[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Gem Windcaster;353861 said:

I really don't get the point of discussing creationism, or comparing it to evolution.

Then why get into a discussion in the thread specifically created for discussing creationism and comparing it to evolution?

Saying that there is no evidence of evolution because you don't believe ANY of the evidence is a little closeminded, don't you think? You say there is no evidence, others say yes there is and show it to you, you close your eyes and say Nope, there's no evidence.

At this point, there's really only two sides of the fence-evolution and creationism. If you reject one, you accept the other, and you have said you do just that. In this conversation, if you refuse to accept any evidence for the former, it's only fair that you be prepared to defend the alternative.

[Gem Windcaster]

Raymond Luxury Yacht;353904 said:

Then why get into a discussion in the thread specifically created for discussing creationism and comparing it to evolution?

I already said I am going to leave you to it, after I answer any questions regarding my posts.

Raymond Luxury Yacht;353904 said:

Saying that there is no evidence of evolution because you don't believe ANY of the evidence is a little closeminded, don't you think? You say there is no evidence, others say yes there is and show it to you, you close your eyes and say Nope, there's no evidence.

What do you mean by evidence? I think we mean different things. Have you really read my posts? I am not denying the scientific material that are used, I am denying the conclusions drawn from them. Does that make me closeminded? I think it is closeminded to say that someone is closeminded just because they won't believe the same thing you do.

Raymond Luxury Yacht;353904 said:

At this point, there's really only two sides of the fence-evolution and creationism. If you reject one, you accept the other, and you have said you do just that. In this conversation, if you refuse to accept any evidence for the former, it's only fair that you be prepared to defend the alternative.

Defend? I don't need to defend anything. To me creationism isn't a theory. Either you believe in it or you don't. My reasons for believing in it is not going to help.

@ Obdi: I don't need or want a theory on how we came to be here. Theories are lame. I also don't need theories to get answers. Is that clear enough for you?

As I said, my philosophical standpoint is vastly different from yours. I clearly don't belong in this thread.

[HoosierDaddy]

Quote

Now, there are two objections I like to voice.
The observations related to the theory of evolution is extreme in many ways -which sets it apart from other scientific observations. The methods used for making said observations are quite extreme. And there are tons of obstacles not normally present in science.

What is extreme? Specifics!

Quote

Secondly, the concept of assumptions have problems that are related to exactly these observations, in the case of the theory we are talking about. In fact, the assumptions required are so many and so extreme that it borders, even cross over, to belief.

What assumptions?

Quote

If there was just one of these incredible assumptions, just a single one, it would still make the whole theory impossibly unprovable. Now that there are many (which I guess could be honed down to one), it doesn't really help.

Again, WHAT ASSUMPTIONS?

Quote

The theory pushes scientific rules to its extremes, extending them to where it normally doesn't go. Most scientist will recognize this.

Which scientists and what extremes?

Quote

Defining reality is hard enough at it is, without having obstacles like time and space between yourself and the observation. We cannot observe the million of years go by, seeing the changes take place, there is no data to collect, no endless collecting of analyzable pieces.

What the theory call data are all artifacts, created with imagination and neat charts, explored with math and sprung from the amazing human mind that needs to bind together impressions to a pattern, a picture, an understandable conjuration.

Indeed, there are traces. But nothing binds them together, nothing chains them in beautiful harmony, at least nothing that science can explain(unextended science). So many questions. No wonder scientists need the theory. I can sympathize with that need on many levels. It's sad they can't recognize it for what it is, because there's no shame in the truth.

That there are no inconsistencies are not just a bad argument, it's simply not correct. It's a bad argument, because it points to the fact that the guidelines of science is stretched on behalf of this theory, because of the many obstacles it faces, which makes it possible for scientists to choose what to 'assume' and what to disregard (simply because there is so much to choose from). It's not correct because...well, it's a opinion, granted. If you draw a perfect circle, then accept everything within that circle and nothing else, of course you don't get any inconsistencies. Inconsistencies exist in 'normal' science, because science can only choose what to disregard up to a certain point, then it becomes impossible. The obstacles of the theory of evolution sets the bar for disregarding on a higher level, enabling an unreal, consistent image.

