The Mystery Thread

[ecco]

First question. Is it okay for me to reject evolution while accepting other tenets of science?

Why do you reject evolution? Please carefully consider your answer.

 

[gnostic]

Here is the problem....im asked for "evidence" of design. I provide it in the form of order, patterns of consistency and complexity with many parts that serve different functions. Then i do what ALL science does, i use INFERERENCE and infer actual design.

So, then you ask, whos the designer. Ok, NOW i dive into giving you a PHILOSOPHICAL answer to that. There also is a science called the philosophy of science. But, going into WHO the designer is, does not do away with the ACTUAL evidence and inference for design itself.

Evidence isn’t “inference”, Jollybear.

There is more to science than “inference”...more than just a series of implies (eg complexity implies design, order implies design, design implies designer, etc, etc, etc)...and more than just “philosophy” or “philosophical” hogwash.

All you are doing is making meaningless noises, none of which is science.

You seriously don’t understand how science and you don’t understand what “scientific evidence” is.

Scientific evidence isn’t inference of anything or implying anything.

You can use inferences all you want, but none of them are evidences, Jollybear. You can use your circular reasoning with the series of implies of “design” or “designer” until you are red or blue in the face, but none of these implying have anything to do with evidences.

The rest of your reply about the Designer, like your first two paragraphs, are nothing more than your display of ignorance to what constructed as evidences, sophistry, hosts of fallacies and just more hogwash.

 

[Bird123]

Fact is strictly evidence-based.

While Truth isn’t necessarily evidence-based. It can be, but evidences aren’t strict requirements for truth. Truth can be anything that anyone or any religion want to be truth.

Every religions believed they have the sole ownership of “truth”, and each on them reject the truths of other religions, believing they are the only one to have it.

And it is the same for every philosophies. They (philosophers) rationalize they have the truth, and are the only ones who are right about it.

Metaphysics is one of the most overrated philosophies and most fallacious of recent philosophy, which is why in recent years I have come to loathe metaphysics. I also find metaphysicists or metaphysicians to be pretentious bunch.

All of them, whether they be believers or philosophers, they are only using their personal views, hence subjective perception of what they perceive to be true.

If I step off a High Rise Building, it doesn't matter what others claim to be the Truth. I am going to fall. Religions claim to have truth but do they? Why do you think they teach others to value Beliefs above all else? Until they have Real Evidence, they only have Beliefs.

The good news is that Real Truth does not change. Further, some Truths started as Beliefs. As I stated before, Beliefs only point the direction by which one might search for the Truth. If one Really Values Truth. One can not stop at mere Beliefs.

Of course, Discovering Real Truth takes much more work. It's so much easier to value Beliefs then argue who is right. On the other hand, what do you really have when you are done?

 

[Bird123]

I see truth as both subjective--true for me--and objective--true for all. Chocolate ice cream is the best flavor ice cream made. True for me. But obviously not true for all. Chocolate ice cream A has a higher butter fat content than all the ice cream tested including all the varieties of vanilla. This should be true for me and you regardless of which we like the most.

I have had spurious instances in my life where I came to believe certain trivial and insignificant pieces of information were true and later came to find out that they were not. These things entered my thinking from failure to review them or sloppy review. I seem fond of ignorantly mispronouncing words learned from reading and later learning how badly I had butchered them. So--with this in mind--I make an effort to learn how to pronounce new words--especially names--and add that to my vocabulary.

You think that chocolate ice cream is the best is the Truth for everyone. To determine whether chocolate ice cream is the best for everyone, one must first determine the definition of Best. What is the saying? The devil is in the details. One can form a box limiting what goes inside thereby isolating Truth to a small set of parameters.

Perhaps, the Truth I strive for is the Universal truth after all knowledge is known. Yes, it is going to take much time to really Discover Truth.

