Is evolution science: Hovind vs Barnes 2020

[SkepticThinker]

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.)

There were many crimes; 58 counts, actually. Mostly all fraud. His own employees ratted him out. Oh, and he had time added to his sentence when he was caught talking on the prison phone with his wife about committing more fraud. (I guess he doesn't know prison phones are tapped. ).

He's a huckster of the first order who has made himself into a martyr in an attempt to make more $$$$.

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.

 

[ecco]

That's what they imagine happened, but back then they knew that it was only their best guess. They knew it wasn't factual.

On what do you base that assertion? There are thousands of Creation Myths. I have found no reason to believe that all these people were making stuff up.

Do you think they were making stuff up when they said:

27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.​

​

 

[ecco]

You said...

The false believers. No religion teaches to murder people.

I showed that the Bible does teach and approve of murder...

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



You failed to support your assertion that "No religion teaches to murder people". All you did was try to sidestep the issue.

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.

The discussion is not about police or bandits or criminals. It is about the Bible commanding murder of women and children.

Care to at least try to defend your assertion?

 

[ecco]

Current evolutionary theory cannot make predictions

That statement is incorrect...

so it is not fully rational.

...therefore, your conclusion is incorrect.

However, the past is often subject to revisionist history, as the left has shown.

Perhaps you should start a thread in North American Politics and try to make your case there.

Nobody has answered my concerns about statistical models,

Perhaps you didn't articulate them to the point where there was any purpose in trying to refute them.

 

[viole]

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.

What is knowledge?
Knowledge is what we know.
What means "to know"?
To know is to have knowledge.
The way out of tautology:
Knowledge is the name of God.
The spirit of knowledge is God.
Thus, the God must exist as the knowledge exists.
Thus, because God is knowledge, then the God knows all, He is Omniscient Being.
Omniscient Being knows that Omniscient Being exists, thus if one gets to know all, he gets to know God.
"Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame." 1 Corinthians 15:34


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

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


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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqLkTduzRPs

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.


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.

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.

Evolution is the product of nature, not naturalism. The fact that both you and me are apes, is independent from naturalism, from instance.

Otherwise it would be like saying that gravity is the product of naturalism, as opposed to planets moving in their orbits because they are dragged by invisible angels in love with conic sections.

Ciao

- viole

 

[questfortruth]

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.

I was just subordinated. There is no fault of my University then? I was not happy about it, but I was threatened.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I was just subordinated. There is no fault of my University then? I was not happy about it, but I was threatened.

The person who told you to lie should probably be dealt with as well.

But ultimately, you're the one who lied, so you should (and will) bear the brunt of the consequences of your actions.

 

[questfortruth]

The person who told you to lie should probably be dealt with as well.

But ultimately, you're the one who lied, so you should (and will) bear the brunt of the consequences of your actions.

It is good, that you do not know my real name, friend.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is good, that you do not know my real name, friend.

Ok.

 

[Bear Wild]

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.)

He is neither holy or a martyr, just a creator of propaganda and misinformation. Neither of those qualities are holy. I do not care whether is in jail or not. He should not spread such bad misinformation.

 

[Sand Dancer]

On what do you base that assertion? There are thousands of Creation Myths. I have found no reason to believe that all these people were making stuff up.

Do you think they were making stuff up when they said:

27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.​

History of religion. The original stories were a lot more sane until new versions of the texts changed things. Some could be made up and some could have been dreams. Who knows?

 

[Bear Wild]

One problem I have with the theory of evolution is the continued use of statistics instead of pure reason and math logic. Statistics has a watered down criteria of acceptability, compared to rational theory.

First comparing simple systems to complex symptoms and expecting the same methods is irrational. The theory of evolution does not just use statistical methods so your concerns about statistical models is unfounded.

By the way humans do not operate on pure reason. Mathematical logic by itself has no meaning, It must be attached to something and unless it is an absolutely simple system, mathematics can only approximate. Most biological evidence is based in part on statistical methods since it is complex. With your line of reasoning we should only study physics and some aspects of chemistry and then ignore the rest of those irrational sciences alone. Biologic systems such as physiology, genetics all are too complex for pure reason and always require statistics for comparison. And do not even look at ecology or worse neuroscience and psychology. All of those sciences must seem to be just as fake as evolution.
We can forget talking about weather so how are our planets orbiting today? Oh my not perfectly mathematically.

