Just Accidental?

[metis]

That would be refreshing.....

Yes, and for each of us. "... first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."-- Matt.7:5

 

[gnostic]

Predictions? Science has a crystal ball now does it?

The "evidence for the ToE" is not convincing to anyone with ability to read what scientists actually write.

I suggest that these "predictions" are in the same ball park as the evidence itself. "I think it might have happened" is not the same as saying "I definitely know that it happened". If the prediction is interpreted in the same way as the evidence, then of course its going to turn out to be exactly as they predicted.

What on earth does that prove? That scientists are going to prop up their own pet theory.

Who is going to be game to falsify evidence in an atmosphere where ridicule and loss of credibility in the scientific community are the logical consequences?

You don’t understand the scientific method, hypotheses and scientific theories, and science in general, Deeje.

The predictions are based on a number of observations, and probabilities.

Have you ever study statistics and probability, Deeje?

Statistics is about collecting data, by taking sampling from population through quantifying the numbers of data to certain categories, analysing each category of data, and lastly presenting them.

Sampling, and how data collections are done, can be done through either surveying (questioning people with list of questions), or in the case for scientists, through experiments, testings or obtaining the number of evidences (hence observation).

Probability, on the other hand, is related to statistics, by using those surveys or test results (from experiments or evidences collected), to predict future of it being how likely will happen or how unlikely will happen.

Scientists should use statistics and probability, as the data collected through experiments or evidences gathered, that can give scientists baseline for predictions.

How certain is any prediction made, is dependent on how much past observations taken in the experiments?

The more past test results you have performed or more evidences you have acquired, then the more data you have and the more data you can analyse, so that you can make informed predictions.

This is very important, Deeje, the following questions:

1. How is it, that astronomers can predict accurately when and where future eclipses (solar or lunar) will occur?
2. And how do they know that it will be full or partial eclipses in which location?
3. Have you ever wondered how astronomers are able to do this?

The predictions are made, not by crystal ball, but by analysing past observations. Hence from knowing how likely it will occur, thus using probability.

That’s how predictions work in the real world.

Of course, not every predictions are that reliable, because in some fields what they are investigating are less predictable, because the world can be very complex.

Don’t confuse predictions made by scientists with the shams of crystal ball, palmistry, tea-reading, oracles, visions and prophecies.

 

[Profound Realization]

I'm on the could-have side of the line, that is, I'm agnostic on the matter. I do not claim to be able to prove the theory of evolution or to rule out the possibility of god. Either creation or abiogenesis followed by biological evolution could have occurred.

Given the evidence we currently possess, either naturalistic processes occurred to account for the tree of life, or an intelligent designer created the geological column, the biogeographic findings such ring species, and the morphologies, physiologies, biochemistries and genetics of all life into nested hierarchies to give the appearance that naturalistic explanations are correct.

But the two don't share equal status. The scientific theory is supported by evidence, makes predictions that have never been contradicted with evidence, offers a mechanism that is frankly impossible to stop (variation and natural selection are self-evidently present in our world), and has had technological applications that have improved the human condition. Creationism has no evidence, answers questions but explains nothing, and has generated no useful ideas. ID research has been sterile to date with regard to demonstrating intelligent design. All that can be said in its defense is the it is logically possible.



I'm trying to separate the two. You offered barriers to successful reproduction as evidence that there are barriers to what creationists call macroevolution.



I don't know what kind of barrier you mean, but it sounds like you are saying that there are limits to what is presently known or what can be known. That is obviously correct in the first case, and probably correct in the second.

But that is not the alleged barrier dividing micro- and macroevolution.



I have said that you have offered no barrier to evolution of all life from a single common ancestor over deep time, and that therefore, this could have happened. You seem to find that position inadequate.



No known barrier to macroevolution exists. If it did, the theory would have been falsified by its demonstration.



Agreed. Deep time is a requirement for the degree of evolution that is proposed to have occurred, but by itself, does not establish the theory's empirical adequacy. That is, geologic time is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the theory to be correct. If the earth were 6000 years old, there would not have been enough time.



I don't mind the use of the phrase "belief system" to refer to the collection of ideas underlying the theory. We believe that variation between individuals occurs. We believe that nature selects those that facilitate reproduction best. We believe that over time, this leads to speciation, etc.. We believe that this process accounts for both the diversity and commonality among all of the existing and extinct species.

It's been a nice discussion. Thanks.

Likewise, and thank you.

