Evolution vs Intelligent design/creationism

[George-ananda]

Not that I have heard of. If that were the case your beliefs would not be qualified as "Woo". Please note if anything was proven beyond a reasonable doubt then they could have easily have won James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge.

Once again you make a positive assertion. Where is your evidence?

The problem everyone knows with the Randi challenge is that Randi is the final determiner. He is a showman. He can not lose if he is the final judge and determined not to lose, right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem everyone knows with the Randi challenge is that Randi is the final determiner. He is a showman. He can not lose if he is the final judge and determined not to lose, right.

Wrong. The process was open to the public. The person making the claim had to have a hand in designing the test. Randi's crew only made sure that people could not cheat.

By the way, you just accused someone of a wrong doing that you probably cannot support. How did Randi ever cheat against any applicant?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When I say evidence, I am talking about the analysis of the human paranormal and spiritual experiences like the Near Death Experiences, Childhood Reincarnation memories, religious miracles, spirit communication etc., etc..

I have found no reason to consider these as examples of the paranormal. There are too many unanswered questions about them, for me to consider them of much value. Some of them I don't even know anything about. There is no evidence that we are reincarnated at all, let alone as children. I haven't seen anything that indicates that NDE are nothing more than a response of a brain experiencing conditions similar to death. How do we know that the biochemistry of the mind doesn't naturally function in a way that is perceived similarly by different people that have managed to survive it?

Well I hold many genuine experiences are beyond current science's understanding and will in the future cause science to accept some things we now think of as spiritual (non-physical bodies, spiritual realms, etc.).

I don't know that all these experiences are described genuinely let alone outside of our current ability to explain. Even where they are, that doesn't disqualify a scientific explanation. How do I know that what a person experienced is a real miracle or just their subjective view that they can't even tell from objective reality?

 

[George-ananda]

Wrong. The process was open to the public. The person making the claim had to have a hand in designing the test. Randi's crew only made sure that people could not cheat.

By the way, you just accused someone of a wrong doing that you probably cannot support. How did Randi ever cheat against any applicant?

Serious people in the field ignore Randi as a circus showman. Here is just one article that tries to summarize it.

 

[George-ananda]

I have found no reason to consider these as examples of the paranormal. There are too many unanswered questions about them, for me to consider them of much value. Some of them I don't even know anything about. There is no evidence that we are reincarnated at all, let alone as children. I haven't seen anything that indicates that NDE are nothing more than a response of a brain experiencing conditions similar to death. How do we know that the biochemistry of the mind doesn't naturally function in a way that is perceived similarly by different people that have managed to survive it?

All I can say is to do an honest objective thorough analysis of these subjects listening to all sides and form your own position. I have formed mine and if we disagree, then so be it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Science is what we can learn through our 5 physical senses and instruments. I also believe there are those that experience with so-called psychic senses and we can consider (neither blindly accept nor blindly reject) what they say. It is this consideration that has formed my beliefs. Also, I have certainly spent more time than most carefully studying the paranormal and psychic and spiritual/religious phenomena. I have digested enough to give me my beliefs as to what is most reasonable. I think part of the challenge to acceptance by others is an academic and cultural bias against serious consideration of the 'beyond the normal'. The evidence is there I believe, but there is a bias against it.

You haven't discounted the possibility that some people don't have extra senses, but are highly tuned to recognize and evaluate the information that they get from just the standard senses. I can't say that extra sense really isn't just highly optimized standard sensing.

I imagine you have spent a great deal of time looking at this, but I don't have the information to qualify that time spent. I'll take your word that you have spent a lot of time and likely more than most people I know.

I have heard many people tell me stories of events that are best described as paranormal. I think that many of them believe the events happened and mean what they think it means. They aren't lying. But that doesn't mean the events happened or are the result of what they think caused them.

I have seen about three actual "unidentified flying objects" in my life. Three instances where I have no explanation for what I saw with my senses. What some people do is jump from those to space ships and aliens. All I can say is they were three apparent objects in the air that I couldn't identify. Anything else I might attribute to the existence of these three would be pure speculation. I can't even rule out the possibility that one or all were the result of some mental aberration of my own and weren't there at all. Some people, based on their own bias, jump from the one fact I have and go to all kinds of answers that they claim are outside science. I can't do that and be true to myself. Sometimes all we can say is that it was an unidentified object and that is it. Everything else is speculation, even the claims that it is outside of science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All I can say is to do an honest objective thorough analysis of these subjects listening to all sides and form your own position. I have formed mine and if we disagree, then so be it.

