Creationists: what prevents you from accepting ToE?

[Sapiens]

No, you don't do believing, you demonstrated that. Neither does Sapiens who has freedom all muddled up in stochasticity.

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose. - Kris Kristofferson.

Obviousy neither does Nullius, neither does Fantome, neither does Mestemia. You are all high on the original sin of making what is good, loving and beautiful into a matter of fact. High on the drugs the brain produces when (scientific) factual certitude is inserted into a matter of opinion.

Would it be too much trouble for you to provide a reference for this drug that outlines it's structure/activity relationship and how, where and when it is produced?

That is why you all refuse to acknowledge it is a matter of opinion if love, hate, God the holy spirit, and the soul are real, that is why you all don't acknowledge the fact that things are chosen in the universe, that is how you don't believe.

It is not a question of belief, it is a matter of the complete absence of evidence that supports your claim.

And evolution theory is the catalyst for this temptation. That is why you are attracted to evolution theory, because evolution theory is phrased in emotive terms of differential reproductive "success" and "struggle for" survival, "selfish" genes. Emotive terms while it is asserted as fact, inserting factual certitude into matters of opinion, the wellknown original sin.[/QUOTE]

 

[averageJOE]

No, you don't do believing, you demonstrated that. Neither does Sapiens who has freedom all muddled up in stochasticity. Obviousy neither does Nullius, neither does Fantome, neither does Mestemia. You are all high on the original sin of making what is good, loving and beautiful into a matter of fact. High on the drugs the brain produces when (scientific) factual certitude is inserted into a matter of opinion. That is why you all refuse to acknowledge it is a matter of opinion if love, hate, God the holy spirit, and the soul are real, that is why you all don't acknowledge the fact that things are chosen in the universe, that is how you don't believe.

And evolution theory is the catalyst for this temptation. That is why you are attracted to evolution theory, because evolution theory is phrased in emotive terms of differential reproductive "success" and "struggle for" survival, "selfish" genes. Emotive terms while it is asserted as fact, inserting factual certitude into matters of opinion, the wellknown original sin.

Your faith must be extremely fragile if you believe the theory of evolution can do all that to a person.

 

[Parsimony]

No, you don't do believing, you demonstrated that.

It sounds like you are dangerously close to calling me a liar. I do believe in things whether you want to accept that or not. I believe that claytronics is going to be an immensely important technology in the future. I believe that we will put humans on Mars before 2050. I believe in the death penalty for murderers. So there you go. Three of my beliefs right there.

Neither does Sapiens who has freedom all muddled up in stochasticity. Obviousy neither does Nullius, neither does Fantome, neither does Mestemia. You are all high on the original sin of making what is good, loving and beautiful into a matter of fact. High on the drugs the brain produces when (scientific) factual certitude is inserted into a matter of opinion. That is why you all refuse to acknowledge it is a matter of opinion if love, hate, God the holy spirit, and the soul are real, that is why you all don't acknowledge the fact that things are chosen in the universe, that is how you don't believe.

There you go saying things that I can't make sense of again. Please give a source that the original sin had anything to do with turning opinions into facts. Opinions, by definition, cannot be facts.

And evolution theory is the catalyst for this temptation. That is why you are attracted to evolution theory, because evolution theory is phrased in emotive terms of differential reproductive "success" and "struggle for" survival, "selfish" genes. Emotive terms while it is asserted as fact, inserting factual certitude into matters of opinion, the wellknown original sin.

Nope, wrong. There you are making assumptions again. My acceptance of evolution has nothing to do with the way it is phrased or any "temptation". I was a young-Earth creationist for the vast majority of my life. I struggled trying to rationalize it for over a decade before I finally admitted to myself that the available evidence pointed towards evolution being factual. It wasn't about what I wanted. It was about me being honest with myself.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It sounds like you are dangerously close to calling me a liar. I do believe in things whether you want to accept that or not.

That's whatever. You have previously very explicitly demonstrated that you don't do believing, with the creationist meaning of believing. And the creationist meaning, is consistent with the meaning in common discourse about believing.

 

[Parsimony]

That's whatever. You have previously very explicitly demonstrated that you don't do believing with the creationist meaning of believing.

When did I demonstrate this? Please quote a specific post of mine and explain how it supports your assumption.

And the creationist meaning, is consistent with the meaning in common discourse about believing.

So when I say "I believe in the death penalty for murderers", what do you think that means, exactly?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

When did I demonstrate this? Please quote a specific post of mine and explain how it supports your assumption.

So when I say "I believe in the death penalty for murderers", what do you think that means, exactly?

In the post where you asked the 3 questions, you made it clear that you reject believing.