This is the section wherein basically you say there is no proof. YOU are wrong. What proof there is is not good enough for you. There is a difference between proof and convincing someone despite all proof.

Quote

With that I am not saying that every observation and every assumption is unscientific. It's not at all what I am saying. It's a bit more complicated than that.

The assumptions required for this theory regards what cannot be observed, that which cannot be collected, and analyzed and seen. That is why faith has to be involved.

What assumptions? That a genetic mutation occurs? This assumption is fact!. Your extremes are simply this: There is no way that natural selection occurs and that through millions of millions of years it can affect biology.

Quote

I can understand why these statements of mine can be hard to stomach. Hey, I would probably not be able to stomach them either, if I were you. I can make them, because I am so used to having my own view of the world questioned at every turn, and I haven't run away from it - a few Christians do that, run away, which I find sad. I think it's the same kind of structure that makes some scientists run away from challenges like mine. Maybe.

I think the notion that science proves itself is ludicrous. Theories are needed exactly because there is no proof, and cannot be.

Err, you don't do a whole lot of scientific experimentation do you? If you did you would know that theories have no loose ends. They can't be disproven. That is why scientific theories are a theory and not law yet.

Quote

But science is supposed to break all the boundaries of human limits, it's supposed to do anything, make anything, almost like a divine entity. Limits cannot be accepted. Wonderful charts, calculations and bindings of events are created and brought to this divinity, and sacrificed to its cause.

While reason is sacrificed to faith. I'll take #1 thanks.
-----

Quote

Having studied philosophy and history of ideas, I sometimes find the passion that certain theories are defended with humorous. At least amusing.

The irony here is palpable.

Quote

Science greatest strength and greatest weakness lies in the search for Truth. It's depressing to find oneself slowed down by the possibility that one might be wrong. And not just wrong, but horribly wrong. And not just that. Science is something you do, something you create. It is closely dependent on the mind of the scientist, but is seemingly relying on concepts and ideals that lie outside of the mind of the scientist.

science doesn't believe in the metaphysical Truth, but its core foundation is built on the same concept. It's a conflict that cannot be discarded with pretty charts and brilliant calculations. It can only be handled with awareness. So the conflict is denied, because no other methods than scientific ones are accepted.

Tough luck, huh?

Science does believe in truth. It's called science because it's not frickin faith. There is more behind it than a damned burning bush, visit from an angel, or hypothetical rebirth. I'll give you every thing in my damned bank account if you can prove any miracle before I prove that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Gem Windcaster;353915 said:

I already said I am going to leave you to it, after I answer any questions regarding my posts.
What do you mean by evidence? I think we mean different things. Have you really read my posts? I am not denying the scientific material that are used, I am denying the conclusions drawn from them. Does that make me closeminded? I think it is closeminded to say that someone is closeminded just because they won't believe the same thing you do.

I've read your posts. They don't make sense to me.

Quote

Defend? I don't need to defend anything. To me creationism isn't a theory. Either you believe in it or you don't. My reasons for believing in it is not going to help.

To me evolution is a theory. Either you believe in it or you don't. The only difference between creationism and evolution is that one is based on what people who are prepared to be neutral and logical experiment and find, and what someone else reads in a book and believes to be the truth thereafter.

Quote

It's depressing to find oneself slowed down by the possibility that one might be wrong. And not just wrong, but horribly wrong.

God(!), the irony.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

I'm out. This is getting ridiculous.

[stone monkey]

If you're going to do the "evolution is just a theory" argument - which btw I'll agree with, with the caveat that it's a good theory that fits the real world better than any other -the obvious counter example is that creationism is also just a theory. In which case how you evaluate the relative merits of each theory (ie which one best resembles the world we live in) depends on your value system.

