. But it's not internally consistent, it isn't falsifiable, it makes no predictions and, ultimately, it offers no answers. I don't want to be too blunt or rude, but your argument about the "definition of science" is a cop out.

Speaking philosophically, can God be the author of life? My answer is "who knows? Let's look into it. First we need to define what God is, and what 'authorship' means in the context of life."

What we have here is a philosopher debating a biologist.  I certainly don't mean that in a disparaging way, but when people start to rely on definitions and philosophy to disprove creation science, I get bored.  I would encourage everyone to read the previous posts. Look past the fancy philosophical terminology and see the posts for what they are: the same tiresome argument that creation science can't be science because it doesn't fit the human definition of science. I actually think this is false on several counts. First,  atheistic scientists have decided that "science" requires a naturalistic explanation for all observable phenomena in nature. They exclude God a priori. They argue that all observable phenonemon MUST have a naturalistic explanation. But just because we say a naturalistic explanation must be invoked...that doesn't mean it's right. Why MUST everything have a naturalistic explanation? Who made that rule? I could just as well say that all observable phenomena must have a supernatural explanation. Why? Because I said so.
This being said, I would argue that Creation science (other than it's reliance on a God which we've been told is ascientific) does fit the criteria for a scientific theory you set forth.  First, creation scientists DO make predictions.  I don't claim to be a Biblical literalist, but many Creation scientists are, and they make predictions about geology, for example, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible.  Many prominent creation scientists, for example, are advocates of a global flood, and they make predictions about what you might see in the fossil record based on such an event. Another simple example: the Bible mentions that early humans lived several hundred years. Creation scientist thus predict that early human fossils would demonstrate overdevelopment of portions of the skeleton (the brow ridge, for example)...and is that not what we see in the fossils?
Much to the chagrin of naturalistic scientists, creation scientists also predit that life would be irreducibly complex...that certain observed phenomena in nature would be so amazing (or almost "supernatural) so to speak, that a naturalistic explanation could not possibly be invoked...that no "natural" test could possibly be constructed to test it. Now, this is obviously contrary to the definition of science that's been promulgated by atheists and certain members of this board, but that doesn't make it wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong with saying that certain events in nature are so amazing that they almost demand a supernatural explanation and that these events would be untestable. Take, for example, sentience. What naturalistic explanation can be given for consciousness? What we know from neurobiology is that nerve impulses are transmitted on the basis of electrolyte influx and efflux across neurons. But how in the world does sodium influx and potassium efflux through single cells in the brain lead to conscious thought? How does light striking the rods and cones of the retina, which again leads to the same basic electrolyte flux pattern lead to visual perception? What test can possibly be constructed to explain this phenomenon?  But this is exactly what Creation scientists would predict: namely, that there would be apparently supernatural,  "untestable" phenomena present in nature.
Now to the issue that creation science isn't "testable"...lets be honest here: testability is a term that is used extremely loosely by evolutionists. How much of evolution is truly prospectively testable?  The truth is, the majority of true "experiments" for evolution are basically experiments on microevolution...basical ly how the frequency of some pre-existing allele in the gene pool changes over time. Oh, we introduce antibiotics into a bacterial cell culture, and a resistant sub-population develops. Big deal. The gene already existed in the gene pool. It didn't arise de novo. Maybe the conformation of some existing cell membrane transport protein was slightly altered to preclude transport of the antibiotic, but no new protein was created.
The more important question is:  how exactly are scientists testing macroevolution? They aren't. They simply make predictions about what you might expect to see in the fossil record or what you can expect to see in genome. They aren't carrying out prospective tests on macroevolution.  What they are doing is no different that what creation scientists are doing then. Creation scientists make the same predictions based on a belief in a supernatural God and a literal interpretation of the Bible. So other than it's reliance on a supernatural power, I fail to see how creationism doesn't fit your definition of science.
Report to moderator   Logged
suckmymuscle
Guest
« Reply #115 on: March 02, 2012, 11:46:24 PM »