 

[Deeje]

I submit that they are the predominant factor in everything you think and say about this subject

I would have thought by now that you could see that emotional blackmail has no effect on me.
Did you think that it would if you posted this for the umpteenth time? This is all you have left, isn't?

If science had one ounce of real proof for its theory, I think you would have provided it by now instead of resorting to the same old tired tactics. Shooting the messenger doesn't make the message go away. If you are so confident of your theory, then why are you still here yelling at the fire hydrant?

Am I wrong?

Always....but its not up to me to prove that to you.....I'll let someone with more authority and knowledge do that. I believe that the actual evidence proves that you are wrong. I am the one with a belief system....you claim to have all the evidence and yet when you present it, it turns out to be nothing of the sort. You have a belief system too.

Just how meaningful do you think that is, given how you declared very early on in this thread that nothing science could present would ever lead you to change your mind?

Science has never produced anything even remotely convincing, so why should I? I am not blind, nor am I stupid.....I just require more of something that claims to have proof, but find on investigation, that there is none.

My beliefs are not blind either...nature provides all the proof I need to be convinced that nothing in connection with life on this planet or in the universe at large could be the monumental "accident" that science claims it is. That to me, is blind belief.

Really? Do I need to re-post exactly what you did? How you ran away? Should we go there?

I you wish.....I love exposing scientific rhetoric for the phony nonsense it is. No jargon though...just plain English so that all the readers here can understand what it being presented. I love the Berkley articles for that. When the jargon is missing, its easier to see the sleight of hand...and the suggestions masquerading as facts.

It's not for you. I posted it for the other members here who will learn something from it, rather than do your little "I found a single word in the article that I can use as an excuse to wave the whole thing away".

Preaching to the converted huh? Nice tactic. Just in case they may be wondering about how valid this theory actually is, you feel like they need reassuring....? I like it.

That leads to the obvious question.....if evolutionary theory is completely wrong, how did it generate such accurate results?

This is classic......the predicted results are based on their own interpretation of the evidence.
When you have a theory that is the result of a mixture of truth and absolute fantasy, the true parts are used to gloss over the fantasy parts....then it looks like the whole thing is correct. e.g. micro-evolution (more correctly termed "adaptation") is used to infer that macro-evolution is just a flow on.....but we all know that science hasn't got a single shred of real evidence that this is true. Inference is then a substitute for real evidence.

I will say one thing.....the excuses you come up with to wave away inconvenient realty are amusing at times.

They seems to be enough to hold the interest of the readers here......if there is an "inconvenient reality" demonstrated on this thread, it is that science is struggling to hold its end up.....if science has all this "evidence", and it can be genuinely substantiated, then what are you worried about?

 

[Deeje]

Yes, and for each of us. "... first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."-- Matt.7:5

But what if the log is in your brother's eye and he can't see the speck in yours because of his own visual impairment?.......what if the person is not your brother?

Jesus was speaking about fellow Christians who both sought to honor God by their conduct....not judging another person's worthiness for everlasting life.

Do you seek to persuade the godless to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ? All the best with that.

I feel I restrain myself quite well considering the barrage of accusation that is aimed at me personally by the scientists here. You may beg to differ. The old saying is...."if you can't stand the heat...get out of the kitchen". Its my kitchen.

 

[Profound Realization]

Yes, I have beliefs, but to the best of my knowledge, they are all justified beliefs. Although some do, I don't use the word faith to refer to justified belief to avoid ambiguity. If I discover an unjustified belief, I see l justification for it, revise the belief to make it justified if possible, or throw it out.

It's OK that you weren't aware of that.

Faith is not an offensive word to me. It's a logical error.



No, I said no such thing. What I say is that with faith, anything can be believed. I don't consider that a good thing, since any idea or its opposite can be believed by faith, and at least one of those ideas is wrong.

Incidentally, I recognize two kinds of possible. Some things are known to have occurred and could occur again. Other things are not known to have occurred, but cannot be declared impossible, but might in fact later be shown to be just that.



Some of my beliefs are considered facts by me and others. For example, I believe that the apparent motion of the sun through the sky is due to the rotation of the earth about its axis. Other beliefs are held less firmly and don't rise to the level of fact.

You've pointed out differences in our beliefs, as have I. I don't see hypocrisy in that. It's the basis of debate and dialectic - identifying different positions and arguing their relative merits and deficiencies.



That's good of you. I try to do the same, but I suspect that you posted what you did because you disagree.

When dealing with faith based thinkers, simply disagreeing with what they consider sacred beliefs is often seen as a personal attack and elicits an angry, defensive answer. They'll see criticism of faith as condescension. Atheists are simply disliked by many theists. They've been indoctrinated to believe that we're evil, immoral, hate God, are trying to escape accountability so that we can sin, persecute them, and are smug and arrogant however we post.