If you're the type who does the whole religion thing, then your first port of call will inevitably be whichever holy text or dogma that is your poison of choice and you will have no need to go any further, no need to learn any more, because for you the search for explanation is over. This means you're relying on faith. And the problem some of us have with faith is that it doesn't require any kind of supporting evidence - in fact faith precludes evidence; for, logically, if you have evidence for your belief then what you don't have is faith in it. Creationism is a faith based belief. There is no point in the believer seeking evidence for or against it because it will be irrelevant to that belief.

Now, those of us who believe that the theory of evolution (a misnomer, btw because there are lots of variants of the basic idea) best resembles the process of how the living things of managed to get the way they are have had to be convinced of this by argument. We have had to use our judgement and knowledge to understand the concepts and decide, based on the evidence given to us, whether or not to believe in that evidence or the theory it claims to support. And it's an ongoing process; new fossils, new techniques in molecular biology, new theories are appearing all the time.

The philosophy of science has been mentioned - although Richard Feynmann's bon mot comes to mind here: "Scientists have about as much use for Philosophers of Science as birds do for Ornithologists." If you're a follower of the social construct model, then creationism would appear to have just as much validity as any scientific position. This is because real world evidence is totally discounted by this model, all the conclusions drawn by any scientist being merely of the social conditions that that particular scientist exists in. Although what this might also imply about creationists I'll leave to you.

The implication of this position would appear to lead one to the conclusion that all science could be done with no recourse to experiment at all; which seems faintly ridiculous to my mind.

The problem I would have with a creationist's use of this particular line of reasoning is that they can't demand that their arguments be privileged, that their dogma has more force (or, perhaps, contains more truth) than all others, as all arguments are equally valid ways of seeing. Which would seem to negate the reason for the creationist using that particular argument in the first place...

[Cougar]

Cut the tit for tat out guys it gets pretty tiresome.

SM: excellent, the summary that creationsism demands a priveledged postion is the core of a solid argument

[Mezla PigDog]

[Probably going over old ground but I'm incensed at Gem suggesting scientists are hypocrites!]

I think the main problem in the debate is that creationists view scientists support of evolution as some kind of dogmatic belief. Agreeing that the theory of evolution is a valid scientific theory and explanation for the diversity of life on this planet is NOT a belief. It is a rational explanation supported by evidence. Gem seems to think that there a massive assumptions made between each "dot" that is joined. That's just not true. There a masses and masses of evidence to support each assumption made.

I could write a dissertation on the evidence right now but I'll just stick in some points:
- The fossil record
- The observation of microbial communities genetically evolving to suit their environment
- The observation of single celled communities forming "biofilms" and populations that perform distinct roles in support of a community (i.e. basic multicellular organisms)
- The post-genomic era of biological science allowing the comparison of whole genomes shows that massive genome duplications have occured in history that essentially allow evolution to speed up. Paralogous and orthologous genes support these theories
- The fact that multi-billion dollar industries are currently thriving using the science that the theory of evolution is founded upon (drug discovery, chemical production, epidemiological studies of infectious disease, wine making, food production, genetic disorders.....I could go on)

It seems to also be believed that scientists aren't looking into the idea that evolution might be theoretically wrong. Every experiment in the field is backed up by controls. If the controls showed anything fishy people would investigate, the scientist that disproves the theory of evolution would become world famous and filthy rich!

And Gem, a fish never has evolved into a monkey. They simply share a common ancestor somewhere back in time that under different environmental conditions evolved into seperate populations, which then became the common ancestors of all fish or all monkeys.

[Terez]

Mezla PigDog;354158 said:

It seems to also be believed that scientists aren't looking into the idea that evolution might be theoretically wrong. Every experiment in the field is backed up by controls. If the controls showed anything fishy people would investigate, the scientist that disproves the theory of evolution would become world famous and filthy rich!

I've forgotten what the stats are for GB, or Sweden for that matter - I know that Europe is far less religious in general than the US - but when close to 90% of Americans claim to be Christians, and there's tons of biological scientists in the US, it's a bit ridiculous to claim that there aren't scientists studying evolution with a motive to disprove it. And then there are all the astrophysicists studying the origins of the universe. Plenty of those in the US as well.