What we have here is a philosopher debating a biologist.  I certainly don't mean that in a disparaging way, but when people start to rely on definitions and philosophy to disprove creation science, I get bored.  I would encourage everyone to read the previous posts. Look past the fancy philosophical terminology and see the posts for what they are: the same tiresome argument that creation science can't be science because it doesn't fit the human definition of science. I actually think this is false on several counts. First,  atheistic scientists have decided that "science" requires a naturalistic explanation for all observable phenomena in nature. They exclude God a priori. They argue that all observable phenonemon MUST have a naturalistic explanation. But just because we say a naturalistic explanation must be invoked...that doesn't mean it's right. Why MUST everything have a naturalistic explanation? Who made that rule? I could just as well say that all observable phenomena must have a supernatural explanation. Why? Because I said so.
This being said, I would argue that Creation science (other than it's reliance on a God which we've been told is ascientific) does fit the criteria for a scientific theory you set forth.  First, creation scientists DO make predictions.  I don't claim to be a Biblical literalist, but many Creation scientists are, and they make predictions about geology, for example, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible.  Many prominent creation scientists, for example, are advocates of a global flood, and they make predictions about what you might see in the fossil record based on such an event. Another simple example: the Bible mentions that early humans lived several hundred years. Creation scientist thus predict that early human fossils would demonstrate overdevelopment of portions of the skeleton (the brow ridge, for example)...and is that not what we see in the fossils?
Much to the chagrin of naturalistic scientists, creation scientists also predit that life would be irreducibly complex...that certain observed phenomena in nature would be so amazing (or almost "supernatural) so to speak, that a naturalistic explanation could not possibly be invoked...that no "natural" test could possibly be constructed to test it. Now, this is obviously contrary to the definition of science that's been promulgated by atheists and certain members of this board, but that doesn't make it wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong with saying that certain events in nature are so amazing that they almost demand a supernatural explanation and that these events would be untestable. Take, for example, sentience. What naturalistic explanation can be given for consciousness? What we know from neurobiology is that nerve impulses are transmitted on the basis of electrolyte influx and efflux across neurons. But how in the world does sodium influx and potassium efflux through single cells in the brain lead to conscious thought? How does light striking the rods and cones of the retina, which again leads to the same basic electrolyte flux pattern lead to visual perception? What test can possibly be constructed to explain this phenomenon?  But this is exactly what Creation scientists would predict: namely, that there would be apparently supernatural,  "untestable" phenomena present in nature.
Now to the issue that creation science isn't "testable"...lets be honest here: testability is a term that is used extremely loosely by evolutionists. How much of evolution is truly prospectively testable?  The truth is, the majority of true "experiments" for evolution are basically experiments on microevolution...basical ly how the frequency of some pre-existing allele in the gene pool changes over time. Oh, we introduce antibiotics into a bacterial cell culture, and a resistant sub-population develops. Big deal. The gene already existed in the gene pool. It didn't arise de novo. Maybe the conformation of some existing cell membrane transport protein was slightly altered to preclude transport of the antibiotic, but no new protein was created.
The more important question is:  how exactly are scientists testing macroevolution? They aren't. They simply make predictions about what you might expect to see in the fossil record or what you can expect to see in genome. They aren't carrying out prospective tests on macroevolution.  What they are doing is no different that what creation scientists are doing then. Creation scientists make the same predictions based on a belief in a supernatural God and a literal interpretation of the Bible. So other than it's reliance on a supernatural power, I fail to see how creationism doesn't fit your definition of science.

  Paragraphs are your friends...

SUCKMYMUSCLE
Report to moderator   Logged
99 Bananas
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1302



View Profile
« Reply #116 on: March 02, 2012, 11:49:41 PM »

It funny we use things that exist in reality to describe and understand reality. reality just is. To ''know'' anything at all is prejudice, and to seek mind with the prejudiced mind is the greatest of all mistakes.

Words aren't truth, they can only describe it.
Report to moderator   Logged
RadOncDoc
Getbig II
**
Posts: 185


View Profile
« Reply #117 on: March 02, 2012, 11:55:10 PM »

  Paragraphs are your friends...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

haha sorry man, my computer is screwy. And I should add, I'm not saying I'm a creation scientist or an atheistic evolutionist. I'm just saying I think there's more to this argument than people realize.
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19158


Psalms 150


View Profile
« Reply #118 on: March 03, 2012, 12:11:49 AM »