 

[Bear Wild]

[

Could anyone in science define evolution without any fudge factors of statistics? In other words, if we took away all traces of statistical analysis, would there be any†hing left? The needed change would require a rational analysis that can make accurate predictions and explain things without any self serving fudge factors, that ignores any inaccuracies.

Yes there is lots of evidence for evolution that does not require statistical methods. You should already be aware of that if you had any understanding of evolution.

 

[blü 2]

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.

The question is by no means absurd. I don't have to tell you the basis on which I make my assumptions, since we share them, but I can if you wish.

I see no reason why you should not in turn articulate, first, the extra assumptions which you have not yet specified in our conversation (leaving it to me to attempt in outline in my previous post), and second the reason why you think they're necessary .

You are asking me how I think

And telling you how I think ─ which comparison of views I take to be the point of having this conversation at all.

I imagine something, but you don't that

And I ask you on what basis you do that, which seems to me a fair question. It's not clear to me why you don't just answer it.

[You think] That the real is natural, is not imagined

Yes, I think there's a world external to me that can supply me with air, food, drink, shelter and society, potentially kill me as well as sustain me, bring about this conversation we're having, and more. Your action in engaging in this conversation shows you agree, as I keep pointing out.

[You think] it doesn't really count as imagined because your thinking is correct based on your thinking

Which to this extent is no different from your thinking ─ you continue to act as though there's a world external to you and that your senses are capable of informing you of that world and (I gather) that reason is a valid tool. In other words you act as though I'm real, not some solipstistic extension of you.

But that I start with the real is from God is imagery, but that the real is natural is not imaginary.

I attempted to express your assumption about God in my previous post, but I think it's appropriate you tell me yourself exactly what you assume about God ─ and why.

So you apply a double standard. Your think[ing] is not based on something you imagined to be real

I assume it to be real and knowable and accessible to reason, and so do you. I assume nothing you don't, as the fact that you post here and argue shows.

but it is, yet that doesn't real count, because for reasons in your thinking and nowhere else.

Well, nowhere else but in your thinking and the thinking of everyone I've so far met.

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.

First we need to have on the table (in your own words) what your actual assumption or assumptions about God are and why you think it necessary to assume them.

Only then will there be something to discuss, ontologically and/or metaphysically and/or at all.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Yes, I think there's a world external to me that can supply me with air, food, drink, shelter and society, potentially kill me as well as sustain me, bring about this conversation we're having, and more. Your action in engaging in this conversation shows you agree, as I keep pointing out.
Which to this extent is no different from your thinking ─ you continue to act as though there's a world external to you and that your senses are capable of informing you of that world and (I gather) that reason is a valid tool. In other words you act as though I'm real, not some solipstistic extension of you.
I attempted to express your assumption about God in my previous post, but I think it's appropriate you tell me yourself exactly what you assume about God ─ and why.
I assume it to be real and knowable and accessible to reason, and so do you. I assume nothing you don't, as the fact that you post here and argue shows.
Well, nowhere else but in your thinking and the thinking of everyone I've so far met.
First we need to have on the table (in your own words) what your actual assumption or assumptions about God are and why you think it necessary to assume them.
Only then will there be something to discuss, ontologically and/or metaphysically and/or at all.

Yeah, you do know how to articulate your thoughts. You are just not as skeptical as I am.

So now I am honest with you. I am a hardcore skeptic and you aren't there yet. You pretend to be it, but you are not.
So one step at a time. Consider this by a scientist and think hard as to how it comes that it is so:
"The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists." William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. p. 2. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3

Now read all of the quote and consider all the words. All of them. And consider the implication of all them. Now this is just the beginning, but the first time I read it, I wondered, how it is that science requires philosophy in this form.
I then check further and there is more.
But now I am honest again. If you are unable to take this seriously, i.e. how come, William C. Keel wrote it like this and understand what it means, that he chose to use these words, "In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists", then we stop here.

Why? Because then you are properly unable to understand what methodology naturalism actually means and what it means that you chose to start with "I think" here: "Yes, I think there's a world external to me that can supply me with air, food, drink, shelter and society, potentially kill me as well as sustain me, bring about this conversation we're having, and more."
The end question is not solipsism. The end question is this: Is the world external to you as you think it is or could it be different? And it ties in to the quote from William C. Keel.