I suspect that you feel that way about me to some degree, although I have only been respectful to you, not condescending or hypocritical. I can't think of another reason for you to have made the last two comments. But that's fine either way.



Have a ball. I enjoy identifying logical errors in arguments.

Wouldn't everyone be justified in their own personal beliefs? Isn't that a beauty in such diverse life and diverse mentality? After all, each would have naturally evolved that way and continue to evolve their own diverse beliefs.
We all seem to place a supreme importance of what is the truth/discovering truth, inate within all of us, as if it mattered greatly for some reason.

Others may believe it illogical that the Earth and atmosphere are spinning 1000MPH, and that a force/fictitious force as weak as gravity would be illogical to attract the oceans and waters from falling off of Earth. Everyone is justified in their own beliefs, a product of diverse life and mentality. I again, tend to be neutral and enjoy listening to both sides. I wouldn't call either illogical. A lot of facts are nothing more than "believed-to-be-facts" in the eyes/emperical senses/mental logic of the beholder.

For those reasons you've mentioned, the words faith and belief are emotionally charged and offensive to many due to "atheists" being perceived as a potential enemy of their "God." With the theory of evolution, it is easy for many to present beliefs as if they are facts. I enjoy pointing out the difference. It is also easy to present beliefs as facts first, and then secondly continue to claim facts due to the inability to falsify beliefs. This keeps deducing to circular thinking. Since another can conclude the same thing, that intelligence or natural intelligence is believed to be innate within evolution and life and it cannot be falsified. Same with common descent, it cannot be falsified for another to claim common design.

Natural selection essentially means "Nature chose." As you've stated, life and Nature appear to have no boundaries. Same to what the mind can think.

Far from that, I personally don't perceive anyone from a title or class they place themselves in. Whether "atheist" or "theist" makes no difference to me. I am talking to a human being and have no ill thoughts or judgements on anyone. Even if I mention hypocrisy, I was once a hypocrite myself.

 

[Deeje]

You don’t understand the scientific method, hypotheses and scientific theories, and science in general, Deeje.

I think I understand it well enough to know that it is based, for the most part, on what science wants to fit into their theory. They have so much invested in it, that they won't allow doubt to disturb that basic idea. Mixing what is 'known' with what is 'suggested' and then passing them off as the same thing, is what we see for the most part, as far as macro-evolution is concerned.

Its first premise IMO is completely flawed. What they have built on that premise is just error built on error. Consensus among those who have accepted that premise is no indication of its validity. Being able to sell a product that people have been convinced that they need, is what the commercial world thrives on. We believe that the world at large is controlled by the same entity that challenged God's sovereignty in the beginning. He possesses a power greater than mans and can generate evil without much effort by tapping into our natural tendency to want to do our own thing. No entity alienated from God in this world can be trusted to tell the truth...they thrive on lies and clever deception. You can dismiss that if you wish, but as a former believer, you know what I am talking about.

The predictions are based on a number of observations, and probabilities.

Have you ever study statistics and probability, Deeje?

Yes, and I also know that statistics can be used to distort reality. They are not always an accurate measure of the way things really are.
Observations can be misinterpreted, Conclusions can be drawn, based on pre-conceived notions. IOW, people see what they want to see.

Sampling, and how data collections are done, can be done through either surveying (questioning people with list of questions), or in the case for scientists, through experiments, testings or obtaining the number of evidences (hence observation).

No experiment that science has ever conducted has proven that macro-evolution ever happened.

It is impossible to test anything accurately that existed pre-historically. Going into the past is an excursion open to misinterpretation wishful thinking....not to mention the power of suggestion.
When has "observation" ever confirmed that adaptation can go beyond providing variety within a species?

Probability, on the other hand, is related to statistics, by using those surveys or test results (from experiments or evidences collected), to predict future of it being how likely will happen or how unlikely will happen.

The likelihood of any outcome is a foregone conclusion to those who read what they want to read into the data. To then present that data as fact is dishonest. What they have presented is what they believe the data is 'suggesting'. To them, it would not suggest anything else.

Scientists should use statistics and probability, as the data collected through experiments or evidences gathered, that can give scientists baseline for predictions.

When you have an unproven, and unprovable theory, what else are they going to do?

How certain is any prediction made, is dependent on how much past observations taken in the experiments?

