Is evolution science: Hovind vs Barnes 2020

[ecco]

So it would be the theory of evolution rather than evolution itself, right? Since the former explains the latter?

?

 

[blü 2]

Stop confusing your belief in real with science. And stop confusing philosophy with science.

OUR belief in real, old friend, not just mine ─ the belief in real you display by, for example, posting here.

And it's simply stating the obvious that the real is the subject of the sciences

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.

I've already set out my assumptions explicitly. I've repeatedly pointed out that you share at least the first two of them, and likely all three.

So everything you're saying contradicts what you're actually doing.

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

I've given you my definition of real ─ objectively existing in the world external to the self.

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.

That my brain states can represent concepts / things imagined is hardly controversial.

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.

In reality a decoy duck is as real as a living duck. Each has objective existence.

So here it is as for sociology: If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.

I take it you mean that it's possible for humans to be mistaken, (a) about the existence of a particular state of affairs, and / or (b) the details of a real state of affairs, and to act on the basis of such mistakes? Certainly. My second assumption is that our senses are capable of informing us about reality, the world external to the self, which they are, but that doesn't mean we're infallible.

Is God real?

That is, does the concept "God" have an objectively real referent? No, not in the usual religious meaning of "God".

Well, I treat my natural, biological and brain process in which I believe in God as real.

But we've been through this in at least one previous situation. The brain is capable of holding concepts of things that don't have objective existence, like the unicorn and the perpetual motion machine and the perfect human, and two, and infinity. And the sketchbook can contain a sketch of a unicorn, the comic can purport to display a perpetual motion machine, and the figure 2, though itself a thing, stands for an abstraction, not a thing. The drawing is real, the thing drawn is not ─ does not have objective existence but exists only conceptually / in imagination.

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.

It may well be true that you believe in God and that this belief exists as a real brainstate of yours. That will not alter the fact that neither God nor unicorns have objective existence.

There is nothing unnatural or supernatural about my belief in God.

That's because your belief exists as a real brainstate. The thing you believe in, in this case, does not have objective existence, any more than the drawing of a unicorn has an objectively real counterpart unicorn.

I act accordingly because I consider it real.

And yet not only can't you locate it in external reality ─ nature ─ and show it to me, but you can't even tell me what real thing it might be, such that if we found a real candidate, we could determine whether it were God or not. (That's not a problem with the unicorn.)

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.[/QUOTE]

 

[Sand Dancer]

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.

Doctrine does not run on reality or fact though. There's a difference between belief and fact.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Yet, most god stories do begin with or include a creation story. If the creation story is wrong, why put any faith into what comes thereafter?

That's what they imagine happened, but back then they knew that it was only their best guess. They knew it wasn't factual. Then sometime later in history during the Enlightenment, it was decided that the Bible had to be taken as literal and inerrant. They wanted to compete with Enlightenment ideas. lol

 

[firedragon]

Maybe they weren't simpletons by your standards. More enlightened forms of thinking might be able to see various systems at work, none deserving dismantling, but rather tolerance of the other... like siblings, there doesn't need to be just one child.

So you know them very well? So your analysis is that they are simpletons, then you changed it to some tolerance of the other like siblings without knowing who it is or what they have done, which means you are making general comments about any theist who discussed evolution. So theist are by default cloven as you describe.

that’s the Definition of bigotry mate.

 

[rational experiences]

Science, a living human natural self human bio presence, born by the act of other adult human beings. A living human being adult male sperm owner, and a living human being adult female ovary owner. Conceived, grown into a baby, born and grows into an adult, human with opinions.

Science cannot claim ownership of the natural bio history, reason for self human bio life, consciousness human and thinking. What they totally ignore.

Biology science quotes, a theme about O planet Earth. Which ancient science quotes was God O the entity stone that created its own Heavens. A scientific human told science thesis. A story. Simply, a human thinking.

Do you own that story telling? Yes. Are you however thinking on behalf of the planet? No, what you lie about, the theist. Your human thoughts are just human thoughts.

Egotism however owns a human explanation as being the motivation to get us all destroyed. Our own human conscious spiritual explanation and reasoning, CONSCIOUSNESS.

Biological science quotes...a human is one higher life form and body after a perused study inference of an ape animal life. Just as a talker/theist, studier....so as a scientist and planetary life believer quoted....so you own no string theory in any other biological discussions.

What scientific Earth O planet God relativity meant. A human teaching, a human realisation, a human quote. We live owning our life on a planet without explanation....for a quoted teaching statement, what was proclaimed to be a human lawful law agreement was NO MAN IS GOD.

