Creationists: what prevents you from accepting ToE?

[metis]

This is your assessment of the work of Stephen Hawking? You really want to rethink that.

I agree completely with you. BTW, my wife and I are going to see "The Theory of Everything" tomorrow, which is about his life.

 

[fantome profane]

I agree completely with you. BTW, my wife and I are going to see "The Theory of Everything" tomorrow, which is about his life.

You should invite Guy to go with you. I think he would benefit greatly from the educational experience.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The reality of facts in science are not determined by the sensationalism. If what you were implying were true then we wouldn't be able to trust anything that we have learned.

That is one reason why the peer review is such an important process. It isn't perfect but we as laymen are unable to determine what the studies actually mean. However another Ph.D can sniff out the bull****. Then from there we have predictions to verify the discovery.

Sensationalism is easily rutted out. Though having it recognized by the politics is not.

Basically anything where you think freedom may be an issue, you should distrust what science has to say about it. So for instance human behaviour, people have free will, so the science about human behaviour is probably largely wrong. Where you have the idea that it's probably a mechanical issue, and the result is forced, then you can trust science.

 

[metis]

Basically anything where you think freedom may be an issue, you should distrust what science has to say about it. So for instance human behaviour, people have free will, so the science about human behaviour is probably largely wrong. Where you have the idea that it's probably a mechanical issue, and the result is forced, then you can trust science.

Why is it that you distrust "science" and yet not religion, especially yours? Let's see, there's ISIS, al-Queda, Islamic Jihad, Muslim Brotherhood, etc., and yet you think "science " is a big problem?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This is your assessment of the work of Stephen Hawking? You really want to rethink that.

How did that Big Crunch theory work out? As I recall it was supposed to make 'God redundant' in his words.

 

[metis]

How did that Big Crunch theory work out? As I recall it was supposed to make 'God redundant' in his words.

It's still in the running.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Basically anything where you think freedom may be an issue, you should distrust what science has to say about it. So for instance human behaviour, people have free will, so the science about human behaviour is probably largely wrong. Where you have the idea that it's probably a mechanical issue, and the result is forced, then you can trust science.

So what happens when human behavior is a mechanical issue?

 

[Sapiens]

So what happens when human behavior is a mechanical issue?

I can not imagine human behavior being one or the other. There are instinctive reactions to stimuli that can (may?) be over-ridden by some variable and inconstant level of will. Why must it be a binary, one or the other choice?

 

[Midnight Rain]

Basically anything where you think freedom may be an issue, you should distrust what science has to say about it. So for instance human behaviour, people have free will, so the science about human behaviour is probably largely wrong. Where you have the idea that it's probably a mechanical issue, and the result is forced, then you can trust science.

The science about human behavior is split between sociology and psychology. Psychology being the study of the mind and its processes while sociology is the processes and patterns that emerge in different groups.

Both are mostly based upon observation and identification of patterns or causal processes that lead to certain qualities. Its an ongoing study but would not be called "largely wrong" by any means.

Can you give me an example of a current science that is mostly wrong by your criteria?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The science about human behavior is split between sociology and psychology. Psychology being the study of the mind and its processes while sociology is the processes and patterns that emerge in different groups.

Both are mostly based upon observation and identification of patterns or causal processes that lead to certain qualities. Its an ongoing study but would not be called "largely wrong" by any means.

Can you give me an example of a current science that is mostly wrong by your criteria?

....that human beings don't have free will is obviously the main fault in it. That is why in olden days racism and eugenics was endemic in academia. Now prejudices don't follow racial lines anymore, but the basic precept of racism that a measurable attribute = goodness or evil, is still endemic in academia.

 

[Midnight Rain]

....that human beings don't have free will is obviously the main fault in it. That is why in olden days racism and eugenics was endemic in academia. Now prejudices don't follow racial lines anymore, but the basic precept of racism that a measurable attribute = goodness or evil, is still endemic in academia.

There is a theory that there is no free will. However it is not a doctrine. In fact there has been some very interesting study showing that we very well could have free will. I think I have seen Legion post something about it.

But no science of modern era has said that humans are without free will so just go do whatever you want.

