Are most scientists emotionally mature adults?

[leibowde84]

That's the same thing. And he said to deny it is "insane".

And you have to define subjective when it is at issue in debate. I have defined objective, fact, subjective, opinion, all worked out in a consistent conceptual scheme that is traditional creationism, as consistent with common discourse use of fact and opinion.

It does not follow that only an omniscient person has the information about what a person knows.

Sure you can define honesty, selfishness, love and such as objective terms, and thereby you are destroying the room for subjective terms. Love is electrochemistry in the brain, require evidence for the soul and God, deny free will is real, define subjectivity as observations related to the uniqueness of the observer, deny intelligent design / creationism, etc. All destructive of subjectivity.

It is certainly not the same thing. And, finally i understand your confusion.

A decision of whether someone else is being honest is subjective. Whether or not you are correct (whether the person was telling what they thought to be true or not) is objective fact, as it either is or it isnt.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I see you ignore most of my reply. If you are relying on AiG I give up - watch the YouTube video on the Dover Trial, before a Bush appointed conservative judge ID and AiG crashed and burned.
The fact that there is no secondary function for the nerve helps to prove evolution; a graduate engineer could have designed it better than a mythical creator..
I have no delusions about winning Nobel Prizes, I am too old, not clever enough and know my limits as far as science goes. A shame Ken Ham, Michael Behe or William Demski (not to mention the likes of Kent and Eric Hovind) have not realised their limits too.

Siding with evolutionists makes the judge a liberal. How can anybody be considered a conservative when they basically outlaw teaching in school that freedom is real and relevant in the universe? That is just a liberal, who feels it is necessary to provide consideration to pretentious intellectual ideas that free will is not real.

It's of course not a fact that there is no secondary function. Every time evolutionists come with these stories of uselessness, like with the appendix, tonsils, and every time a function is found. It's of course these evolutionary stories which are useless not the organs. Will you give up evolutionary theory when a secondary function is found to the larynx nerve? Then I will bother to go look for it, WHAT EVERYBODY ALREADY KNOWS, that it has a secondary function.

And you just have a prejudice against knowledge about how things are chosen, just like the judge.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No its not the same, you really don't understand the nuances of the english language. Honesty is a concept, and as defined in common discourse the concept of honesty can only result in the honesty of a statement being true or false and that result is what is a fact. The only way to get away from that is to redefine the word to have completely new meaning, which is insane.

Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of the english langauge and common discourse by ignoring the huge qualifier that I added i.e. "which is required to determine honesty for statements about things that are not shared experiences." That means you won't have complete information about what the person knows on the subject of their statement, unless other information has already been shared.

Once again you are wrong, honesty is not, what amounts to, a mathematical concept, in the English language, it is part of judgement, and judgement requires choosing. Honesty is a matter of opinion in the English language. Honesty is also a matter of opinion in Russian, French, German, and Swahili.

Obviously it is totally bizarre that selfishness, honesty, love etc. are regarded as objective terms, and that the proper subjective use is regarded as insane.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It is certainly not the same thing. And, finally i understand your confusion.

A decision of whether someone else is being honest is subjective. Whether or not you are correct (whether the person was telling what they thought to be true or not) is objective fact, as it either is or it isnt.

That's your confusion. You are confused about the facts of what somebody knows, and the opinion whether somebody is honest or not.

And you are still confused, and you will always be confused, because you are actively supporting the confusion.

 

[leibowde84]

That's your confusion. You are confused about the facts of what somebody knows, and the opinion whether somebody is honest or not.

And you are still confused, and you will always be confused, because you are actively supporting the confusion.

This is so ironic. You accuse me of adding to the confusion, then you write this. If you don't see the difference between one's impression of honesty and whether someone was honest as a matter of fact, there's not much I can do. From other comments, you seem to be the only one lacking this understanding.

 

[Altfish]

Siding with evolutionists makes the judge a liberal. How can anybody be considered a conservative when they basically outlaw teaching in school that freedom is real and relevant in the universe? That is just a liberal, who feels it is necessary to provide consideration to pretentious intellectual ideas that free will is not real.

It's of course not a fact that there is no secondary function. Every time evolutionists come with these stories of uselessness, like with the appendix, tonsils, and every time a function is found. It's of course these evolutionary stories which are useless not the organs. Will you give up evolutionary theory when a secondary function is found to the larynx nerve? Then I will bother to go look for it, WHAT EVERYBODY ALREADY KNOWS, that it has a secondary function.

