For Evolutionists and a Few Open Minded Creationists

[shunyadragon]

OK, but, as you point out Creationists and Christians do have differing views. Just so we get a understanding of what I feel so we are not arguing to find out latter we are arguing the same thing, I want to say I do believe parts of evolution to be true. But, I also believe in Creation, or at least a beginning of life from somewhere else besides earth.

The video says Creationists are 'ignorant fools' so that is what I am addressing.

I have a problem with 'believing in parts of evolution to be true.' True is also not a good word to use here for science, as an evolving body of scientific knowledge concerning the history of life on earth. I do not believe that it is ethical science to be selective about what you accept based on a criteria outside science.

 

[shunyadragon]

I would as long as you at least try to acknowledge what I say, you can reject it, but at least acknowledge it. And I will try my best to to acknowledge your thoughts.

As far as fear, I guess I have been proven to be a fool, since I identify as a Christian, and well you know the old saying, "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread".

I do not consider 'identifying as a Christian' to be 'proven to be a fool.' Sarcasm aside. I do consider rejecting or conditionally accepting parts of evolution based on an agenda outside science to be not only foolish, but down right dishonest.

 

[Polymath257]

@Skwim , I have a question: can you provide more information on those 9 species of fish in the shallow waters off Australia? Thanks.

Here's a bit of information:
Handfish - Wikipedia
Spotted handfish photo - Brachionichthys hirsutus - G118462

And a video: handfish - Yahoo Video Search Results

 

[exchemist]

I am a fine one to talk. I thought that was spelled "errant".

Easily done. "Errant" would mean going off-course, either as in knight-errant, meaning a roving knight, or else, more generally, mistaken, making an error.

But I looked up "arrant" in my OED and it seems it was originally just a variant spelling of errant, which over time, via its association with expressions such as an arrant (i.e. wandering) thief etc, came gradually to mean an egregious example of something, as in "arrant nonsense".

So I had better be careful here. I suppose it is possible that in US English the two spellings may not have the same meanings as they do in British English.

Interesting, anyway, for someone who loves words, as I know you do.

 

[joe1776]

OK, enlighten me, 'How are you using faith in relation to science? I hope you are following some sort of definitions that fit the English language and how it is properly used, and not a religious agenda.

↑
Subductionzone wrote this to a creationist: "If you reject something you need to have a valid reason."

My response was: "That's only true for you because you can't accept a claim on faith alone. So, you're making an argument that would only persuade people who would already agree with you. Preaching to the choir."

Since the creationist's belief is based on faith, he doesn't need to have a valid reason to reject science opposed to his belief. Isn't that obvious? Therefore, that's not an argument he would find persuasive. Only someone who needs evidence to support reasons would find it persuasive.

 

[Audie]

Easily done. "Errant" would mean going off-course, either as in knight-errant, meaning a roving knight, or else, more generally, mistaken, making an error.

But I looked up "arrant" in my OED and it seems it was originally just a variant spelling of errant, which over time, via its association with expressions such as an arrant (i.e. wandering) thief etc, came gradually to mean an egregious example of something, as in "arrant nonsense".

So I had better be careful here. I suppose it is possible that in US English the two spellings may not have the same meanings as they do in British English.

Interesting, anyway, for someone who loves words, as I know you do.

Love words, yes, I do.

Kind of a confused lady sometimes, though.

Growing up in a Crown Colony, with a professor Mom
educated at Edingurgh, and now a "green card" resident
of the USA, I am told things like, "You sure don't talk
like other people.".

 

[Audie]

↑
Subductionzone wrote this to a creationist: "If you reject something you need to have a valid reason."

My response was: "That's only true for you because you can't accept a claim on faith alone. So, you're making an argument that would only persuade people who would already agree with you. Preaching to the choir."

Since the creationist's belief is based on faith, he doesn't need to have a valid reason to reject science opposed to his belief. Isn't that obvious? Therefore, that's not an argument he would find persuasive. Only someone who needs evidence to support reasons would find it persuasive.

Obvious is the lack of anything valid in the
creoposture.

But I will agree that the subducted one was mistaken
about what you need!

 

[exchemist]

Love words, yes, I do.

Kind of a confused lady sometimes, though.