In the meantime, chocolate ice cream is pretty good, only I do not eat ice cream anymore. Ice cream is cold. It takes much much more sugar to make cold taste buds taste ice cream as sweet. Is all that sugar really good for a person? Hey, what about all the fat in the cream? On the other hand, maybe, it can be eaten in very small amounts. Still, I have not eaten ice cream in so long I do not even crave it or miss it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You think that chocolate ice cream is the best is the Truth for everyone. To determine whether chocolate ice cream is the best for everyone, one must first determine the definition of Best. What is the saying? The devil is in the details. One can form a box limiting what goes inside thereby isolating Truth to a small set of parameters.

Perhaps, the Truth I strive for is the Universal truth after all knowledge is known. Yes, it is going to take much time to really Discover Truth.

In the meantime, chocolate ice cream is pretty good, only I do not eat ice cream anymore. Ice cream is cold. It takes much much more sugar to make cold taste buds taste ice cream as sweet. Is all that sugar really good for a person? Hey, what about all the fat in the cream? On the other hand, maybe, it can be eaten in very small amounts. Still, I have not eaten ice cream in so long I do not even crave it or miss it.

Chocolate ice cream is the best is truth for me, but not everyone. Actually, I am torn between chocolate and vanilla. I like them both. I do not eat either very often.

I think there is truth to be found in the world, but some things may always be a mystery. I think we learn new ways to find that truth every day, but there is no perfect route to it so far. About the only truth that I can share is based on evidence, and even that is contingent on new evidence and what others may learn based on it.

 

[gnostic]

If I step off a High Rise Building, it doesn't matter what others claim to be the Truth. I am going to fall. Religions claim to have truth but do they? Why do you think they teach others to value Beliefs above all else? Until they have Real Evidence, they only have Beliefs.

But I don’t see fact and truth to be the same thing.

The difference is this, fact required evidences, and evidences are independent as anyone’s perspective. Evidences are what make fact to be objectively true.

Truth, on the other hand, is dependent on one’s perspective, and even one’s experience.

Sometimes fact and truth are aligned with each other, collaborated with each other. But sometimes they are not.

In the case of the high rise building example. We know for fact that if we can drop any number of objects, it will fall to the ground, including you or I. That the fact, which Newton was able to explain regarding to gravity, and they are based on evidences, and you can do experiments.

It is also be the truth, that if I was to push you off the building, or you were to jump off the ledge or you accidentally tripped, you would fall and hit the pavement. If I was to give a testimony as to what happened, then that one of those scenarios would be the truth.

That you will fall and died from the fall, will be fact. But my testimony of how it happen would either be truth or lie, would be told from my perspective. But how would the police and court decide what I said to be true. The only way that they can determine if my testimony to not only truth but fact too, would be we were not alone on the roof, and how you fall were caught on cameras or with some people’s mobiles, or there are security footage of the event.

Do you see the differences between truth and fact in me elaborating on your example?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Then calling an advantage in environment as it changes evolution is evidence of evolution, and so how is evolution contrary to the Bible BECAUSE people here keep telling me I can't rationally reject evolution because it is contrary to my religious beliefs. It has nothing to do with my religious beliefs.

In what way is evolution contrary to your religious beliefs?

Get it?

Not really.

Subjective.

There is nothing subjective about the evidence. It does objectively exist.

OH NO! Everything's changed now! How will I ever get published on another Atheist Religious Forum??!!

You could start by not jumping to ludicrous conclusions about large groups of people based on nothing but personal prejudice. The fact is that people write things like what you just did tend to not be taken very seriously by anybody who thinks about these subjects in depth. It's not a good indicator of credibility.

 

[Jollybear]

If God is the designer, why are "order, patterns of consistency and complexity with many parts that serve different functions" evidence of God's design? Below you acknowledge that God can create things with no order, inconsistency, and simplicity"; you just don't think, for philosophical reasons, that God did.

You misunderstand why i said "God COULD" create with simplicity.

This dont mean he will or did, or wants to or even intertains the idea too. This means he has the POWER to create simply.

I have the ability to chop my hand off, but i wont, i dont want to and on so many levels its rediculious.

So yes, God COULD have created the universe as one massive simple blob of bla. It would be one blob of just one part all the way through, no complexity at all. Then after making this pointless blob of bla, look at it forever and say "boy God, you are some genius of an engineer, arent you?"

