Is evolution science: Hovind vs Barnes 2020

[questfortruth]

I don't have to prove creationism wrong - we have a well proven theory that already adequately describes life on earth.

Evolutionism is Science, but that does not make it true. True to God. Truthful and faithful to God.

 

[HonestJoe]

Evolutionism is Science, but that does not make it true. True to God. Truthful and faithful to God.

It doesn't make it false either. Your individual interpretation of a particular religion has zero significance to the truth of anything beyond your personal beliefs.

 

[Altfish]

Er, well it is not "proven", actually. No scientific theory ever is. But there is very strong evidence in favour of most of it - apart from the bit at the very start, which remains largely a matter of conjecture at present.

OK, not disproven but tested aand found sound

 

[Altfish]

Evolutionism is Science, but that does not make it true. True to God. Truthful and faithful to God.

What has god got to do with truth?
Let's be honest, we can't even confirm he/she exists.
It is all based on faith

 

[questfortruth]

What has god got to do with truth?
Let's be honest, we can't even confirm he/she exists.
It is all based on faith

It doesn't make it false either. Your individual interpretation of a particular religion has zero significance to the truth of anything beyond your personal beliefs.

It is a matter of the right definition:

False is all, that goes against God. False is all that is not true. Not true to God. Not truthful to God-
Thus, scientific Evolutionism is false doctrine.

 

[questfortruth]

Your individual interpretation of a particular religion has zero significance to the truth of anything beyond your personal beliefs.

I am true to my God, thus, I am always saying: my God is right. And there is the law of non-contradiction. Thus, all, that is against my God is not true. Not truthful to my God. My God is the center of my reality.

 

[exchemist]

OK, not disproven but tested aand found sound

Found consistent with observation to date. That's about as strong as it gets.

 

[questfortruth]

[Evolution is] Found consistent with observation to date. That's about as strong as it gets.

Not by Creationists. There are more than 50% in US - Young Earth Creationists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Science is honest. It explores, describes and seeks to explain reality. If God is real then science will find [him]. not least because science is the only one looking in reality for [him].

Stop confusing your belief in real with science. And stop confusing philosophy with science.
Your belief in real is as useless as the belief in God is useless for doing science. That you can't understand "real" is something you imagine and it doesn't exist outside the mind, is your problem.
So here it is. It is useful for you subjectively to believe in real, but that doesn't make it science. And this is your argument in the end. It makes sense for you to believe in real, therefore the rest of us should accept your belief in real.

...
As an example, Austin examines the word ‘real’ and contrasts the ordinary, firmly established meanings of that word as fixed by the everyday ways we use it to the ways it is used by sense-data theorists in their arguments. What Austin recommends is a careful consideration of the ordinary, multifarious meanings of that word in order not to posit, for example, a non-natural quality designed by that word, common to all the things to which that word is attributed (‘real ducks,’ ‘real cream,’ ‘real progress,’ ‘real color,’ ‘real shape,’ and so forth).

Austin highlights the complexities proper to the uses of ‘real’ by observing that it is (i) a substantive-hungry word that often plays the role of (ii) adjuster-word, a word by means of which “other words are adjusted to meet the innumerable and unforeseeable demands of world upon language” (Austin 1962a, 73). Like ‘good,’ it is (iii) a dimension-word, that is, “the most general and comprehensive term in a whole group of terms of the same kind, terms that fulfil the same function” (Austin 1962a, 71): that is, ‘true,’ ‘proper,’ ‘genuine,’ ‘live,’ ‘natural,’ ‘authentic,’ as opposed to terms such as ‘false,’ ‘artificial,’ ‘fake,’ ‘bogus,’ ‘synthetic,’ ‘toy,’ but also to nouns like ‘dream,’ ‘illusion,’ ‘mirage,’ ‘hallucination.’ ‘Real,’ is also (iv) a word whose negative use “wears the trousers” (a trouser-word) (Austin 1962a, 70).