Growing up in a Crown Colony, with a professor Mom
educated at Edingurgh, and now a "green card" resident
of the USA, I am told things like, "You sure don't talk
like other people.".

Ah yes, you are from Hong Kong, aren't you? I was born in Edinburgh, as it happens.

One of my grandfathers was professor of Ecclesiastical History at Glasgow, and had been a Methodist missionary in Canton (in the pre-Mao era). My father was born there. He remembers being taken down the Pearl River for holidays in Hong Kong as a small boy. (Or have I told you this already - sometimes I forget?)

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's only true for you because you can't accept a claim on faith alone. So, you're making an argument that would only persuade people who would already agree with you. Preaching to the choir.

Faith is the worst reason to accept anything. It is not a pathway to the truth, if that is what you are after. One can believe in any religion by "faith". Faith as used in a religious sense is synonymous to ignorance.

 

[BSM1]

Holy Mackerel (or whatever other gill breather that first walked out of the water)!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Holy Mackerel (or whatever other gill breather that first walked out of the water)!

Some fish have lungs as well. They are not just gill breathers:

Lungfish - Wikipedia

I used to think that lungs evolved from the swim bladder of fish. Now it appears to be the other way around. Primitive lungs evolved into the swim bladder in modern fish:

Swim bladder - Wikipedia

 

[shunyadragon]

↑
Subductionzone wrote this to a creationist: "If you reject something you need to have a valid reason."

My response was: "That's only true for you because you can't accept a claim on faith alone. So, you're making an argument that would only persuade people who would already agree with you. Preaching to the choir."

Since the creationist's belief is based on faith, he doesn't need to have a valid reason to reject science opposed to his belief. Isn't that obvious? Therefore, that's not an argument he would find persuasive. Only someone who needs evidence to support reasons would find it persuasive.

I agree with @Revoltingest on this one. Valid reasoning and logic is critical in the whole scope of human beliefs and knowledge.

Who are you referring to here in bold as "That's only true for you. . . "
Obvious?!? Here is the problem; One whose belief by faith alone is not a valid reason to reject science. The knowledge of science is not open to the individual choice concerning what to accept nor not accept in science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Faith is the worst reason to accept anything. It is not a pathway to the truth, if that is what you are after. One can believe in any religion by "faith". Faith as used in a religious sense is synonymous to ignorance.

I do not consider 'faith' to be synonymous with ignorance. That is too broad a comparison. I consider 'blind faith' to be comparable to ignorance.

 

[joe1776]

Faith is the worst reason to accept anything. It is not a pathway to the truth, if that is what you are after. One can believe in any religion by "faith". Faith as used in a religious sense is synonymous to ignorance.

I agree with you. My mind isn't capable of faith.

But you can't expect someone whose belief is based on faith to be persuaded by the argument that "If you reject something you need to have a valid reason." They didn't have a valid reason for accepting their belief and they aren't going to be persuaded by what you consider to be a valid reason to reject it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not consider 'faith' to be synonymous with ignorance. That is too broad a comparison. I consider 'blind faith' to be comparable to ignorance.

I was referring to the way that he appeared to be using the phrase, but perhaps I am wrong. Hopefully we shall see.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree with you. My mind isn't capable of faith.

But you can't expect someone whose belief is based on faith to be persuaded by the argument that "If you reject something you need to have a valid reason." They didn't have a valid reason for accepting their belief and they aren't going to be persuaded by what you consider to be a valid reason to reject it.

Perhaps we can find some people whose minds are not totally closed. @Misunderstood has not shown himself to be close minded yet.

 

[Misunderstood]

One cannot be a creationist and not be ignorant, unless he is very dishonest. It may sound harsh but there is no such thing as an informed honest creationist.

I do not consider 'identifying as a Christian' to be 'proven to be a fool.' Sarcasm aside. I do consider rejecting or conditionally accepting parts of evolution based on an agenda outside science to be not only foolish, but down right dishonest.

Sorry for being absent so long, as I said, it is Sunday and I wanted to sleep in. It looks everyone has been busy.

From your comment on my dishonesty and shunyadragon's comment, I see where you may think that. I assure you I am not trying to be dishonest, I may sometimes say something wrong and it is taken the wrong way, or I may be proven wrong as someone may know something that I was unaware of or forgotten. But, I really do not try to deceive anyone when talking about God; I am being truthful in my thoughts whether I am right or wrong.