Not stated for some kind of rhetorical scientific thesis...it was a human aware known and idealised agreement about not being life destroyed by other humans whilst living on a natural planet.

It was not a biological genetic thesis....being just human science expressed of one scientist looking at another human, yet not humanising their whole and correctly body status. If you quote a human just as DNA information then as a scientist you would be proven to be a liar. A whole living complete bio human your equal is what exists first. For you to infer DATA.

The whole living life situation was about the incorrect use ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE as inferred by the intellect of humans who displace their equal living conditions as an appraisal of self, human versus natural existence.

As a complete and understood human self appraisal about how science with machines destroy our life as a human on Planet Earth. A O God planet thesis.

When science tried to infer that our life on Earth began in out of space, was one of the first human conscious aware ideas that proved the scientist, human was lying.

For if you placed our human life into space, as where he images its beginnings, we would all be deceased. His actual intentions as that sort of thinker.

It is why in historic human self awareness, scientists who theorised time and the Sun, when natural light is a non stop non timed constant were put in jail where they belonged. For the criminal intent in ownership/expression of these types of theories destroyed all life before. The reason why.

When water is water, and oxygen is oxygen and a micro biome body is what you are looking at...telling themes and stories about beliefs, then that is all that you are doing. And the water is the same water as historic water and oxygen is the same oxygen as historic information and microbial life is the same microbial life.

We are termed by a human established self review to be a Holy human spiritual bio life as a self, a human living inside of the heavenly body of gas/spirit. Exactly how it was taught, for and on behalf of human survival versus a theist. Who is the same human as the rest of us but believes that they are a superior human being by their qualified group agreed human thinking ability.

They have to own a peer or cult group to claim I am correct. And used the group status to overthrow common human sense. As a correct historic self review about science in a human life.

 

[Bear Wild]

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.

What is really scary and really creepy is Dr. Hovid. His misinformation propaganda is nauseating and he says it with such certainty. Reminds me of Trump. Arrogantly arguing intentional false information as truth. It is time to dump this worthless propaganda.

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.

Science is not anti-religious, it is uncovering how evolutionary changes in the nervous system developed the pro-social behaviors that support the patterns we call religion. Thus to call science anti-religious is a false statement since science can explain how humans created religion.
Religion is not love or truth but those behaviors can be valued in a religion but so can hate and fear. The statement that religion is love is actual a false statement. Religion is how the subjective of the individual or group and has nothing to do with the objective therefor cannot study the natural world. Since religion does not have to have a god, the concept of a godly way cannot be seen as essential for a religion.

 

[questfortruth]

What is really scary and really creepy is Dr. Hovid. His misinformation propaganda is nauseating and he says it with such certainty. Reminds me of Trump. Arrogantly arguing intentional false information as truth. It is time to dump this worthless propaganda.

Put him in jail again, then. If you have something legal against him. He is out of jail, he is clean from any crime now. (But there was no crime, it was false accusation. He is holy martyr.)

The OT teaches people to murder for the most trivial of reasons.

Once again, an atheist has to teach a Christian about Christian Holy Scripture...

13And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp. 14And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. 15And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 16Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

​

Murder and Rape/Slavery

The Bible does not interpret itself. We need the right Church to go to ask the priests. But make the difference between police and bandits. The police is from God and executes criminals. Bandits are from devil and they murder.

 

[blü 2]

No. The methodological naturalism does not allow them to study the supernatural realm.

Before one can study the supernatural realm one first has to invent it in one's imagination. Then, since it's imaginary, it can be anything one would like it to be ─ one god, many gods, a triune god, angels, devils, imps, goblins, Marvel characters, Harry Potter characters, fairies, ghosts, souls, magicians, wishing wells, on and on. The thing they seem top have in common is magic, and magic only exists in imagination. Certainly no objective test can distinguish the manner in which God exists from the manner in which Dumbledore exists.

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.

But on what basis can you claim these things happened by magic when we have not one authenticated example of magic anywhere?

What stops you from giving science a satisfactory demonstration that magic is real?

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.

What do you say God actually did to remove the antimatter? Tell me how you know, and talk me through the process God used, step by step.

After all, unless you do that, you've explained nothing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

OUR belief in real, old friend, not just mine ─ the belief in real you display by, for example, posting here.

...

I am slow and sometimes it takes time for me to understand what is going on.
I got it now: Your assumption as belief is that the real is natural. Mine is that the real is from God.

So here is what happens. Based on your unprovable assumption of what real is, you point out that mine is wrong based on your unprovable assumption that the real is natural.

So we have different beliefs about real.