Admittedly, religion seems less prominent among scientists in the US and elsewhere...and it's no wonder why. It's not just trading one belief for another, either - it's more along the lines of discarding a belief that has been shown repeatedly to have no credible basis, despite the moving goal posts.

[Cougar]

Mezla PigDog;354158 said:

a fish never has evolved into a monkey.

God (or possibly a pan-dimensional entity) damn it, I was hoping for a Fish-Monkey.

A Funky.

Not a Monkfish.

Seriously now though there are millions of dollars poured into Christian research institutions which come up with spurious arguments to disprove evolution in the broadest sense.

To date the breadth of their objections tends to be little more than a campaign of miseducation and selective interpretation. Like:

Survival of Dinasour DNA shows that they can only be a few thousand years old and proves the 'young earth theory'

Base Nucleotides differ and this shows we didn't all come from a common root

Living Fossils -any instance of an ancient creature turning up which has a close counterpart now extinct disproves evolution -how?

Rats -check this tripe out http://www.answersin...v21/i3/rats.asp a typically poor argument

[cauthon]

Stone, I largely agree with what you are saying here. Now, while I am religious and believe in creation, it does not mean I do not approve of science. I can accept the fact that people bring on a theory that tries to explain how life came to be and ho we came to be and has no need for a creator. What I do not like is people calling it fact. You might compare it to spline. It fits the data points, but that does not mean the real function (or event(s)) are given by the spline. What if the function is not continuous, or even worse, its domain is not equal to R, but rather to N or Q. A spline function may explain those points very well, but it does not mean that it is the real thing. Under certain circumstances, one might prefer to use that approach/theory to try and gain insight. But not admitting it might be wrong seems foolish.

I can admit that I might be wrong about what I belief, which is why I respect the beliefs other people have, but more often than not, those advocating evolution are no better than religious zealots. Just because they have no need for a creaor according to their theory, a creator does not exist. That seems like a logical falsehood to me.

On the other hand, the people who believe in creation often have different ideas to, based on their interpretation of scripture/dogma's etc. I tend not to agree with ost of them. I don't believe the earth is 6K years old. I don't believe the term 'day' means a 24h period, I think it means (just as it does in multiple other places in scripture) a period of a given length. I also believe the Genesis report starts when the universe has been in existence for a long time, and I tend to follow the 13 (11-15) billion years scientist now suspect our universe exists.

I just wanted to point out that believing in creation does not mean we do not want to understand things. I'm a computer scientist, I'm interested in physics, quantum mechanics, maths, etc. I definitely have an urge to understand my world. But I can also accept the fact that even though some explanations may be fitting the data up to a certain point, they need not be correct. And that is something a lot of people (here too) don't seem to get or accept.

[Terez]

Well, when all the evidence points to something, it seems logical to me that it is correct until some other evidence suggests otherwise. In the case of evolution on the broad terms we're in general discussing here, there is nothing to suggest otherwise...no dogma, no faith...just no good reason to disbelieve...

[Obdigore]

Terez;354307 said:

Well, when all the evidence points to something, it seems logical to me that it is correct until some other evidence suggests otherwise. In the case of evolution on the broad terms we're in general discussing here, there is nothing to suggest otherwise...no dogma, no faith...just no good reason to disbelieve...

Off this, the Theory of Evolution (in its Macro from) is supported by all the facts/experiments/observations done. There are no loose ends, no data to suggest it does not happen.

That is why it is accepted as the current 'understanding' and Theory of how it happened.

For all I know, Gem, your god is fucking with all of us and making things evolve because he wants to screw with us. But, none the less, they are evolving. It happens.

Since we cannot measure/observe/prove any current/former divine intervention, we must assume that it does not exist. That is how science works, it is a means of understanding how/why things happen in our universe with what we can measure/observe.

Science can change as we understand more and more about the universe around us, which is why something like evolution is a theory.

Gem, I understand that you dont believe in evolution, but how do you explain the article I linked to you above? Do you just discount that because it does not fit in with your view of the world?

[stone monkey]

If you've got faith in something, and want to keep it, you have to believe that any and all inconvenient facts, that might point to that faith being misplaced, are incorrect.