I've done that my entire life. In only a few instances were the claims outside of simple explanation and even fewer were outside of more pointed scientific explanation.

I guess we do disagree on the nature of the events, but not on the possibility of distilling wisdom from them regardless of their actual nature.

Have you ever seen the show "Early Edition" where the guy got the daily paper one day earlier than the events described in the paper (functional, second party clairvoyance). The main character had the idea that there was some rule preventing him from using this information to his personal advantage. In the context of the story, he discovers that was just him and no such rule existed. In that light, if clairvoyance is real and many people have the ability, why have those that claim to have it, not profited more widely from it. Even if some rules of ethics existed, someone would break them for their own advantage, but there is no evidence for this. Equally, there would be some that would consider it their duty to prevent every tragedy that would occur. There is no evidence of this either, since tragedies occur regularly and continue to without end.

If people could read minds like a book, and this is something I consider to have some validity though not at that scope, there is no evidence of even spurious use of this talent. This isn't even outside of science. Scientists have attempted to study this.

What about the possibility of someone so biased to these sorts of ideas, so open, that they will accept their existence without critical analysis? Have you considered that. Scientists have to consider that their personal bias will impact their interpretation of results or even the validity of the results themselves. What is the mechanism protecting someone who studies the paranormal or those they report their findings too?

 

[George-ananda]

You haven't discounted the possibility that some people don't have extra senses, but are highly tuned to recognize and evaluate the information that they get from just the standard senses. I can't say that extra sense really isn't just highly optimized standard sensing.

I have certainly considered that but found repeated examples of people knowing things they could in no way reasonably have learned through normal channels of input.

I imagine you have spent a great deal of time looking at this, but I don't have the information to qualify that time spent. I'll take your word that you have spent a lot of time and likely more than most people I know.

I have heard many people tell me stories of events that are best described as paranormal. I think that many of them believe the events happened and mean what they think it means. They aren't lying. But that doesn't mean the events happened or are the result of what they think caused them.

I have seen about three actual "unidentified flying objects" in my life. Three instances where I have no explanation for what I saw with my senses. What some people do is jump from those to space ships and aliens. All I can say is they were three apparent objects in the air that I couldn't identify. Anything else I might attribute to the existence of these three would be pure speculation. I can't even rule out the possibility that one or all were the result of some mental aberration of my own and weren't there at all. Some people, based on their own bias, jump from the one fact I have and go to all kinds of answers that they claim are outside science. I can't do that and be true to myself. Sometimes all we can say is that it was an unidentified object and that is it. Everything else is speculation, even the claims that it is outside of science.

Right we shouldn't jump, but rather perform a reasoned analysis considering all the evidence and argumentation. That is what I try to do

 

[George-ananda]

I've done that my entire life. In only a few instances were the claims outside of simple explanation and even fewer were outside of more pointed scientific explanation.

I guess we do disagree on the nature of the events, but not on the possibility of distilling wisdom from them regardless of their actual nature.

Have you ever seen the show "Early Edition" where the guy got the daily paper one day earlier than the events described in the paper (functional, second party clairvoyance). The main character had the idea that there was some rule preventing him from using this information to his personal advantage. In the context of the story, he discovers that was just him and no such rule existed. In that light, if clairvoyance is real and many people have the ability, why have those that claim to have it, not profited more widely from it. Even if some rules of ethics existed, someone would break them for their own advantage, but there is no evidence for this. Equally, there would be some that would consider it their duty to prevent every tragedy that would occur. There is no evidence of this either, since tragedies occur regularly and continue to without end.

If people could read minds like a book, and this is something I consider to have some validity though not at that scope, there is no evidence of even spurious use of this talent. This isn't even outside of science. Scientists have attempted to study this.

What about the possibility of someone so biased to these sorts of ideas, so open, that they will accept their existence without critical analysis? Have you considered that. Scientists have to consider that their personal bias will impact their interpretation of results or even the validity of the results themselves. What is the mechanism protecting someone who studies the paranormal or those they report their findings too?

Generally my position is that psychic functioning is a weak but genuine human ability. You don't know everything before it happens or read minds like a book.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Even though you are not a creationist your understanding of the burden of proof needs some work. If you make a positive assertion then you automatically put the burden of proof upon yourself. When you claim that you have no evidence then you automatically make your claims worthless.