 

[Clara Tea]

The good ol' days of burning scientists at the stake are not over. . . some day. . . some day. . . some day. A scientist dared to intimate that a meteor fell from God's perfect heavens (sky), but that was against the scriptures of mankind, so he was burned at the stake.

Mankind? I thought that God was in charge? Shouldn't that be "scriptures of God?" No, that is scriptures of "mankind" and, of course, we all know that it was divinely inspired.

Just as we know that young beautiful women of Salem were witches and had to be burned (for scorning the affections of old preachers). It was the "divinely inspired" word of God as translated by ugly old preachers with penchants for under-aged minors.

Of course, God and the church must come first, so if an obese greasy priest has a rendezvous with a handsome six year old, one must look the other way, assign the priest to another parish, where there are other handsome little boys, and all divinely inspired and orchestrated by the lord above (so hush if the police ask questions).

Between the Christian organization, Boy Scouts of America (BSA), and the Catholic Church, many of the lawsuits advertised on TV, today, seek justice. . . justice denied by the bankruptcy filings of both the Catholic Church and the BSA. Who is saying these truthful things about the Catholic church, and what internet websites allow them to disseminate the truth? The websites are called "social media" and they consist blogs and forums, where people of all walks of life get freedom of speech. The pope, himself, in his last address, railed against the free speech of social media (heavens to Betsy if the truth were known)--this is why free speech must be suppressed.

Some have said that theists are insane, and they hear voices, see visions, and act on delusions.

Yet, theists can prove the existence of God:

1. One theists walked with me to the top of a rock pile, asked for a sign from God, and miraculously found a rock on the pile of rocks (a sure sign of God). He sought out proof, was eager to find proof, and by golly, found it.

2. Another theists found that God's miracle of a whale swallowing Jonah was real, and he got that verification from God, himself, by writhing on the ground, talking in tongues (some call this babbling incoherently), and told his congregation what God had said.

3. Science says a lot of things that theists refute. They say that dinosaur bones are more than 6.5 million years old (not the biblical 6,000 years), and show a layer of ash that covered the whole world 6.5 million years ago (with a trace of the rare earth element, Iridium, indicating a meteor impact) that emanated from the Chixulub meteor crater in the Yucatan peninsula, and show tsunami destruction (Hell Creek), including embedded shards of impact melted glass in fish fossils in northern North America. Countering this theists dabble in science themselves, and pit their massive high school education against the trained and experienced doctors and professors of archaeology. Even they can disagree until all of the facts are known (example: some thought that volcanic eruptions from the Deccan Traps spewed excessive CO2, but that was disproven by plankton calcium carbonate thickness (a measure of atmospheric CO2).

4. By not allowing science info in religious forums (because such talk belongs in science forums), knowledge is restricted, and theists are isolated. By refusing to allow the teaching of DNA or evolution in schools, and insisting that Creationism be taught, theists have no idea what scientists are talking about. Theism is bliss.

5. Numerous apostles quoted Jesus in the bible, and the bible was written nearly 100 years after the death of Jesus, when all of those 100 year old apostles got together to help write the bible (or had divinely inspired writers make it). If the bible is divinely inspired and perfect, why are there contradictions (Gen 1:25 and Gen 2:18 contradict whether man or animals were created first). If the bible is the perfect word of God, why are there many differing bibles for the same Christian religion? Why are there other religious (non-Christian) around the world? Can we assume that we were born to parents with the right religion and all others are pagan or heathen?

 

[blü 2]

I am slow and sometimes it takes time for me to understand what is going on.
I got it now: Your assumption as belief is that the real is natural. Mine is that the real is from God.

So here is what happens. Based on your unprovable assumption of what real is, you point out that mine is wrong based on your unprovable assumption that the real is natural.

My assumptions, which you obviously share at a functional level, are assumptions BECAUSE I can't demonstrate their correctness without first assuming they're correct. I don't assert they're unfalsifiable, only unfalsified,

You add not just a fourth unprovable assumption, but a list of them eg that the word "God" is meaningful and denotes something not imaginary and (I take it) sentient and possessing powers in respect of the universe.

If that's not right, what is it that you actually assume?

And on what basis do you think it's necessary to make such assumptions?

 

[wellwisher]

I can accept the concept of evolution, however, the current statistical approach being used, makes the current version of the conceptual theory, suspect. Statistics is used in gambling casinos, where the house always wins in the long term. In a casino if you do not follow the house rules, that allow them to win, you get escorted out.

Casinos are not the place where rational people go, except to indulge the irrationality of fun and excitement. Most religions do not condone gambling; statistics, therefore one is not allowed to play. This is part of the divide between science and religion.