[Obdigore]

Kurald;354348 said:

I haven't posted on this site in forever, but reading Gem's arguments made me want to kill myself.

If that is all you are going to add to the thread, maybe you should (metaphorically) and not come back?

[stone monkey]

Small correction for you cauthon - Evolutionary Theory isn't about how life started, it's about what happens once life gets started. For theories on the origin of life you'll need to be looking at various forms of chemistry.

Speaking of which - here's something interesting

[Gem Windcaster]

HoosierDaddy;354012 said:

What assumptions? That a genetic mutation occurs? This assumption is fact!. Your extremes are simply this: There is no way that natural selection occurs and that through millions of millions of years it can affect biology.

That seems pretty extreme to me.

HoosierDaddy;354012 said:

Err, you don't do a whole lot of scientific experimentation do you? If you did you would know that theories have no loose ends. They can't be disproven. That is why scientific theories are a theory and not law yet.

I think people should be worried about the cannot be disproven part.

HoosierDaddy;354012 said:

While reason is sacrificed to faith. I'll take #1 thanks.

I have the right to choose what I believe in, thankyou. That doesn't mean I sacrifice reason. I find that notion quite insulting.

HoosierDaddy;354012 said:

Science does believe in truth. It's called science because it's not frickin faith. There is more behind it than a damned burning bush, visit from an angel, or hypothetical rebirth. I'll give you every thing in my damned bank account if you can prove any miracle before I prove that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Why are you so upset? I am giving my opinion, just like you do. Why would I want to prove miracles? I don't get what you are on about.

HoosierDaddy;354012 said:

I've read your posts. They don't make sense to me.

I was quite aware of the fact that most of you would say that even before I posted. It seems to be the standard answer; it makes me sad.

HoosierDaddy;354012 said:

To me evolution is a theory. Either you believe in it or you don't. The only difference between creationism and evolution is that one is based on what people who are prepared to be neutral and logical experiment and find, and what someone else reads in a book and believes to be the truth thereafter.

Well, thankyou for admitting evolution is a theory that requires belief! It's what I've been trying to say all along!

stone monkey;354073 said:

If you're going to do the "evolution is just a theory" argument - which btw I'll agree with, with the caveat that it's a good theory that fits the real world better than any other -the obvious counter example is that creationism is also just a theory. In which case how you evaluate the relative merits of each theory (ie which one best resembles the world we live in) depends on your value system.

Yes.
This is where we differ in philosophical standpoint. I don't see creationism as a theory at all. Not in the normal sense. Creationism is a metaphysical theory. While the theory of evolution is supposedly a scientific theory. There's a major difference in philosophical standpoint that makes it impossible to compare the two in a regular way. What I've been trying to do is shed light on the philosophical part of the theory of evolution.

stone monkey;354073 said:

If you're the type who does the whole religion thing, then your first port of call will inevitably be whichever holy text or dogma that is your poison of choice and you will have no need to go any further, no need to learn any more, because for you the search for explanation is over. This means you're relying on faith. And the problem some of us have with faith is that it doesn't require any kind of supporting evidence - in fact faith precludes evidence; for, logically, if you have evidence for your belief then what you don't have is faith in it. Creationism is a faith based belief. There is no point in the believer seeking evidence for or against it because it will be irrelevant to that belief.

I have admitted that creationism is based on faith. Note that I don't set evolution and creationism against each other. You could easily believe in both, if you wanted to. Which is something some of you guys might not have thought about - or maybe you have, I dunno.

I don't see how me relying on faith would be a problem for you guys, as long as I admit it. It's not a problem for me. It doesn't interfere with science in any way, in my book. I can easily compartmentalize science and faith. But the theory of evolution has a lot of faith attached to it. What's wrong with that?

stone monkey;354073 said:

Now, those of us who believe that the theory of evolution (a misnomer, btw because there are lots of variants of the basic idea) best resembles the process of how the living things of managed to get the way they are have had to be convinced of this by argument. We have had to use our judgement and knowledge to understand the concepts and decide, based on the evidence given to us, whether or not to believe in that evidence or the theory it claims to support. And it's an ongoing process; new fossils, new techniques in molecular biology, new theories are appearing all the time.