According to you the existence of this love you have for the death penalty as a matter of justice, is not a matter of opinion. As can be concluded by that you objected to the existence of the spirit being a matter of opinion.

 

[McBell]

As can be concluded by that you objected to the existence of the spirit being a matter of opinion.

What a big steaming pile of bull excrement.

Until such time as you meaningfully and or usefully define "spirit" you are merely hiding behind the word.

 

[Parsimony]

In the post where you asked the 3 questions, you made it clear that you reject believing.

How so? I don't see your reason.

According to you the existence of this love you have for the death penalty as a matter of justice, is not a matter of opinion.

I don't "love" the death penalty. I simply think it is something that is warranted in specific circumstances. I don't see how it can be proven that the death penalty is appropriate or inappropriate in an objective way. That is why being in favor of it counts as an opinion. The idea that love is real is not the same thing as saying that something that you love is real. I love (in a certain sense of the word) the manga known as One-Punch Man. That does not mean that I think the One-Punch Man characters are real nor do I think it is based on true stories. Likewise, I have a love for cryptozoology, ufology and the paranormal. That does not automatically mean that I accept the existence of Bigfoot, grey aliens or ghosts as real. They may or may not be real. My love for the subject matter does not equal belief in a subject matter. Nor does it equal an acceptance of a subject matter as fact.

As can be concluded by that you objected to the existence of the spirit being a matter of opinion.

I don't reject the existence of spirits. Spirits could very well exist. I have no committed views one way or the other on that subject. Some people hold the opinion that spirits exist and others hold the opinion that they do not. Since there is no objective proof one way or the other, the existence of spirits will remain opinion until a way to objectively test for their existence is devised (if ever). However, spirits either exist or they don't. Having an opinion on the matter doesn't change that. People can have opinions but opinions can be wrong.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

My love for the subject matter does not equal belief in a subject matter. Nor does it equal an acceptance of a subject matter as fact.

And so on and on it goes, making it absolutely clear you don't understand ,and reject, belief as I have explained it.

 

[Parsimony]

And so on and on it goes, making it absolutely clear you don't understand ,and reject, belief as I have explained it.

Your definition of belief is clearly not the same as that used in common language. In that sense, a belief is simply something that you hold to be true but are not completely certain of (or cannot be completely certain of). I don't know why you felt the need to invent your own definition for it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Your definition of belief is clearly not the same as that used in common language. In that sense, a belief is simply something that you hold to be true but are not completely certain of (or cannot be completely certain of). I don't know why you felt the need to invent your own definition for it.

Billions of people "officially", by their allegiance to the religious doctrine, use the logic that the soul or spirit chooses, and the existence of it is a matter of faith and revelation (opinion). That is categorically, unequivocally, making what is good, loving and beautiful into a matter of opinion.

While what you do is ... well what is good, loving and beautiful is all "natural, it can't be completely measured now, maybe in the future it could be measured, who is to say? That is the same sort of logic as used with probabilities.

You do not explicitly choose in reaching a "belief", and your belief is not about what it is that chooses, which means, it is not believing at all. You have to choose the conclusion yourself, and it has to say something about something that chooses, like the motivation of a decision, love and hate, or God, the soul, etc. When you require choosing for believing, it can never ever become a fact.

 

[McBell]

Your definition of belief is clearly not the same as that used in common language. In that sense, a belief is simply something that you hold to be true but are not completely certain of (or cannot be completely certain of). I don't know why you felt the need to invent your own definition for it.

Um...
He prefers to beat up his strawmen with straw weapons?

 

[McBell]

Billions of people "officially", by their allegiance to the religious doctrine, use the logic that the soul or spirit chooses, and the existence of it is a matter of faith and revelation (opinion). That is categorically, unequivocally, making what is good, loving and beautiful into a matter of opinion.

While what you do is ... well what is good, loving and beautiful is all "natural, it can't be completely measured now, maybe in the future it could be measured, who is to say? That is the same sort of logic as used with probabilities.

You do not explicitly choose in reaching a "belief", and your belief is not about what it is that chooses, which means, it is not believing at all. You have to choose the conclusion yourself, and it has to say something about something that chooses, like the motivation of a decision, love and hate, or God, the soul, etc. When you require choosing for believing, it can never ever become a fact.

Still hiding behind the word "spirit"?