And you just have a prejudice against knowledge about how things are chosen, just like the judge.

So, you're saying that believing in evolution is a political stance. Just because the clown car that is the GOP candidates race have to play the dumb card to get passed the primaries doesn't mean that it is political.
I live in the UK, virtually everybody knows evolution is true, a fact, a proven theory. Those who don't are treaty as crackpots and laughed at for the unwillingness to accept evidence and science.

If a secondary function is found for the larynx nerve it will not disprove evolution; it will not be as good as argument against ID, I agree.
I will change my mind about evolution, show me rabbit fossils in Cambrian rocks and evolution is in trouble. All scientists are open minded and will change their mind if the evidence supports an alternative.

I am prejudice!! I will change, give me evidence and science will change.
What would make you change your point of view and accept evolution as fact?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

whether someone was honest as a matter of fact

See this guy is REALLY saying honesty is some kind of scientific fact.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I am prejudice!! I will change, give me evidence and science will change.
What would make you change your point of view and accept evolution as fact?

As before, you can choose, you know as fact that you can choose. Therefore freedom is real and relevant in the universe, therefore what looks chosen in some sophisticated way, is chosen. Therefore organisms are chosen as a whole, and are not chosen by many independent decisions coincedentally coming together to form a whole, and then sorted by natural selection.

Only if you are some kind of political ideologue who denies freedom is real, do people deny creationism. Creationism is the basis of all science, not just biology.

 

[leibowde84]

See this guy is REALLY saying honesty is some kind of scientific fact.

Nope. Your stubbornness is clouding your judgment. Here is what I am saying. Please do not dishonestly misquote me.

A says the earth is flat. A knows it is actually spherical. A was dishonest objectively.

A says the earth is flat. I assume that A must know it is spherical, as it is common knowledge. Therefore, my subjective opinion is that A was dishonest.

 

[leibowde84]

See this guy is REALLY saying honesty is some kind of scientific fact.

Whether someone was honest or not is an objective fact.

Our opinion as to whether someone was honest or not is subjective.

Very simple concept.

 

[David M]

Once again you are wrong, honesty is not, what amounts to, a mathematical concept, in the English language, it is part of judgement, and judgement requires choosing. Honesty is a matter of opinion in the English language. Honesty is also a matter of opinion in Russian, French, German, and Swahili.

Obviously it is totally bizarre that selfishness, honesty, love etc. are regarded as objective terms, and that the proper subjective use is regarded as insane.

Oh ffs, stop making up definitions of words, especially words in a language where you are not a native speaker.

If you make a statement you believe to be fair or true then you are being honest. If you make one you do not believe to be fair or true then you are being dishonest, By definition honesty is a what you term a mathmatical concept when it comes to the english language as far as the person performing the action is concerned.

What you seem incapable of understanding is that actions and the perceptions of those actions by others are not the same thing. Just as you still can't get your head around the concept that things can be defined as having an objective existence but a subjective experience e.g. love. How we judge the honesty of others is usually subjective, it is a matter of opinion.

You are wrong about honesty in Russian, the definition of honesty when translated into russian is exactly the same as in english, your confusion probably stems from the fact that the same word in russian used for honesty also encompasses the concept of integrity (and quite a few others such as honour and sincerity) which are not binary concepts but a subjective continuum (yes I know someone whose native language is russian).

 

[Altfish]

As before, you can choose, you know as fact that you can choose. Therefore freedom is real and relevant in the universe, therefore what looks chosen in some sophisticated way, is chosen. Therefore organisms are chosen as a whole, and are not chosen by many independent decisions coincedentally coming together to form a whole, and then sorted by natural selection.

Only if you are some kind of political ideologue who denies freedom is real, do people deny creationism. Creationism is the basis of all science, not just biology.

NO, NO, NO!
I have not chosen to know, I read all sides of an argument and accept as fact the one which makes sense and is supported by evidence. I don't choose to believe 2+2=4 rather than 2+2=5, I've studied the evidence and come to a logical conclusion of which is true. I did the same with evolution, it is a beautiful explanation of the facts and the more evidence that has emerged since Darwin first wrote his book the more solid evolution has become.
You can choose which type of music you like, you can choose where to go for a holiday but you cannot chose your facts.
It has nothing to do with freedom. I will change my mind tomorrow if better evidence emerges for an alternative explanation to evolution; "God did it" isn't good enough for me without some evidence to support it.

I notice again that you pick and choose what you answer, move the topic on and avoid my questions. I ask again, "What would it take for you to accept evolution as a fact?"