Observation is what needs to be defined here. What has science actually observed compared what they might observe if they could? They fill in the blanks with supposition and pass it off as truth....it is always going to support their theory. How can people not see this?

The more past test results you have performed or more evidences you have acquired, then the more data you have and the more data you can analyse, so that you can make informed predictions.

The data is flawed. The past test results are unreliable. You cannot substitute supposition for facts and still claim to be honest. Evolution is one of the most dishonest branches of science.

This is very important, Deeje, the following questions:

1. How is it, that astronomers can predict accurately when and where future eclipses (solar or lunar) will occur?
2. And how do they know that it will be full or partial eclipses in which location?
3. Have you ever wondered how astronomers are able to do this?

The predictions are made, not by crystal ball, but by analysing past observations. Hence from knowing how likely it will occur, thus using probability.

That’s how predictions work in the real world.

You are again using established truth in science as a reason to believe what is not substantiated. I can see the difference but you are all so convinced that science can't be wrong that you swallow everything down in one large pill. There is a clear difference between what science can prove and what it can't. The way they describe things, you wouldn't know there was a difference at all. I can see it clearly and it is my intention to show anyone who is interested in the truth, what science itself confesses in such a roundabout way that you are left thinking it is all a foregone conclusion. It isn't....by a long shot.

Of course, not every predictions are that reliable, because in some fields what they are investigating are less predictable, because the world can be very complex.

Complexity is what convinces me that nothing in this world or in the wider universe can be an "accident". Accidents do not display design or purpose. Purpose demonstrates planning...planning denotes intelligence. Its really that simple.

Don’t confuse predictions made by scientists with the shams of crystal ball, palmistry, tea-reading, oracles, visions and prophecies.

Don't confuse science fiction with science fact.....that is what the problem is as far as I can see.

You trust your science 'gods' and their 'scripture' as much as I trust my Creator and his word. If you have chosen a different belief system, that is your prerogative. But of what benefit will it be to you, if the Creator shows himself and rewards only those who remained faithful under test?

I don't just believe in my God....I love him and admire his work. I am truly grateful for what he has provided for us even in a world where humans are bringing it to ruin. I hold onto his promise of a better life in a new earth (not a new planet, but a new earthly society where no one will ever question the existence of the Creator ever again) because that is where my heart is.

Where is your heart?

 

[metis]

I feel I restrain myself quite well considering the barrage of accusation that is aimed at me personally by the scientists here. You may beg to differ. The old saying is...."if you can't stand the heat...get out of the kitchen". Its my kitchen.

Do you realize the inconsistency with the above?

What you have shown is that you are simply not willing to shoulder any blame whatsoever. Matt. 7:5 especially applies to you because you are so unwilling to admit any complicity.

In the process of denying any responsibility, you undermine your own ethical standards, being either unwilling to admit you may have some faults or being such a poor judge of yourself that you can't see your own "log". What you have done is to undercut any credibility on the morality that you think you have, which is called "self-righteousness".

So, maybe start acting like a responsible adult, and stop playing the poor little victim that you do all so often, and common sense should tell you that if people are getting angry with you, they are probably doing so for good reason-- at least much of the time. After all, it's you who said above: "if you can't stand the heat...get out of the kitchen. Its my kitchen." What utter arrogance you've exhibited by saying "It's my kitchen". Here at RF, it's our kitchen, Deeje.

So, again: "... first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."-- Matt.7:5

My guess is that you'll just come back with a post blaming me and refusing to admit any complicity of your own-- that seems to be your m.o., while at the same time stating in so many posts that it is you and your JW ilk who are the true believers.

 

[Deeje]

My guess is that you'll just come back with a post blaming me and refusing to admit any complicity of your own-- that seems to be your m.o., while at the same time stating in so many posts that it is you and your JW ilk who are the true believers.

You know metis, I read posts like this from you and sometimes wonder if you are just jerking my chain.....?

Are you really serious? Is this a sidetrack to take attention away from the fact that the evolutionists here are rather remiss at answering any of my questions?
If this is an inquisition then perhaps you should burn me at the stake....?

Would that make you feel better?

Would that make one scrap of difference to the content of my posts? You might disagree with the method of my delivery but then you are just making a judgment...aren't you? Bit hypocritical perhaps?

Should I go quietly.....plead insanity.....or just resist arrest?

I'm sorry but this just looks like another attempt at emotional blackmail....a failed attempt I hasten to add. Is this all you have too? Seriously?

How about you address the issues instead of making smoke screens?

If the kitchen dishes up things that are unpalatable for you, then perhaps you should just eat somewhere else? Wouldn't want to offend your sensitivities or anything.....