What we have here is a philosopher debating a biologist.  I certainly don't mean that in a disparaging way, but when people start to rely on definitions and philosophy to disprove creation science, I get bored.  I would encourage everyone to read the previous posts. Look past the fancy philosophical terminology and see the posts for what they are: the same tiresome argument that creation science can't be science because it doesn't fit the human definition of science. I actually think this is false on several counts. First,  atheistic scientists have decided that "science" requires a naturalistic explanation for all observable phenomena in nature. They exclude God a priori. They argue that all observable phenonemon MUST have a naturalistic explanation. But just because we say a naturalistic explanation must be invoked...that doesn't mean it's right. Why MUST everything have a naturalistic explanation? Who made that rule? I could just as well say that all observable phenomena must have a supernatural explanation. Why? Because I said so.
This being said, I would argue that Creation science (other than it's reliance on a God which we've been told is ascientific) does fit the criteria for a scientific theory you set forth.  First, creation scientists DO make predictions.  I don't claim to be a Biblical literalist, but many Creation scientists are, and they make predictions about geology, for example, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible.  Many prominent creation scientists, for example, are advocates of a global flood, and they make predictions about what you might see in the fossil record based on such an event. Another simple example: the Bible mentions that early humans lived several hundred years. Creation scientist thus predict that early human fossils would demonstrate overdevelopment of portions of the skeleton (the brow ridge, for example)...and is that not what we see in the fossils?
Much to the chagrin of naturalistic scientists, creation scientists also predit that life would be irreducibly complex...that certain observed phenomena in nature would be so amazing (or almost "supernatural) so to speak, that a naturalistic explanation could not possibly be invoked...that no "natural" test could possibly be constructed to test it. Now, this is obviously contrary to the definition of science that's been promulgated by atheists and certain members of this board, but that doesn't make it wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong with saying that certain events in nature are so amazing that they almost demand a supernatural explanation and that these events would be untestable. Take, for example, sentience. What naturalistic explanation can be given for consciousness? What we know from neurobiology is that nerve impulses are transmitted on the basis of electrolyte influx and efflux across neurons. But how in the world does sodium influx and potassium efflux through single cells in the brain lead to conscious thought? How does light striking the rods and cones of the retina, which again leads to the same basic electrolyte flux pattern lead to visual perception? What test can possibly be constructed to explain this phenomenon?  But this is exactly what Creation scientists would predict: namely, that there would be apparently supernatural,  "untestable" phenomena present in nature.
Now to the issue that creation science isn't "testable"...lets be honest here: testability is a term that is used extremely loosely by evolutionists. How much of evolution is truly prospectively testable?  The truth is, the majority of true "experiments" for evolution are basically experiments on microevolution...basical ly how the frequency of some pre-existing allele in the gene pool changes over time. Oh, we introduce antibiotics into a bacterial cell culture, and a resistant sub-population develops. Big deal. The gene already existed in the gene pool. It didn't arise de novo. Maybe the conformation of some existing cell membrane transport protein was slightly altered to preclude transport of the antibiotic, but no new protein was created.
The more important question is:  how exactly are scientists testing macroevolution? They aren't. They simply make predictions about what you might expect to see in the fossil record or what you can expect to see in genome. They aren't carrying out prospective tests on macroevolution.  What they are doing is no different that what creation scientists are doing then. Creation scientists make the same predictions based on a belief in a supernatural God and a literal interpretation of the Bible. So other than it's reliance on a supernatural power, I fail to see how creationism doesn't fit your definition of science.

this is a very very good post except i would encourage you to drop the references to scripture and denial of widely accepted scientific ideas.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jovo
Getbig III
***
Posts: 707

Getbig !


View Profile
« Reply #119 on: March 03, 2012, 12:14:46 AM »

lmao any one who doesn't recognize evolution is a complete moron, lmao how stupid can you be to believe in something that you cannot see or sense in any way or form and have NO evidence of apart from an old book ?
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19158


Psalms 150


View Profile
« Reply #120 on: March 03, 2012, 12:16:45 AM »

lmao any one who doesn't recognize evolution is a complete moron, lmao how stupid can you be to believe in something that you cannot see or sense in any way or form and have NO evidence of apart from an old book ?
its not simply one or the other.  there are many people who believe in God but feel that the bible and every other piece of literature that claims to be the word of God are horrible horrible things that should have never been created.
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3712


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


View Profile
« Reply #121 on: March 03, 2012, 02:55:08 AM »

What we have here is a philosopher debating a biologist.

Actually we don't have that. But I'm not offended at being called a philosopher: it literally does mean "friend of wisdom" in Greek Smiley

First,  atheistic scientists have decided that "science" requires a naturalistic explanation for all observable phenomena in nature. They exclude God a priori. They argue that all observable phenonemon MUST have a naturalistic explanation.