Which I respect more than you know. I just want to challenge people to think outside of the box of science sometimes. I'm a metaphysician. It's something you guys simply have to accept. I make decisions not only on what other people call evidence, I choose whether I want to believe that evidence or not. Just like you do, but a bit more extreme. Especially when we're talking about things that are just theories, that can't really be tested.

stone monkey;354073 said:

The philosophy of science has been mentioned - although Richard Feynmann's bon mot comes to mind here: "Scientists have about as much use for Philosophers of Science as birds do for Ornithologists." If you're a follower of the social construct model, then creationism would appear to have just as much validity as any scientific position. This is because real world evidence is totally discounted by this model, all the conclusions drawn by any scientist being merely of the social conditions that that particular scientist exists in. Although what this might also imply about creationists I'll leave to you.

I don't really follow the social construct model as much as you think. I don't discount world evidence. This is where I differ from you guys. I am much more doubtful of evidence, and the process of attaining evidence.

stone monkey;354073 said:

The implication of this position would appear to lead one to the conclusion that all science could be done with no recourse to experiment at all; which seems faintly ridiculous to my mind.

It seems ridiculous to me too. Again, you misunderstand me. I don't discard scientific evidence, I doubt it, I criticize it, I want more of it. I want an open mind and a critical standpoint. Almost to the extreme.

stone monkey;354073 said:

The problem I would have with a creationist's use of this particular line of reasoning is that they can't demand that their arguments be privileged, that their dogma has more force (or, perhaps, contains more truth) than all others, as all arguments are equally valid ways of seeing. Which would seem to negate the reason for the creationist using that particular argument in the first place...

Then I am not a creationist, if that's the way they argue. I don't think any arguments are privileged, on the contrary. It's what I've been trying to say. I am criticizing the theory of evolution because I don't want any arguments to be privileged.

It might be that I've been confusing you by posting this in this thread, where we set evolution against creationism. It's not what I do.

Mezla PigDog;354158 said:

[Probably going over old ground but I'm incensed at Gem suggesting scientists are hypocrites!]

I think the main problem in the debate is that creationists view scientists support of evolution as some kind of dogmatic belief. Agreeing that the theory of evolution is a valid scientific theory and explanation for the diversity of life on this planet is NOT a belief. It is a rational explanation supported by evidence. Gem seems to think that there a massive assumptions made between each "dot" that is joined. That's just not true. There a masses and masses of evidence to support each assumption made.

I could write a dissertation on the evidence right now but I'll just stick in some points:
- The fossil record
- The observation of microbial communities genetically evolving to suit their environment
- The observation of single celled communities forming "biofilms" and populations that perform distinct roles in support of a community (i.e. basic multicellular organisms)
- The post-genomic era of biological science allowing the comparison of whole genomes shows that massive genome duplications have occured in history that essentially allow evolution to speed up. Paralogous and orthologous genes support these theories
- The fact that multi-billion dollar industries are currently thriving using the science that the theory of evolution is founded upon (drug discovery, chemical production, epidemiological studies of infectious disease, wine making, food production, genetic disorders.....I could go on)

It seems to also be believed that scientists aren't looking into the idea that evolution might be theoretically wrong. Every experiment in the field is backed up by controls. If the controls showed anything fishy people would investigate, the scientist that disproves the theory of evolution would become world famous and filthy rich!

And Gem, a fish never has evolved into a monkey. They simply share a common ancestor somewhere back in time that under different environmental conditions evolved into seperate populations, which then became the common ancestors of all fish or all monkeys.

I know there are no fish monkeys! It would be kinda cool though, wouldn't it? What I have been doing is doubting the so called evidence. I've already stated why I doubt them. You are welcome to think my argument is ridiculous, I don't mind.

For the last time though, I never denied the scientific materials used. I just dispute the conclusions drawn from them!

Obdigore;354319 said:

Off this, the Theory of Evolution (in its Macro from) is supported by all the facts/experiments/observations done. There are no loose ends, no data to suggest it does not happen.