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Wouldn't everyone be justified in their own personal beliefs?

Not by my epistemology. If your beliefs are faith based, they are not justified by definition. Faith is the willingness to believe absent sufficient evidentiary support, or even in the face of contradictory beliefs. I do not recognize that as a path to truth, nor do I consider any conclusion based on a faith based belief to be sound.

If you were asking if such a person might feel justified in his beliefs, the answer is yes. We see it continually on this thread. But not in the eyes of others who process information differently.

We all seem to place a supreme importance of what is the truth/discovering truth, inate within all of us, as if it mattered greatly for some reason.

Discovering truths matters greatly for me. You can probably guess the reason. Correct ideas are the ones that work as we navigate this life, where by work I mean allow us to choose well and effect desirable outcomes.

Others may believe it illogical that the Earth and atmosphere are spinning 1000MPH, and that a force/fictitious force as weak as gravity would be illogical to attract the oceans and waters from falling off of Earth.

That's an incredulity fallacy - "I just can't see how it's possible, therefore it isn't." By that mode of thinking, one is able to come to a false conclusion and hold an unjustified belief. That particular one probably won't hurt its believer inasmuch as it's difficult to conceive of a scenario where holding such a false idea could cause him to make a bad choice worse than sharing the belief and it leading to a undesirable reaction, but many false beliefs are harmful.

A lot of facts are nothing more than "believed-to-be-facts" in the eyes/emperical senses/mental logic of the beholder.

A fact is a linguistic string that accurately maps a portion of reality. "Biological evolution occurs" is such a string. Once one knows what the words mean, one can check them against reality and see if the sentence is true or not.

Consider "Adding two apples to two other apples results in five apples." We can test this linguistic string against reality and discover that it does not map onto experience, and is therefore not a fact.

Regarding those with a private understanding of what constitutes a fact, or other methods for determining what is true, there is no common ground between us to decide such matters when we disagree. That is, while I don't require that another hold the same beliefs as I do to find discussion with them productive, I do require that they have a very similar idea of what truth and fact are, and how they are determined.

If they do, we can return to our point of departure and see why we parted ways. If it is due to a difference in the evidence we used - perhaps one of us hasn't seen it all, or is misinformed - we can probably come to an agreement. If it is due to a difference in values - perhaps I value freedom more and you value security more - we can still come to understand one another in the sense that we can agree that had we held the other's value, we would come to a similar conclusion. The point is that we can follow one another's trains of thought.

But when I encounter people with other ideas about how truth is determined, such as by reading a holy book, there is no way to have a productive discussion about our disagreements. Faith won't convince me, and reason applied to evidence won't budge the faith based thinker, so the discussion is stillborn from the start. This says that well:

• "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic? Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, "Well, that's not how I choose to think about water"? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn't share those values, the conversation is over." - Sam Harris

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

With the theory of evolution, it is easy for many to present beliefs as if they are facts.

I find that more characteristic of creationists.

Same with common descent, it cannot be falsified for another to claim common design.

If you mean intelligent design, you are correct. The claim is unfalsifiable.

That alone doesn't make the statement wrong. What it means is that if it is wrong, there is no way to show it.

The claim that an intelligent designer is responsible for our reality might be demonstrable if true. That's what the ID researchers are looking - a biological system that could not have developed by natural processes. They've suggested several were irreducibly complex, including the eye, the flagellum, the clotting cascade, and the immune system, but were shown that a step-wise progression of changes that could be accomplished by mutation and natural selection existed in each case.

Would we expect to find irreducible complexity in nature if it were intelligently designed? I don't know, but if your answer is yes, then the failure to find it constitutes evidence against the hypothesis.

In another sense, we can argue that if there are multiple ways that an intelligent designer could have fashioned reality - say with or without irreducibly complex biological systems - but only one way for blind, naturalisitic forces to have done it - without irreducible complexity - and we never find irreducible complexity, that argues slightly for the method that was constrained to that reality.

You might have seen my comment to another poster about consilience - the idea that when multiple factors, each of which mildly suggest a given conclusion, are considered collectively, they strongly suggest it. I gave the example of the tax cheat. Random honest errors would be expected to sometimes raise the taxpayer's bill and sometimes lower it. No single mistake in the taxpayer's is convincing of fraud, but if there are many and they all work out to the taxpayer's benefit, you have made a strong case for fraud.

Likewise with intelligent design. A universe ruled by an omnipotent god needs no scientific laws, and could conceivably have been designed with or without them. A godless universe needs them.