In order to determine the meaning of ‘real’ we have to consider, case by case, the ways and contexts in which it is used. Only by doing so, according to Austin, can we avoid introducing false dichotomies (for a criticism of Austin’s attack on sense-data see Ayer 1967 and Smith 2002).
...
Austin, John Langshaw | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The key part: a careful consideration of the ordinary, multifarious meanings of that word in order. Real has many different meanings depended on context and usage.

Let me explain that.
Imagine that you imagine a pond, a small body of water. That you can imagine a pond is not real in the same sense as seeing a pond, but it is real that you imagine a pond. Now in this pond that you imagine are 2 ducks, a real duck and an unreal duck. The second is an unreal duck, because it is a decoy duck, but it is a real decoy duck.

So here it is as for sociology: If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.
Is God real? Well, I treat my natural, biological and brain process in which I believe in God as real. In fact, it is true that I can believe in God and it is part of how brains work in a natural and physical world. There is nothing unnatural or supernatural about my belief in God. So I define my situation in regards to my belief in God as real and the consequences are real. How? You are looking at them. I act accordingly because I consider it real.

So if you can do the following, I will listen to you.
Show with evidence that my belief in God is not natural nor physical and not a result of the laws of physics.
So here it is as absurd as it is: Either everything humans do are natural, exists and physical and that includes my belief in God. I.e. it is real. Or you end up show that non-natural, non-existence and non-physical are real.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Comments on videos:

1. The scary and creepy thing: yes, it is. Evolution is the direct consequence of methodological naturalism: ground making way of doing science. Thus, it is science. However, Creationism is true. True to the Existent God.


Evolutionism is Science, but that does not make it true. True to God. Truthful and faithful to God.
It is a matter of the right definition:

False is all, that goes against God. False is all that is not true. Not true to God. Not truthful to God.
Thus, scientific Evolutionism is a false doctrine.


I am true to my God, thus, I am always saying: my God is right. And there is the law of non-contradiction. Thus, all, that is against my God is not true. Not truthful to my God. My God is the center of my reality.


Not by Creationists. There are more than 50% in US - Young Earth Creationists.

https://youtu.be/U0u3-2CGOMQ

2. No soul, and no free-will in the scientific community. Science is not only the source of physical destruction (it is not wise to develop atom technology on the planet, which has not solved the problem of global terrorism), but also the mental and moral downfall.

The problem with God's opponents: they are not honest ("I am Truth", says Lord; so, having "no God", they have no Truth, just the agenda of destruction) and making mistakes. Moreover, science is proud of having false things, because "Popper's falsifiability criterion" allows false and once refuted theorems and conjectures to be part of science: nobody deletes from libraries and arXiv the falsified papers. Instead of falsi-ability criterion in Heaven would be "true-ability criterion".

The people without freewill are bio-robots:
"we are just robots" (Steven Hawking, Grand Design). The robots are easy to control. "And whoever has control - has the Power!" (Gmork, Neverending Story).




You are repeating after the Pope. Why? Because word Knowledge is defined as what the God of the human knows. One should understand God correctly. No God - no knowledge, no love, no justice, no respect - absolute nothingness.

Some Pope in the past has written the commandment to believe, that all begun with Big Bang. But he has written there, that the Big Bang can not have a naturalistic explanation: it means, that Science can not explain Big Bang very first moment. Thus, the Catholicism does not follow in full extend such part of Evolutionism, which is called the cosmic evolution.



No. The methodological naturalism does not allow them to study the supernatural realm. The science looks only for a natural way of explanation. If such is not yet found, then it says "the science has no explanation yet." If somebody says, that he has seen a miracle, then Science says, that it might be a hallucination; and if many people have seen a miracle - mass hallucination; if somebody got healed from cancer: the Placebo effect. If no explanation can be found for missing antimatter while Big Bang -- the solipsism "universe shall not exist" (YouTube, Michio Kaku), or we are looking for an explanation. No place for God while having the methodological naturalism.