That is why it is accepted as the current 'understanding' and Theory of how it happened.

For all I know, Gem, your god is fucking with all of us and making things evolve because he wants to screw with us. But, none the less, they are evolving. It happens.

I'm sorry but that's your opinion. I reserve my right to doubt this so called evidence, until I do see a fish wake up as a monkey (I don't see how that would be impossible if evolution does exist the way you say).

Obdigore;354319 said:

Since we cannot measure/observe/prove any current/former divine intervention, we must assume that it does not exist. That is how science works, it is a means of understanding how/why things happen in our universe with what we can measure/observe.

Scientifically, yes, there is no way to assume a divine being. Which is my fricking point! Creationism~=science. You seem to think I don't see this. But I do!

Obdigore;354319 said:

Science can change as we understand more and more about the universe around us, which is why something like evolution is a theory.

Oh, I am well aware of this, but I can still send the scientists to redo their homework if I don't find it good enough.

Obdigore;354319 said:

Gem, I understand that you dont believe in evolution, but how do you explain the article I linked to you above? Do you just discount that because it does not fit in with your view of the world?

I already answered that question.

For the last, last time , I never denied the scientific materials used, or the studies. I just dispute the conclusions drawn from them!

I honestly don't know how to make this any clearer.

If you have anymore questions, just pm me. I'll leave you to it, since I don't really set evolution against creationism at all. Peace out.

EDIT: okay, I just want to post an response to SM's post, beacuse I think the argument is valid:

stone monkey;354342 said:

If you've got faith in something, and want to keep it, you have to believe that any and all inconvenient facts, that might point to that faith being misplaced, are incorrect.

This might be true in a sense, but then it's really not. Faith doesn't work that way with me (I can't speak for anyone else). Making metaphysician arguments doesn't mean I don't have to follow rules or heed evidence. It is just slightly different what kind of evidence I heed, and what I do with it. Having a strong faith means two things.
1. Having to adapt your own thinking and world view every second of every day.
2. Having to be critical of every argument I myself make and everybody else make all the time (well, not really all the time, but the attitude has to be that).

If anyone of you came up with a killer argument that led me to adapt my world view, I would incorporate that argument into it, and something new would come from it.

I am well aware that it is quite frustrating for you guys to have me dispute your coddled world views, but please understand, it's what I do on a daily basis. It's nothing personal. I am a metaphysician after all. Doesn't mean I hate science. On the contrary, I think science is amazing.

[stone monkey]

Gem Windcaster;354361 said:

Oh, I am well aware of this, but I can still send the scientists to redo their homework if I don't find it good enough. .

The problem with sending them back to do their homework if their conclusions don't agree with yours is that it's entirely possible that their conclusions will never agree with yours. Arguably, because you believe that the supernatural orders the universe and because science is based on the materialist outlook the conclusions of science can never agree with yours.

Simply put, if you're choosing to dispute materialist conclusions based on an a priori supernaturalist belief system then you're indulging in a particularly pointless endeavour; because one doesn't even come close to being applicable to the other.

[Gem Windcaster]

stone monkey;354370 said:

The problem with sending them back to do their homework if their conclusions don't agree with yours is that it's entirely possible that their conclusions will never agree with yours. Arguably, because you believe that the supernatural orders the universe and because science is based on the materialist outlook the conclusions of science can never agree with yours.

I have to disagree with this. Science is not a closed system. It has parts. Some parts may never agree with my world view - if I make a concession to your theory - but it doesn't mean I won't be able to agree with anything. I already know this is true, since I actually do agree with science on a daily basis!

stone monkey;354370 said:

Simply put, if you're choosing to dispute materialist conclusions based on an a priori supernaturalist belief system then you're indulging in a particularly pointless endeavour; because one doesn't even come close to being applicable to the other.

Well, I wouldn't call myself a pure supernaturalist, since I actually am as doubtful of metaphysical arguments as scientific ones. I rarely make a priori conclusions. I however make a priori evaluations of arguments. (does that make sense?)

It is really hard for me to explain how it all comes together, because It's like trying to explain why I breathe (ok, bad example, but you get my point?).