In a universe ruled by a creator god, we might or might not experience miracles, or feel a god directing our thoughts and choices, whereas in a godless world, we would only expect no miracles and a sense of free will.

In a universe designed by a god, we might or might not find evidence for abiogenesis. In a godless universe, we will.

In a universe designed by a god, we might or might not find evidence for evolution. In a godless universe, it is there.

Considering all of these facts and others like them collectively, we can conclude that the naturalistic hypotheses are well grounded, and the supernaturalistic ones on shaky ground just like the tax payer.

As you've stated, life and Nature appear to have no boundaries.

No, I did not state that. I said that there is no apparent barrier dividing what creationists call micro- and macroevolution. Life and nature probably each have insurmountable boundaries such as thermodynamic constraints. And it's hard to imagine life without an external energy source.

 

[savagewind]

Correct ideas are the ones that work as we navigate this life, where by work I mean allow us to choose well and effect desirable outcomes.

I just want to highlight this good and true idea.

 

[Jose Fly]

I would have thought by now that you could see that emotional blackmail has no effect on me.

So according to what you told us before, being a Jehovah's Witnesses means that if you were to ever compromise on evolution/creationism your life would be ruined and lose all meaning. And now you're saying that has absolutely no effect on how you approach the subject?

That level of delusion is stunning.

If you are so confident of your theory, then why are you still here yelling at the fire hydrant?

Haven't you noticed that I stopped citing science to you? You declared very early on that nothing science could ever produce would make you change your mind, so why would anyone bother showing science to you?

It's abundantly clear that the primary factor in all of this is you being a Jehovah's Witness and the emotional blackmail they have you under. But it's also clear that the prospect of going down that road frightens you, so you avoid it at all costs.

Always

Again, the level of delusion you display is stunning. But I guess that's what one would expect given how your complete emotional well being is at stake.

Science has never produced anything even remotely convincing, so why should I?

So we have a person who declares up front that nothing science could ever produce would ever convince her, now saying that science has failed to produce anything convincing.

Do you see the fundamental issue there? Will you allow yourself to see it?

Preaching to the converted huh? Nice tactic.

The articles are for anyone who's interested in them.

This is classic......the predicted results are based on their own interpretation of the evidence.

Hilarious. The results are verified genetic functions.

Like I said, it is somewhat entertaining to see the sorts of excuses you fabricate in order to wave away inconvenient reality. Here we see how evolutionary theory is foundational to an entire field of science (comparative genomics) and how it's been employed to generate some extremely important and accurate results, and how do you respond? "That's just their interpretation." Hilarious.

And I wonder if you appreciate that dynamic Deeje? Do you understand that much of the reason people keep interacting with you here is to laugh at your posts?

They seems to be enough to hold the interest of the readers here

Oh sure. Like I said, your posts are entertaining if nothing else.

 

[ArtieE]

But when I encounter people with other ideas about how truth is determined, such as by reading a holy book, there is no way to have a productive discussion about our disagreements. Faith won't convince me, and reason applied to evidence won't budge the faith based thinker, so the discussion is stillborn from the start. This says that well:

• "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic? Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, "Well, that's not how I choose to think about water"? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn't share those values, the conversation is over." - Sam Harris

That reminds me: In post number 1406 Deeje actually asked and I quote: "Do you think water just "happened"? Did it evolve from something? " and "Please explain water". Scientists Discover The Oldest, Largest Body Of Water In Existence–In Space | Fast Company

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think I understand it well enough to know that it is based, for the most part, on what science wants to fit into their theory.

You don't understand science if you confuse it with faith.

They have so much invested in it, that they won't allow doubt to disturb that basic idea.

Once again, you don't understand science if you don't recognize that skepticism is a foundational principle in science, where claims are doubted, challenged, and tested. It's faith that never questions itself.

I also know that statistics can be used to distort reality. They are not always an accurate measure of the way things really are.

So what? Are you not also aware that statistics can be used to accurately describe reality? The mere possibility of their misuse does not invalidate the science of statistics.

No experiment that science has ever conducted has proven that macro-evolution ever happened.

So what? More to the point, none has proved it didn't (falsified the claim).

It is impossible to test anything accurately that existed pre-historically.

Sure it is. Most rocks have been around since before recorded history. They're easy to test.

Going into the past is an excursion open to misinterpretation wishful thinking....not to mention the power of suggestion.

There goes your Bible out the window.

When you have an unproven, and unprovable theory, what else are they going to do?

Go with it if it works. Evolutionary theory works. It has successfully predicted the future and has been used to improve the human condition. When creationism can do that, we can revisit the issue.