Statistics is a powerful math tool used by industry. It allows a mass production assembly line approach to science. The biotech industries and others benefit by this. That can form a consensus of sorts, among assembly lines, since the procedure is generic. However, this is still not fully rational.

A rational theory can make predictions of the future. Current evolutionary theory cannot make predictions, so it is not fully rational. It is better for correlating the past. However, the past is often subject to revisionist history, as the left has shown. The fuzzy dice data points, with margins of error, offers a buffer for such subjective interpretations.

Nobody has answered my concerns about statistical models, because there is no excuse. If you want a rational theory, you need to look at water as a central figure in evolution. Evolution was made in water and by water.

Part 2; Water and Evolution.

Liquid water is bonded together with relatively strong hydrogen bonding. When all the bonds form and therefore the energy is minimize in pure water, water is very stable. It has an unusually high melting and boiling point compared to similar materials. As we add organic materials, we get a water-oil affect, which adds surface tension and energy to the water. Something has to give, since free energy is made available.

Water a very simple and a very stable molecule H2O, so it never changes. The organics, on the other hand, are reactive and subject to polymerizations into endless combinations. The one-sided push is set for evolution. Water wants to minimize energy but it cannot physicality change, so the organics are the only means to this end. Water never changes, while the organics evolve over time.

DNA is the genetic material of life. It is not coincidence that the DNA has minimal potential in water. This was the goal from day one; organic molecules with minimal energy in water. DNA will not work without water being present. DNA as shown on textbooks, is not bio-active. Active DNA has a double helix of water intertwined with the DNA double helix. The naked DNA found in textbooks is a result of statistical fudge factors and is not fully rational or consistent with any direct observational data. Water is placed in the fudge, by statistical models, instead of being the force behind evolution, as it would be in a rational model.

 

[Father Heathen]

The Bible does not interpret itself. We need the right Church to go to ask the priests. But make the difference between police and bandits. The police is from God and executes criminals. Bandits are from devil and they murder.

What makes the priests and police infallible?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My assumptions, which you obviously share at a functional level, are assumptions BECAUSE I can't demonstrate their correctness without first assuming they're correct. I don't assert they're unfalsifiable, only unfalsified,

You add not just a fourth unprovable assumption, but a list of them eg that the word "God" is meaningful and denotes something not imaginary and (I take it) sentient and possessing powers in respect of the universe.

If that's not right, what is it that you actually assume?

And on what basis do you think it's necessary to make such assumptions?

And on what basis do you think it's necessary to make such assumptions?
I will answer the rest, if you can understand the absurdity in your question.

You are asking me how I think and then you will based on how you think answer that how I think, is wrong, because that is not how reality is independent of the mind.
I.e. I imagine something, but you don't that, because you don't really do that. That the real is natural, is not imagined, because it doesn't really count as imagined because your thinking is correct based on your thinking, but that has really nothing to do with it being thinking. It doesn't really count, that it is thinking, because of reasons in your thinking.
But that I start with the real is from God is imagery, but that the real is natural is not imaginary.

So you apply a double standard. Your think is not based on something you imagined to be real, but it is, yet that doesn't real count, because for reasons in your thinking and nowhere else.

So I will answer the beginning of your post, if you understand that we are playing metaphysics and ontology and that has nothing to do with science. This debate about whether God is real or not, is not science. It is philosophy and religion.

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
The last one.

...
Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality.
...

You assume that the real is natural. I accept that. You then demand answers based on that assumption which can't be answered within that assumption and ignore your assumption is an assumption. That is what you do.

As long as you can't understand that this is absurd, we won't make any headway.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hovind has no idea what evolution or science are, despite being corrected and taught about it many, many, many times.
He is a joke and should not be taken seriously in any way, shape or form.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What makes the priests and police infallible?

That is simple. They are from God.

PS I know that is circular, but all justifications hit Agrippa's Trilemma. That is not just unique to religion. Some non-religious humans also do that when they use justifications. We are playing the limit of reasonable justification and that apply to all humans and not just religious ones.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hovind has no idea what evolution or science are, despite being corrected and taught about it many, many, many times.
He is a joke and should not be taken seriously in any way, shape or form.

Well, I agree even as religious. But Hovind is not representative of religion as such, anymore that Max Tegmark is for science.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I'll take you on any day of the week, bud.

(Except Sundays and holidays, that is)

You expect that I am one of these "Scientists?" You're not doing so well already, I am afraid. You'd probably better hold out 'til Sunday when you can beg off.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Then your paper should be retracted and you should be shunned from the science community as the unethical scientist you would be. Your lie will eventually be discovered by other scientists looking over your paper.
That's what happens when fraud is discovered. Ask Andrew Wakefield about that.