Believe it or not, but God is the unique name of the unique Being:

The false believers. No religion teaches to murder people.

1. yes, evolution is science. Very good science. Among the most established theories in all of science.

2. no, Hovind has nothing of any value, worth or meaning to add to that science. The dude is a professional con-man.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is a matter of the right definition:

False is all, that goes against God. False is all that is not true. Not true to God. Not truthful to God-
Thus, scientific Evolutionism is false doctrine.

False is all that is religion. False is all that is not true.
Thus, religion is a false doctrine.

I can also construct juvenile word games like that.

 

[questfortruth]

God is useless for doing science.

But science is full of delusion and lie: falsifiability criterion is not the true-ability criterion. Falsehood is not being deleted from arXiv or libraries or school books:

Science is anti-religious. The God of Religion is Love and Truth. Thus, Religion should have nothing in common with Science. There shall be Natural Theology as the Godly way of nature study.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Science is a "method" for coming to conclusions... Science was *used* to discover evolution, but evolution itself is not science.

The theory of evolution is a product of science, yes. And I believe that is exactly what was meant by anyone using the colloquial phrase "evolution is science."

Now, anyone who used the phrase and wasn't meaning that "the theory of evolution is a product of science" can speak up now and let me know, but otherwise, you're just being pedantic for the sake of keeping up arguments against proponents of evolution. That's all I see in your post.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But science is full of delusion and lie: falsifiability criterion is not the true-ability criterion. Falsehood is not being deleted from arXiv or libraries or school books:
...

Yeah, I get you! But your problem is that they as natural scientists can be different than you as humans and yet, we are all still in the same everyday world.
Science as a delusion and lie still works, because they have been doing it for over at least 400 years now in the modern sense. So there is a limit to how much it can be a delusion and lie.

Rather it seems that the delusions and lies work in some sense.

 

[Cooky]

The theory of evolution is a product of science, yes. And I believe that is exactly what was meant by anyone using the colloquial phrase "evolution is science."

Now, anyone who used the phrase and wasn't meaning that "the theory of evolution is a product of science" can speak up now and let me know, but otherwise, you're just being pedantic for the sake of keeping up arguments against proponents of evolution. That's all I see in your post.

I'm actually attempting to squeeze out any potential believers of scientism, so I can have some real fun.

sci·en·tism
/ˈsīənˌtizəm/

excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.​

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I'm actually attempting to squeeze out any potential believers of scientism, so I can have some real fun.

Is this supposed to make me believe that you're some kind of professional at this? Debunking/debating/hounding "scientists?" Get over yourself please.

 

[questfortruth]

there is a limit to how much it can be a delusion and lie.

If a lie is needed for passing peer-review it is easily done. My supervisor has commanded me to lie in the paper. The paper was accepted in a top journal.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm actually attempting to squeeze out any potential believers of scientism, so I can have some real fun.

sci·en·tism
/ˈsīənˌtizəm/

excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.​

I can play one, but not very good, because I don't believe in scientism. I do believe in science as a limited human form of understanding and that it has some positive utility.

The trick if you abstract away all variations is this: Everything (relevant) can be explained in objective terms and the subjective is meaningless. The joke is that "the subjective is meaningless" and "(relevant)" are both subjective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If a lie is needed for passing peer-review it is easily done. My supervisor has commanded me to lie in the paper. The paper was accepted in a top journal.

So your subjective and personal experience of a limited area of science allows to judge science in general? Okay, you can do that. I don't.

 

[HonestJoe]

It is a matter of the right definition:

No, that is about you making up your own definitions for words that already have clearly established meanings to avoid addressing the fundamental logical flaws in your beliefs (or troll the forum with the lies you present as being your beliefs).

The words "true" and "false" already have definitions. If you want to talk about ideas that you believe goes against your personal interpretation of a particular religion, you either need to say that or come up with a new word for it.