Evolution is one of the most dishonest branches of science.

Creationism is dishonest, not science.

There is a clear difference between what science can prove and what it can't.

Your standards are not ours.

Complexity is what convinces me that nothing in this world or in the wider universe can be an "accident".

Complexity is easily generated by repeated mindless iterations of simple processes.

Accidents do not display design or purpose. Purpose demonstrates planning...planning denotes intelligence. Its really that simple.

The universe does not display design or purpose, nor intelligence. You're seeing what you want to see, not what's there. Patterns do not need to be planned or purposely created.

It's really that simple.

 

[Profound Realization]

Not by my epistemology. If your beliefs are faith based, they are not justified by definition. Faith is the willingness to believe absent sufficient evidentiary support, or even in the face of contradictory beliefs. I do not recognize that as a path to truth, nor do I consider any conclusion based on a faith based belief to be sound.

If you were asking if such a person might feel justified in his beliefs, the answer is yes. We see it continually on this thread. But not in the eyes of others who process information differently.



Discovering truths matters greatly for me. You can probably guess the reason. Correct ideas are the ones that work as we navigate this life, where by work I mean allow us to choose well and effect desirable outcomes.



That's an incredulity fallacy - "I just can't see how it's possible, therefore it isn't." By that mode of thinking, one is able to come to a false conclusion and hold an unjustified belief. That particular one probably won't hurt its believer inasmuch as it's difficult to conceive of a scenario where holding such a false idea could cause him to make a bad choice worse than sharing the belief and it leading to a undesirable reaction, but many false beliefs are harmful.



A fact is a linguistic string that accurately maps a portion of reality. "Biological evolution occurs" is such a string. Once one knows what the words mean, one can check them against reality and see if the sentence is true or not.

Consider "Adding two apples to two other apples results in five apples." We can test this linguistic string against reality and discover that it does not map onto experience, and is therefore not a fact.

Regarding those with a private understanding of what constitutes a fact, or other methods for determining what is true, there is no common ground between us to decide such matters when we disagree. That is, while I don't require that another hold the same beliefs as I do to find discussion with them productive, I do require that they have a very similar idea of what truth and fact are, and how they are determined.

If they do, we can return to our point of departure and see why we parted ways. If it is due to a difference in the evidence we used - perhaps one of us hasn't seen it all, or is misinformed - we can probably come to an agreement. If it is due to a difference in values - perhaps I value freedom more and you value security more - we can still come to understand one another in the sense that we can agree that had we held the other's value, we would come to a similar conclusion. The point is that we can follow one another's trains of thought.

But when I encounter people with other ideas about how truth is determined, such as by reading a holy book, there is no way to have a productive discussion about our disagreements. Faith won't convince me, and reason applied to evidence won't budge the faith based thinker, so the discussion is stillborn from the start. This says that well:

• "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic? Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, "Well, that's not how I choose to think about water"? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn't share those values, the conversation is over." - Sam Harris

Any individual biologically evolved freely, did they not? Would it not be their birthright to think freely? As mentioned, life is diverse including variety and differing beliefs. Beliefs evolved in individuals and continue to evolve.

I see your entire first paragraph as a contradiction. People do that all of the time with evolutionary theory. Since biological life evolves/occurs, it is by faith that it all happened as "believed" to have in theory. Show evidence of one fact and then "believe" the rest are facts. All the "believed to be's," "thought to have's," "could have's," etc. Also, with "science," truth and facts evolve also. A fact and truth are presented, people believe and have faith in those facts and truths... and then they change. Those facts and truths were nothing more than "beliefs" all along. Your interpretation of what is sound evidence differs from mine also. Sound evidence in a "scientific" frame doesn't change or has "thought to be's," "could have's," "believed to be's." Conflicting the 2 leads to disagreements alone. But the main culprit is self-awareness to realize these in the first place.

I don't want to guess on why, please elaborate why truth matters to you. Elaborate on the importance of believing evolutionary theory as it's stated.

Another may conclude that you prefer security in evolutionary theory, rather than freedom of mind to question the philosophical and belief elements of it. In which in many cases, there is sound evidence that defies those philosophical and belief elements.

Not a fallacy, stated that others think it illogical. Never mentioned probability of possibility/impossibility.

Faith has convinced you that biological life evolved as per the theory. It is stillborn from the start because one isn't free in mind to try and understand where the other is coming from. For example, I've done courses where the "evolutionist" becomes the alternative and the vice versa and debate one another. It's a good mental exercise and brings better self-awareness and understanding of where others may be coming from.