No, they exclude the supernatural a priori. Science deals with the natural, not the supernatural. We leave the supernatural to priests and shamans.


But just because we say a naturalistic explanation must be invoked...that doesn't mean it's right. Why MUST everything have a naturalistic explanation? Who made that rule? I could just as well say that all observable phenomena must have a supernatural explanation. Why?

You're absolutely 100% right! Why indeed?!? Damn science made Zeus impotent by explaining electricity. I say to hell with rational explanations and the search to understand the world around us. Superstitions for everything! Yay!

This being said, I would argue that Creation science (other than it's reliance on a God which we've been told is ascientific) does fit the criteria for a scientific theory you set forth.

No. Its reliance on a deity does make it unscientific. "God" isn't an answer to any legitimate scientific question. Because it doesn't explain anything!

First, creation scientists DO make predictions.  I don't claim to be a Biblical literalist, but many Creation scientists are, and they make predictions about geology, for example, based on a literal interpretation of the Bible.  Many prominent creation scientists, for example, are advocates of a global flood, and they make predictions about what you might see in the fossil record based on such an event. Another simple example: the Bible mentions that early humans lived several hundred years. Creation scientist thus predict that early human fossils would demonstrate overdevelopment of portions of the skeleton (the brow ridge, for example)...and is that not what we see in the fossils?

And Pastafarians show how the decline of Pirates is associated with global warming. Isn't science wonderful? Smiley


Much to the chagrin of naturalistic scientists, creation scientists also predit that life would be irreducibly complex...that certain observed phenomena in nature would be so amazing (or almost "supernatural) so to speak, that a naturalistic explanation could not possibly be invoked...that no "natural" test could possibly be constructed to test it.

What natural phenomena are so amazing that a naturalistic explanation cannot possibly be invoked?

Now, this is obviously contrary to the definition of science that's been promulgated by atheists and certain members of this board, but that doesn't make it wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong with saying that certain events in nature are so amazing that they almost demand a supernatural explanation and that these events would be untestable.

Lightning was thought to be amazing and beyond a natural explanation... Where is Zeus today?


Take, for example, sentience. What naturalistic explanation can be given for consciousness? What we know from neurobiology is that nerve impulses are transmitted on the basis of electrolyte influx and efflux across neurons. But how in the world does sodium influx and potassium efflux through single cells in the brain lead to conscious thought? How does light striking the rods and cones of the retina, which again leads to the same basic electrolyte flux pattern leadto visual perception?

I take it you aren't familiar with emergent properties? It's a fascinating subject really. And it doesn't require magic!
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 24886



View Profile
« Reply #122 on: March 03, 2012, 10:25:59 AM »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

Dawkins describes himself as an agnostic these days...

Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19158


Psalms 150


View Profile
« Reply #123 on: March 03, 2012, 01:48:53 PM »

Actually we don't have that. But I'm not offended at being called a philosopher: it literally does mean "friend of wisdom" in Greek Smiley

No, they exclude the supernatural a priori. Science deals with the natural, not the supernatural. We leave the supernatural to priests and shamans.


You're absolutely 100% right! Why indeed?!? Damn science made Zeus impotent by explaining electricity. I say to hell with rational explanations and the search to understand the world around us. Superstitions for everything! Yay!

No. Its reliance on a deity does make it unscientific. "God" isn't an answer to any legitimate scientific question. Because it doesn't explain anything!

And Pastafarians show how the decline of Pirates is associated with global warming. Isn't science wonderful? Smiley


What natural phenomena are so amazing that a naturalistic explanation cannot possibly be invoked?

Lightning was thought to be amazing and beyond a natural explanation... Where is Zeus today?


I take it you aren't familiar with emergent properties? It's a fascinating subject really. And it doesn't require magic!


your making assertions without evidence. electricity hasnt been explained. lighting hasnt been explained. nothing has been explained.  there isnt a single natural phenomena that a naturalistic explanation can be envoked to explain.
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3712


I'm about to froth at the mouth!


View Profile
« Reply #124 on: March 03, 2012, 02:08:22 PM »

your making assertions without evidence. electricity hasnt been explained. lighting hasnt been explained. nothing has been explained.  there isnt a single natural phenomena that a naturalistic explanation can be envoked to explain.

LOL... You are such a troll.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 11   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!