Is evolution science: Hovind vs Barnes 2020

[SkepticThinker]

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.

How about, don't lie in your research?

 

[gnostic]

The false believers. No religion teaches to murder people.

God has ordered genocide, via his prophet, eg Samuel.

15 Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

The Amalekites weren’t slaughtered because what they did when Saul rule Israel, but what the Amalekites did, when Moses led out the Israelites from Egypt, a couple of centuries earlier. But Moses’ army had already defeated the Amalekites back then; so the Amalekites were already punished.

So really, the genocide served no purpose other than showed that god was both petty and vicious. Vicious enough to have even children and infants slaughtered in his name.

If god was fair and just, then that genocide wouldn’t have taken place. Should descendants pay the price for what happened generations ago?

What happened to “No son should have to pay for his father’s sin”?

16 Parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their parents; only for their own crimes may persons be put to death.

Does god go back on his own words? Is god a “hypocrite”?

 

[ecco]

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?

Stories passed down from generation to generation told by campfires until all could recite them. I have no reason to believe the ancients didn't really believe them.

Along with stories about creation were stories of how to hunt, where to find game, what foods to avoid and so on.

 

[blü 2]

Doesn't matter

Of course it matters. If you can't state your assumptions about the supernatural with some precision, then you don't know what your own position actually is.

It's irrelevant whether or not I, or anyone else, would agree with them.

No, I won't.

Well, that's your call to make.

It looks more like you can't, rather than won't, but you don't need me to tell you that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course it matters. If you can't state your assumptions about the supernatural with some precision, then you don't know what your own position actually is.

It's irrelevant whether or not I, or anyone else, would agree with them.
Well, that's your call to make.

It looks more like you can't, rather than won't, but you don't need me to tell you that.

God is real, fair, knowable and reasonable.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

If that were true, then history, math, philosophy, cooking classes, sports statistics, rules to chess, etc., would all be considered science. So, no.

I would suggest those are under the umbrella of philosophy, like science.

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

That is true literally. Evolution is scientific, however. That is important; it is a perfectly fine thing to have a personal belief in God and Creationism if that provides meaning to you. But a reasoned, logical, and scientific analysis of the world is necessary for humanity if it wants to develop further in knowledge and technology.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would suggest those are under the umbrella of philosophy, like science.



That is true literally. Evolution is scientific, however. That is important; it is a perfectly fine thing to have a personal belief in God and Creationism if that provides meaning to you. But a reasoned, logical, and scientific analysis of the world is necessary for humanity if it wants to develop further in knowledge and technology.

No, a reasoned, logical, and scientific analysis of the world including the limits of that is necessary but not sufficient for humanity if it wants to develop further in knowledge and technology.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

No, a reasoned, logical, and scientific analysis of the world including the limits of that is necessary but not sufficient for humanity if it wants to develop further in knowledge and technology.

It is necessary. While I would argue that other things, like emotional and social wisdom would contribute to our psychological wellbeing, they aren't necessary for advancing in terms of knowledge and technology in any strict sense. You could argue that advancement may lead to unethical situations or the death of our species through technological annihilation, but that would be asserting morality, which is irrelevant in terms of science. Important, but irrelevant.

Note that I am not trying to say that humanity wouldn't be better with spiritual wisdom, only that that is a personal choice and not contigent on scientific advancement. And vice-versa.

 

[blü 2]

God is real, fair, knowable and reasonable.

As a concept, a symbol, of one's tribal identity, one's aspirations personal and for the world, that could work.

But otherwise ─

Real in what sense? Certainly not as one or more beings found in the world external to the self.

If fair, then presumably powerless, since the world is arbitrary, not fair.

If knowable, why knowable in so many incompatible forms, sole, triune, a pantheon, one or more superhumans, non-humans, spirits of different places, purposes, practices, beliefs, and more.

If reasonable, not knowledgeable, since all the physics, chemistry, biology, maths and so on are human inventions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As a concept, a symbol, of one's tribal identity, one's aspirations personal and for the world, that could work.

But otherwise ─

Real in what sense? Certainly not as one or more beings found in the world external to the self.

If fair, then presumably powerless, since the world is arbitrary, not fair.

If knowable, why knowable in so many incompatible forms, sole, triune, a pantheon, one or more superhumans, non-humans, spirits of different places, purposes, practices, beliefs, and more.

If reasonable, not knowledgeable, since all the physics, chemistry, biology, maths and so on are human inventions.

You are civil as you keep it as a civil discourse. I like that.
Now I will try to keep it civil, but I can't be nice. As long as you assume that your assumption about what the world is in itself as external to the self is correct and you check all other assumption based on that your assumption is correct, then yes you are right. All other assumptions are wrong.
But it is not that simple as you make it out so be, what the world is in itself as external to the self.
So here it is as back to your 3 assumptions and that I must share them as you do. I don't! I don't share the same assumptions of what what the world is in itself as external to the self, nor how and what knowledge is, what real is, what thinking, reason and necessary is.
All of the words and assumptions are in one sense all cases of cognitive relativism and can be done differently. But you can't understand that as long as you take your own thinking for granted.

So here it is a honest as I can do it. As long as you in effect insist to keep your assumptions as the basis of checking all other ways of doing this, there is no reason to proceed. How, because of how you will always get the result of wrong in effect for all other ways.
And as long as you do that, you can do it and of course I can't really be doing it differently.

Regards
Mikkel