As many do, Sam Harris states one fact and then fails to mention all of the "believed to be," "thought to have's," and "could have's." That is nothing more than a system of control and a system of parameters, anything but freedom. How could anyone ever possibly doubt or question the legions of "believed to be's," "thought to have's," "could have's" and not consider them all "scientific facts?" Those philosophical grounds are science right, can't question the philosophies of science. A disagreement of many are in the philosophies rather than the facts. We see what generally happens in society when someone has the courage to question philosophies and beliefs of "science." There are also legions of value that each unique individual finds that has nothing to do with physical evidence or needing to prove anything to another. Life is unique and diverse, if you can hop into my body for 10 minutes... you would see clearer than crystals. If I hopped into your body for 10 min, I would see what you only see.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

please elaborate why truth matters to you

I think that I already did - not that it should have been necessary.

Elaborate on the importance of believing evolutionary theory as it's stated.

There is no importance in believing that.

How could anyone ever possibly doubt or question the legions of "believed to be's," "thought to have's," "could have's" and not consider them all "scientific facts?"

Please feel free to refute whatever you can.

can't question the philosophies of science

Paraphrasing Shaw, philosophy and science ask questions that may never be answered. Religion give answers that may never be questioned.

 

[Deeje]

That reminds me: In post number 1406 Deeje actually asked and I quote: "Do you think water just "happened"? Did it evolve from something? " and "Please explain water". Scientists Discover The Oldest, Largest Body Of Water In Existence–In Space | Fast Company

Thank you for the link ArtieE.

I am not sure why you posted it or why you think it is relevant to what I said?

Scientist have found a "water factory" out in space! So........?

Here is a portion of the article.....

"Truly, that is one swampy patch of intergalactic space.

Equally stunning is the age of the water factory. The two teams of astrophysicists that found the quasar were looking out in space a distance of 12 billion light years. That means they were also looking back in time 12 billion years, to when the universe itself was just 1.6 billion years old. They were watching water being formed at the very start of the known universe, which is to say, water was one of the first substances formed, created in galactic volumes from the earliest time. Given water’s creative power to shape geology, climate and biology, that’s dramatic."

Water is an amazing substance, upon which all life on this planet depends.

"They were watching water being formed" 12 billion years ago.....wow!

It also says...."water was one of the first substances formed, created in galactic volumes from the earliest time."

This is just reinforcing what the Bible says.....that God created everything "in the beginning"......water was part of creation, and the law of cause and effect means that he created the cause as well.

Water does have "creative power to shape geology, climate and biology, that’s dramatic."....what it doesn't have is the ability to create life.

But where is this vast quantity of water?

"The water is in a cloud around a huge black hole that is in the process of sucking in matter and spraying out energy (such an active black hole is called a quasar), and the waves of energy the black hole releases make water by literally knocking hydrogen and oxygen atoms together."

And this vast quantity of H2o in a cloud suspended in space, is doing what exactly? Can we wonder what has happened to it in the intervening billions of years? Does it matter?
If it is not on another planet keeping other living creatures alive, then why all the excitement?

Is the fact that water exists out there in space even a reason to get excited? I believe that finding life out there would be much more exciting....don't you?

You see I don't believe that life crawled out of some primordial soup....being that water is not soup. Nothing comes out of water that did not enter it to begin with. Can science deny that? Water, in and of itself, is not "alive". It sustains life but does not produce it..... you knew that, right?

Nice try.

 

[ArtieE]

Thank you for the link ArtieE.

I am not sure why you posted it or why you think it is relevant to what I said?

Scientist have found a "water factory" out in space! So........?

You said: "Do you think water just "happened"? Did it evolve from something? " and "Please explain water".

No water didn't "evolve". Here in this "water factory" it just happens. You said "Please explain water." So we have one perfectly natural explanation for water no gods involved.

 

[Profound Realization]

I think that I already did - not that it should have been necessary.



There is no importance in believing that.



Please feel free to refute whatever you can.



Paraphrasing Shaw, philosophy and science ask questions that may never be answered. Religion give answers that may never be questioned.

I don't see it. Elaborate on why discovering truth is of importance to you.

Circular reasoning,
That's not how the particular system of science works. Beliefs and philosophy assumed as facts/truths and stay assumed facts/truths until falsified. Anyone can do this.

They all can be questioned by a free mind. Disagreements arise by one presenting controlled circumstances, in this case that only "religion" may never be questioned. Whatever "religion" may mean is also perceptive based to an individual.