I'll try to stop now.

[Cougar]

So Gem you're asking us to question the evidence, which is fair enough but in all that you posted I don't really see any reasoned logic behind doubting the evidence apart from the fact that you aren't keen on it from a philosophical standpoint. I find this puzzling. Naturally you are entitled to an opinion without being pillioried which is why Kurald has received short shrift from Obdi. However, your claim that you do not want any theory to be privelidged is faulty. Evolution (in a broad sense) is not priveledged by dogma but has established a front-running position on merit alone, it only came into existence through scientifc observation. It does not exist as a way to fill lack of understanding.

It is not the case, as you state that, viewing creationism from a metaphysical standpoint invalidates any comparison to evolution because evolution is scientific in nature. That is not logically acceptable. If what you are saying is the belief in a divine being can not be viewed in the same terms as evolution I would agree.

I think perhaps we are struggling with terminology here a little: creationism tends towards a belief in god. What we have wandered onto occasionally here is actually independent evolution vs intelligent design. Neither of which are incompatible or necessarily inextricably religious.

We could posit a theory that we were created by an alien scientist with a purpose which would be intelligent design and this being has manipulated at every 'evolutionary' change yet still live in a godless universe. Conversely we could say that life was started off and left to evolve by the creator.

I'm not saying evolution is right, my feeling about some of the deeper mysteries of the universe is that we will never understand them (evolution may or may not be one of them). Watch a fly banging it's head against a window, there is no way the fly can ever understand why it can not get through the window, it is not that it lacks education, simply that it does not have the capacity to understand and never will . We could be like this, incable of understanding the incalcuable forces of creation because at the end of the day we are just flies banging our heads against the glass.

[Gem Windcaster]

Cougar;354382 said:

However, your claim that you do not want any theory to be privelidged is faulty. Evolution (in a broad sense) is not priveledged by dogma but has established a front-running position on merit alone, it only came into existence through scientifc observation. It does not exist as a way to fill lack of understanding.

I don't really agree with this. I have reason to believe there are other motives behind the acceptance of the theory of evolution besides merit. But since I can't really prove it and I gets pretty conspiratorial without evidence, I won't push that one. I'll just put it down as a reserved notation.

Cougar;354382 said:

It is not the case, as you state that, viewing creationism from a metaphysical standpoint invalidates any comparison to evolution because evolution is scientific in nature. That is not logically acceptable. If what you are saying is the belief in a divine being can not be viewed in the same terms as evolution I would agree.

You got it partly correct. I don't think the choice of standpoint matters here. creationism is what it is. I am beginning to think that the way you define creationism, I am not a creationist in a sense that I want it to 'beat' evolution. Creationism and evolution aren't opposites in my mind. That is why I don't set them against each other.

Cougar;354382 said:

I think perhaps we are struggling with terminology here a little: creationism tends towards a belief in god. What we have wandered onto occasionally here is actually independent evolution vs intelligent design. Neither of which are incompatible or necessarily inextricably religious.

We could posit a theory that we were created by an alien scientist with a purpose which would be intelligent design and this being has manipulated at every 'evolutionary' change yet still live in a godless universe. Conversely we could say that life was started off and left to evolve by the creator.

I think the idea of 'intelligent design' is much more interesting to discuss than creationism. Theoretically, it could be argued as strongly as evolution in a sense. (not setting the concepts against each other, of course )

Cougar;354382 said:

I'm not saying evolution is right, my feeling about some of the deeper mysteries of the universe is that we will never understand them (evolution may or may not be one of them). Watch a fly banging it's head against a window, there is no way the fly can ever understand why it can not get through the window, it is not that it lacks education, simply that it does not have the capacity to understand and never will . We could be like this, incable of understanding the incalcuable forces of creation because at the end of the day we are just flies banging our heads against the glass.

Scientifically, we might have a problem finding answers. On the other hand, a certain source that I trust greatly states that nothing is impossible for humans, endeavor-wise.



Man, it's nearly impossible to stop! I'm having too much fun. Let me try stopping again...