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Oh ffs, stop making up definitions of words, especially words in a language where you are not a native speaker.

You have thrown out emotion and judgement from the term honesty, it's complete nonsense.

You have no idea about English, because you are an evolutionist who regards everything as a matter of fact issue, including truth, honesty, love, the soul, God.

The existence of the word honesty is a fact. That's how honesty is a fact.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

NO, NO, NO!
I have not chosen to know, I read all sides of an argument and accept as fact the one which makes sense and is supported by evidence. I don't choose to believe 2+2=4 rather than 2+2=5, I've studied the evidence and come to a logical conclusion of which is true. I did the same with evolution, it is a beautiful explanation of the facts and the more evidence that has emerged since Darwin first wrote his book the more solid evolution has become.
You can choose which type of music you like, you can choose where to go for a holiday but you cannot chose your facts.
It has nothing to do with freedom. I will change my mind tomorrow if better evidence emerges for an alternative explanation to evolution; "God did it" isn't good enough for me without some evidence to support it.

I notice again that you pick and choose what you answer, move the topic on and avoid my questions. I ask again, "What would it take for you to accept evolution as a fact?"

It's not what I was saying, I was saying you know as fact that freedom is real and relevant.

And in my "judgement" you are "dishonest", a "liar", etc. That means I choose the opinion, that the way you choose to deal with this fact that freedom is real, is bad.

I will never give up freedom of opinion, which only comes with creationism. Only creationism validates both fact and opinion, which is why it is the phillosophical foundation of all science and religion.

 

[Altfish]

It's not what I was saying, I was saying you know as fact that freedom is real and relevant.

And in my "judgement" you are "dishonest", a "liar", etc. That means I choose the opinion, that the way you choose to deal with this fact that freedom is real, is bad.

I will never give up freedom of opinion, which only comes with creationism. Only creationism validates both fact and opinion, which is why it is the phillosophical foundation of all science and religion.

Goodbye, I don't mind debating people that put forward arguments with evidence and facts to support them. You talk in gibberish, ignore my points, set off on a tangent and generally play by insults..

I give up...I should have known better than debate a creationist. Good luck with your freedom, glad you think it's real.

I need a beer.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Goodbye, I don't mind debating people that put forward arguments with evidence and facts to support them. You talk in gibberish, ignore my points, set off on a tangent and generally play by insults..

I give up...I should have known better than debate a creationist. Good luck with your freedom, glad you think it's real.

I need a beer.

You were just here to be a right old rightard being right about what is obviously right, but when it turns out you are wrong, then that is not what you signed up for. Face it, either you accept common sense that freedom is real and relevant, as you are required to accept in daily life for practical reasons, or you accept evolution theory. The 2 are incompatible.

 

[Altfish]

You were just here to be a right old rightard being right about what is obviously right, but when it turns out you are wrong, then that is not what you signed up for. Face it, either you accept common sense that freedom is real and relevant, as you are required to accept in daily life for practical reasons, or you accept evolution theory. The 2 are incompatible.

EVIDENCE NOT INSULTS

I rest my case

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

EVIDENCE NOT INSULTS

I rest my case

The evidence is simply the direct evidence you have of choosing things. That therefore freedom is real and relevant in the universe.

And if freedom is real and relevant, then you can just make theory with it. Then you can make theory that organisms are chosen as a whole. And this theory would then be the default hypothesis.

And if you look into the details of how this decisionmaking occurs one can see that the DNA system is a world in it's own right, same like a 3D computersimulation, or human imagination are worlds in their own right. That this is the template for making comprehensive decisions by which the organisms are made to be a functional whole.

One could also make theory that many independent decisions coincedentally come together, and that they are then sorted by natural selection. But that theory predicts organisms which are much more messy than they appear now.

 

[ScottySatan]

Modern atheism really is nothing more than the head winning the head vs heart struggle, helped by science. Like the Sheldon character in the sitcom Big Bang theory. Materialism, naturalism, etc. they all provide no accommodation for subjectivity. So having no recourse to subjectivity, then what Sheldon does is he makes good and evil into a matter of fact issue, and casually denotes the "facts" of which women are better looking than others, straight to their face.

Most practicing scientists I've met are mature enough not to base their world view on TV sitcoms.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Most practicing scientists I've met are mature enough not to base their world view on TV sitcoms.

I could also refer to Mengele and Konrad Lorenz in stead of mister Spock and Sheldon, but it makes it more pallatable to refer to fantasy characters.