 

[metis]

Henry Fairfield Osborn, President of the American Museum of Natural History, examined the Piltdown and Sheffield Park finds and declared that the jaw and skull belonged together "without question"

[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact (Mark Twain)

Sorry, but it does not say he examined it outside the bell-jar, and w/o doing that there's no way he could tell with any certainty that it was a fake. Secondly, why would you essentially demonize science simply because there may be a small minority who do crazy or fraudulent things? Should we demonize you if you make a mistake or do or say something that's less than honest?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Sorry, but it does not say he examined it outside the bell-jar, and w/o doing that there's no way he could tell with any certainty that it was a fake. Secondly, why would you essentially demonize science simply because there may be a small minority who do crazy or fraudulent things? Should we demonize you if you make a mistake or do or say something that's less than honest?

apparently this 'scientist' felt he could determine that it was real 'without question' whether or not he took it out of the jar- which was the point, he was not being particularly skeptical, and neither were others who took his word.

So the minority doing fraudulent things- and being believed by the majority is exactly the problem- that's how much of science - the institution works, quite distinct from the method- there is always the tendency to coalesce around a favored idea. aka peer review

Not to demonize, but I think we should always be cautious of institutionalized scientific convention. Would you not agree that the point of science is NOT having to take anybody's word for it?

 

[Parsimony]

Billions of people "officially", by their allegiance to the religious doctrine, use the logic that the soul or spirit chooses, and the existence of it is a matter of faith and revelation (opinion). That is categorically, unequivocally, making what is good, loving and beautiful into a matter of opinion.

While what you do is ... well what is good, loving and beautiful is all "natural, it can't be completely measured now, maybe in the future it could be measured, who is to say? That is the same sort of logic as used with probabilities.

You do not explicitly choose in reaching a "belief", and your belief is not about what it is that chooses, which means, it is not believing at all. You have to choose the conclusion yourself, and it has to say something about something that chooses, like the motivation of a decision, love and hate, or God, the soul, etc. When you require choosing for believing, it can never ever become a fact.

I really just cannot follow you. Maybe some other members will have better luck than I.

 

[metis]

apparently this 'scientist' felt he could determine that it was real 'without question' whether or not he took it out of the jar- which was the point, he was not being particularly skeptical, and neither were others who took his word.

So the minority doing fraudulent things- and being believed by the majority is exactly the problem- that's how much of science - the institution works, quite distinct from the method- there is always the tendency to coalesce around a favored idea. aka peer review

Not to demonize, but I think we should always be cautious of institutionalized scientific convention. Would you not agree that the point of science is NOT having to take anybody's word for it?

I would suggest that we should be cautious about any institution, and science now has procedures in place that absolutely mandate this. The issue with "Piltdown" occurred when there weren't such arrangements. The purposes behind the "scientific method", which are mandated to us no matter in which country we may live, are to keep our biases in check and to provide a pathway for evidence gathering and ultimate conclusions. And then all of what we might use as evidence must be open for other scientists to investigate.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I would suggest that we should be cautious about any institution, and science now has procedures in place that absolutely mandate this. The issue with "Piltdown" occurred when there weren't such arrangements. The purposes behind the "scientific method", which are mandated to us no matter in which country we may live, are to keep our biases in check and to provide a pathway for evidence gathering and ultimate conclusions. And then all of what we might use as evidence must be open for other scientists to investigate.

Imagine how much more convincing and widely popular Piltdown man could have been with computer simulations- animated reconstructions, mass media, international political bodies and billions in funding all helping to support it. These take us further from the method, further from direct empirical evidence, not closer.

 

[metis]

Imagine how much more convincing and widely popular Piltdown man could have been with computer simulations- animated reconstructions, mass media, international political bodies and billions in funding all helping to support it. These take us further from the method, further from direct empirical evidence, not closer.

But Piltdown today would have to be dated by taking a small piece from one of the bones, and it was that technique used by Eisely that found it to be fraudulent. Also, prior to that discovery, many anthropologists and other scientists felt Piltdown likely was either fraudulent or was seriously mutated because it didn't fit into other patterns that had been discovered over several decades. And with the use of computers, detecting frauds or organisms with serious mutations actually would be easier.

Also, scientists can and often are quite brutal towards each other, so the thought of some sort of international scientific conspiracy might make for good t.v. but not good reality. If I try to string people along with my pet hypothesis, there'll be a lineup of scientists trying to make a name for themselves by proving me wrong. Ask Steven Hawking about that.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If I try to string people along with my pet hypothesis, there'll be a lineup of scientists trying to make a name for themselves by proving me wrong..

and/or a lineup to jump on your bandwagon, it just depends, and it depends on a lot more than scientific method- as we see with Piltdown man, The primeval atom, global cooling/warming/changing/ not changing, canals on Mars, Stalin's 'scientific' farming techniques etc etc.

It depends who you are, how well your theory fits academic fashion, political approval, ideological implications, how valuable it is to various parties. The idea of the wise Gandalf scientist, with no human failings or biases, is good for TV- and many vested interests too. reality, not so much.