He is a believer in a different faith. Faith in the paranormal. I'm not sure how much of that is outside of science. In many instances, science has addressed some of these "beliefs" and provided a reasonable and sound explanation. In some cases, they are more like belief systems and require faith to survive. In some few cases, there may be something going on, that isn't explained by science, but isn't outside of a rational, material explanation. Psi abilities might be an example. There is some evidence that there might be something there and a few people have some rudimentary ability to access information through that route, but it all has very little empirical evidence to support it beyond the possibility. Even if it is an actual phenomenon, it doesn't appear to be one that is consistent or strong or of much use other than as fiction plots and interesting discussions. As I said to George, no one has ruled out the possibility that these psychics aren't super receivers of standard sense information or super processors of it. They may not have extra senses, but are just damned good at picking up and processing what anyone normally receives.

Without my glasses and standing next to a person with unassisted 20/20 vision, I would seem like a blind guy in a lot of situations requiring good vision. The person with perfect vision, doesn't have extra senses than I do, just better equipment to receive the same information.

I'm skeptical, but I'm interested.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have certainly considered that but found repeated examples of people knowing things they could in no way reasonably have learned through normal channels of input.

Right we shouldn't jump, but rather perform a reasoned analysis considering all the evidence and argumentation. That is what I try to do

I have, in my experience, known things I shouldn't or thought about events that later happened, prior to their happening. I have no way to know if there is some meaning to this or not. I find it interesting, but how do I determine if it is extra sense, or just the result of a normal, perceptive human brain and a personality that is attuned to these observations?

In most things, I personally can't subject my experiences to robust scientific scrutiny. I have to do what I can to evaluate them, rely on the tools at hand or invest confidence in other, more knowledgeable and serious students to produce research that either helps my understanding or provides reasonable answers.

I have to be honest, I'm skeptical of people that tell me these things are real and don't provide more than trivial explanations and assertions of that reality. I'm not going to discount you outright, but the burden is on you to provide me with some extraordinary evidence to support your extraordinary claims.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Generally my position is that psychic functioning is a weak but genuine human ability. You don't know everything before it happens or read minds like a book.

That is the best I can say about it myself. That doesn't mean it is psychic ability either. It could be as I have hypothesized and be optimized standard sensing or superior processing of sensory input.

From my position, we have different hypotheses about the nature of these things and neither of us can say definitively that our respective hypotheses represent some absolute truth about the events. I disagree that they are outside of critical review by science or by simple reason, but all I can say is that I have no reason to accept one explanation over another.

 

[George-ananda]

I have to be honest, I'm skeptical of people that tell me these things are real and don't provide more than trivial explanations and assertions of that reality.

I have spent years coming to my positions. What do you want in an RF short reply post? At best, I can hint at some of the many things. They each required interested personal inquiry. If you are not interested or are sure of your current position, then don't do any further research.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have spent years coming to my positions. What do you want in an RF short reply post? At best, I can hint at some of the many things. They each required interested personal inquiry. If you are not interested or are sure of your current position, then don't do any further research.

I have to tell you, this all sounds the same as fundamentalist describing their version of Christianity. They have personal evidence garnered over years that they believe without doubt but can't share and in the end it isn't their shortcomings, but those of others that leave those others unable to see.

In my personal view, I have to include your views as more of a religion than anything else.

 

[George-ananda]

I have to tell you, this all sounds the same as fundamentalist describing their version of Christianity. They have personal evidence garnered over years that they believe without doubt but can't share and in the end it isn't their shortcomings, but those of others that leave those others unable to see.

In my personal view, I have to include your views as more of a religion than anything else.

I have often seen scientism as a form of fundamentalist thinking. It gets defended with a vehement passion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have often seen scientism as a form of fundamentalist thinking. It gets defended with a vehement passion.

I have seen your beliefs in the form of fundamentalism that is defended with a vehemence as well.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have often seen scientism as a form of fundamentalist thinking. It gets defended with a vehement passion.

All I can say, is that unless you can present your "experiences" in some way that is falsifiable, they amount to religious views. At the very least, claims in science can be presented in that way. Religious claims can't.

 

[George-ananda]

All I can say, is that unless you can present your "experiences" in some way that is falsifiable, they amount to religious views. At the very least, claims in science can be presented in that way. Religious claims can't.

I have no problem with the phrase religious/spiritual beliefs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have no problem with the phrase religious/spiritual beliefs.

I don't think you should. I don't either. The problem is that beliefs aren't falsifiable. Mine, yours or anyone else's. They have limited or almost no utility in use as explanations for something. All one has to do to defeat them is to claim another belief or that they don't believe what you say.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Serious people in the field ignore Randi as a circus showman. Here is just one article that tries to summarize it.

LOL "Serious people in the field". 'Nuff said.