 

[metis]

....that human beings don't have free will is obviously the main fault in it. That is why in olden days racism and eugenics was endemic in academia. Now prejudices don't follow racial lines anymore, but the basic precept of racism that a measurable attribute = goodness or evil, is still endemic in academia.

Racism was around long before science using the scientific method was ever formulated, and there's no doubt that some scientists in the past fell into that trap of one or the other, much like some religious fell into it as well. In the scientific community of today, both racism and eugenics are relics of the past-- thankfully. As an anthropologist, we don't use the word "race" in the context of human evolution or differing cultures.

Outside of science, racism is still around.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

There is a theory that there is no free will. However it is not a doctrine. In fact there has been some very interesting study showing that we very well could have free will. I think I have seen Legion post something about it.

But no science of modern era has said that humans are without free will so just go do whatever you want.

Hello, you don't accept free will, neither does any atheist / evolutionist on the forum. The only functioning concept of free will where there are alternative courses of action available, requires that the identity of what makes the decision turn out the way it does is regarded as a matter of opinion. There are 0 atheists / evolutionists who accept this procedure of reaching a conclusion by choosing it.

That is why atheists / evolutionists have redefined free will to make it mean sorting out the best result. The result is then forced by the sorting criteria, there are no alternative courses of action available. This is called compatibilism, which means that free will has the logic of cause and effect.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Racism was around long before science using the scientific method was ever formulated, and there's no doubt that some scientists in the past fell into that trap of one or the other, much like some religious fell into it as well. In the scientific community of today, both racism and eugenics are relics of the past-- thankfully. As an anthropologist, we don't use the word "race" in the context of human evolution or differing cultures.

Outside of science, racism is still around.

Delusional.

 

[metis]

Hello, you don't accept free will, neither does any atheist / evolutionist on the forum...

That's illogical. If there's no deity, there's no such thing as predestination, therefore free will is the only alternative. OTOH, a great many Muslims believe in "fate", which is a form of predestination.

 

[metis]

Delusional.

So you really believe that saying something like this makes you look intelligent and correct? It's quite obvious why you don't like science, because it involves a lot of study and work, which you apparently prefer to avoid.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

That's illogical. If there's no deity, there's no such thing as predestination, therefore free will is the only alternative. OTOH, a great many Muslims believe in "fate", which is a form of predestination.

You cut the argumentation.

Most all religion accepts that people have a soul, by which they choose, and at the final judgement their soul, who they are as being the owner of their decisions, is judged by the lord God almighty. That is real acceptance of free will.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Hello, you don't accept free will, neither does any atheist / evolutionist on the forum. The only functioning concept of free will where there are alternative courses of action available, requires that the identity of what makes the decision turn out the way it does is regarded as a matter of opinion. There are 0 atheists / evolutionists who accept this procedure of reaching a conclusion by choosing it.

That is why atheists / evolutionists have redefined free will to make it mean sorting out the best result. The result is then forced by the sorting criteria, there are no alternative courses of action available. This is called compatibilism, which means that free will has the logic of cause and effect.

I am not an atheist. I do believe in free will. And everything else in this post is incoherent.
Nothing in evolution states that we have no free will.

 

[metis]

You cut the argumentation.

Can't make out what you're trying to say here.

[QUOTE]Most all religion accepts that people have a soul, by which they choose, and at the final judgement their soul, who they are as being the owner of their decisions, is judged by the lord God almighty. That is real acceptance of free will.[/QUOTE]

Actually most theists are all over the board on this, and this includes Islam and Christianity. Atheists and agnostics operate out of free will, within the limitations of our environment and conditions, of course.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So you really believe that saying something like this makes you look intelligent and correct? It's quite obvious why you don't like science, because it involves a lot of study and work, which you apparently prefer to avoid.

I can put 2 and 2 together to make 4. Academics was more racist and eugenicist than any other non-political grouping. They still are essentially the most racist because of failing to accept the existence of the human soul on a subjective basis. Want to do statistics on predominantly black countries, vs predominantly white countries? Only the concept of the human soul can cut through the bull**** of statistics to appreciate a man for what he is, his true self as the owner of his decisions, as a matter of opinion.