But if you don't want to be skeptical of your own thinking and just want to be skeptical of everybody else's thinking, then just stop here. There is no need to continue and learn how it is that it is methodological naturalism. And what that has to do with the universe playing fair.

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, you do know how to articulate your thoughts. You are just not as skeptical as I am.

So now I am honest with you. I am a hardcore skeptic and you aren't there yet. You pretend to be it, but you are not.
So one step at a time. Consider this by a scientist and think hard as to how it comes that it is so:
"The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists." William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. p. 2. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3

Now read all of the quote and consider all the words. All of them. And consider the implication of all them. Now this is just the beginning, but the first time I read it, I wondered, how it is that science requires philosophy in this form.
I then check further and there is more.
But now I am honest again. If you are unable to take this seriously, i.e. how come, William C. Keel wrote it like this and understand what it means, that he chose to use these words, "In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists", then we stop here.

Why? Because then you are properly unable to understand what methodology naturalism actually means and what it means that you chose to start with "I think" here: "Yes, I think there's a world external to me that can supply me with air, food, drink, shelter and society, potentially kill me as well as sustain me, bring about this conversation we're having, and more."
The end question is not solipsism. The end question is this: Is the world external to you as you think it is or could it be different? And it ties in to the quote from William C. Keel.

But if you don't want to be skeptical of your own thinking and just want to be skeptical of everybody else's thinking, then just stop here. There is no need to continue and learn how it is that it is methodological naturalism. And what that has to do with the universe playing fair.

You keep stepping away from the subject and heading for the thickets of philosophy.

Please state in your own words what your assumptions about God are.

Please state in your own words why you think those assumptions are necessary.

 

[Bear Wild]

If you look at the Corona virus, the percent of people who catch it are a small fraction of all people. Those who die are a small percent of that subset. Yet this can be spun too make people hysterical instead of rational. This is due to the cheating of statistics and the lack of reason involved in the nature of statistical reality. In this case, a possible negative miracle becomes a possible bogeyman. This is pre-age of reason.

Maybe you should ask those who have had loved ones who have died or suffered terribly from this virus about their hysterical and irrational feelings. You clearly missed the medical importance of taking this virus seriously. First its transmission is preventable. Second when the virus rate of infection goes up the hospitals get overwhelmed and the death rate increases. There is good medical reason to restrict the transmission but then medicine is one of those none pure mathematical sciences that you do not believe in.

 

[questfortruth]

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.

And if you think about it, there is no corpus delicti. Normal research work was. It's just that I'm like a paranoid: I see what was not there.

 

[questfortruth]

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.

And if you think about it, there is no corpus delicti. Normal research work was. It's just that I'm like a paranoid: I see what was not there.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You keep stepping away from the subject and heading for the thickets of philosophy.

Please state in your own words what your assumptions about God are.

Doesn't matter, because my assumptions are supernatural in regards to God and thus invalid in your belief system.

Please state in your own words why you think those assumptions are necessary.

No, I won't. Because in the end what assumptions are necessary to you in your thinking are according to you not subjective, because we all share your subjective assumptions, and thus mine can't be necessary, because your subjective thinking is not really subjective. It is objective and universal and thus mine are invalid.

So here is where it ends. For all humans for all time around at least 99% of all humans had the wrong assumptions in one form or another about what the world really is, when it comes to knowledge, evidence, real, rights, politics, religion, truth and what not.
So I am just a part of 99% of humanity and you are a part of the special 1%. But I don't care, because we as the 99% haven't died out, all jumped off cliffs believing we could fly and what not.
So I really don't care about objective evidence for something, which is in effect subjective and connects to the meaning of the universe, life and everything. Because meaning in effect have no objective existence and is not in the external world. Meaning is in humans, inside humans and not external to humans.

So if you are so hot for evidence as falsifiable, here it is for the everyday world including humans as in this world, a part of this world and that this world is in them, because we all come from this world. This world is not objective, because then I couldn't subjectively answer "No, this world is not just objective, it is in part objective and in part subjective!" and get away with it. But what this world really really is, I don't know. But I know it works subjectively for me to believe in God and that is as much a part of this world as science and objective existence is.

So get this into your head. It is a part of the natural/physical laws of this world that I can believe in God, so how it could be wrong for this world, I have yet to get an answer to that effect. The answer is always that it doesn't subjectively make sense to your kind of the special 1%, but you seen to miss the point that it is subjective that it doesn't makes sense to you.