OK, to say all of evaluation is false and I feel would be dishonest, as there are parts of evolution that has some pretty compelling evidence. So I see that and would agree. However, to say or imply that evolution is abiogenesis, or abiogenesis holds as much evidence and is as compelling as all of evolution is wrong also. That is where the Creation verses evolution argument seems to go off track.

The OP's video states 'Creationists are fools', I think most all Creationists believe some parts of evolution, how much depends on the person. But, Creations believe life was created by God, that I believe. Whereas, an an atheist (maybe agnostic's also) evolutionist believes in abiogenesis.

 

[joe1776]

Who are you referring to here in bold as "That's only true for you. . . "

The writer of the sentence quoted which preceded the comment.

Obvious?!? Here is the problem; One whose belief by faith alone is not a valid reason to reject science. The knowledge of science is not open to the individual choice concerning what to accept nor not accept in science.

Bear in mind that my mind is incapable of the kind of faith we're discussing here.

My objection to your comment is that it is useless in debate because there is no earthly reason to expect that someone whose beliefs, based on faith alone, should be persuaded by your opinion that science should trump faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry for being absent so long, as I said, it is Sunday and I wanted to sleep in. It looks everyone has been busy.

From your comment on my dishonesty and shunyadragon's comment, I see where you may think that. I assure you I am not trying to be dishonest, I may sometimes say something wrong and it is taken the wrong way, or I may be proven wrong as someone may know something that I was unaware of or forgotten. But, I really do not try to deceive anyone when talking about God; I am being truthful in my thoughts whether I am right or wrong.

OK, to say all of evaluation is false and I feel would be dishonest, as there are parts of evolution that has some pretty compelling evidence. So I see that and would agree. However, to say or imply that evolution is abiogenesis, or abiogenesis holds as much evidence and is as compelling as all of evolution is wrong also. That is where the Creation verses evolution argument seems to go off track.

The OP's video states 'Creationists are fools', I think most all Creationists believe some parts of evolution, how much depends on the person. But, Creations believe life was created by God, that I believe. Whereas, an an atheist (maybe agnostic's also) evolutionist believes in abiogenesis.

I have not said that you are dishonest yet. I pointed out that there is no such thing as an honest and informed creationist. You are hopefully only ignorant. Ignorance can be cursed with education. That is why I began our discussion with a simplified version of the scientific method. Understanding how science is done will probably be a big part of this discussion.

Abiogenesis is not part of evolution. It is a separate but related topic. We are beginning to have a very good idea of how aboigenesis probably occurred, but that knowledge has not gotten up to the theoretical level yet. And do not conflate a layman's concept of "theory" to that of a scientific theory. Though there is no well defined hierarchy in the sciences one should never think that a theory is less than a law. In the sciences a theory can outrank a "Law". Laws only give general descriptions of what occurs in specific circumstances without an explanation. A theory is an observation of what occurs with an explanation. For example Newton's Law of Gravity has been surpassed by Einstein's theory of General Relativity. It is more accurate than Newton's Law and includes a greater explanation. It is a theory that outranks a previous "Law".

At any rate back to abiogenesis. Evolution does not depend upon a specific source of first life. It could have arisen naturally, abiogenesis, been supplied somehow from space, panspermia, or the first organism may have been magically poofed into existence. There is some reliable evidence for abiogenesis. I do not know of any evidence for the others.

 

[shunyadragon]

The writer of the sentence quoted which preceded the comment.

Bear in mind that my mind is incapable of the kind of faith we're discussing here.

My objection to your comment is that it is useless in debate because there is no earthly reason to expect that someone whose beliefs, based on faith alone, should be persuaded by your opinion that science should trump faith.

Your digging your hole deeper. Science is based on knowledge based on objective verifiable evidence and not 'opinion.' Opinion would the subjective view of and individual, and that is not the case in science. Are you actually proposing that the objective knowledge of science is based on 'opinion?

We will have to agree to disagree here. Knowledge of our physical existence based on faith alone is the weakest possible reason and advocates an anarchy that any one can believe what the choose concerning science, and fortunately science and the physical realy of the real world we live in.