On a philosophical level, this is absurd. Absurd for 3 reasons.

1: the universe is not a blob.
2: its pointless to make it as a blob.
3: the complexity of the universe indicates what real design simulates.

See, in science if you're going to predict that we should see X, Y, and Z under a scenario, then X, Y, and Z must be necessary under said scenario. You can't say "we should see X, Y, and Z, but it is possible that we might also seen Not X, Not Y, and Not Z...I just don't think we will for philosophical reasons".

Yes, we can do this. Science deals with the physical world, but science uses inference and philosophy as well.

The way God COULD have made the universe a blob is the same way engineers could have made vehicles to look like basketballs driving down the road. COULD have is one thing, did? No. Like to? No. A point to it? Heck no.

But in positing God as the designer, you're invoking the supernatural. So let's keep this simple....can you name any branch of science that includes supernatural causation?

The 2 alternatives to God (aka supernatural) is "nothing+chance+time" did it....... OR........the universe was always here in one form or another.

These alternatives are MORE MAGICAL and fantastical then the God hypothesis due to the fact that from nothing, nothing comes. Also, the coin flippin machine i told you about rules out chance and reveals factors.

Also, the universe being eternal is equally fantastical due to infinite regression of causes would mean all events would take forever to happen, hence never would.

So, you ask if science deals with magic or the supernatural or the extrordinary. Yes, it does, its FORCED too due to all three options being extrordinary. However the God hypotheses is the LEAST "supernatural" due to the fact that God is within himself energy, conciouse intelligence and creates time, this way theres no infinite regression.

Logic puzzles aside, you're kind of missing the point. God, being all-powerful and supernatural, is not scientifically testable. Thus, "God did it" cannot be a scientific explanation. If you can't test it, it's not science.

Logic puzzles aside, you're kind of missing the point. The alternative to God, "nothing+chance+time" or "infinite regression" is more "supernatural" and is not scientifically testable. Thus, "nothing+chance+time" or "infinite regression" did it, cannot be a scientific explanation. If you can't test it, it's not science.

Nope. Your "hallmarks of design" are all based on your religious beliefs about the existence of God and the nature of that God. That's not science.

Nope. Your "hallmarks of the world" are all based on your religious beliefs about the existence of "nothing+chance+time" or "infinite regression" and the nature of those things. That's not science.

There ya' go....complexity and order are therefore not necessary under "design".

Misunderstanding. SIMPLICITY does not HAVE TO BE design. But COMPLEXITY DOES. And, God did not create with simplicity.

No, it's not impossible for a God to do. You just don't believe God would for religious reasons.

No, not religious reasons, LOGICAL REASONS.

Can God create a rock so big he cannot lift it?

Nice try, but we're discussing ID creationism here.

You cannot seperate the other 2 alternatives from the God hypotheses discussion. It all goes together within the same subject with all its intricate details.

Why? Is it impossible for God to create via "nothing+chance+time"? And I don't mean impossible as in "I don't believe God would do such a thing", I mean it actually being impossible for God to do.

Yes, its impossible for God to do in the same way its logically impossible for God to create a rock so big he cannot lift it.

 

[Jose Fly]

You misunderstand why i said "God COULD" create with simplicity.

This dont mean he will or did, or wants to or even intertains the idea too. This means he has the POWER to create simply.

Exactly. As long as God can create with simplicity, then complexity cannot be a necessary outcome of "design", which means "design" cannot be falsified on the basis of complexity or simplicity.

So yes, God COULD have created the universe as one massive simple blob of bla. It would be one blob of just one part all the way through, no complexity at all. Then after making this pointless blob of bla, look at it forever and say "boy God, you are some genius of an engineer, arent you?"

On a philosophical level, this is absurd. Absurd for 3 reasons.

1: the universe is not a blob.
2: its pointless to make it as a blob.
3: the complexity of the universe indicates what real design simulates.

And as before you're just imposing your philosophical preferences onto your proposal, which is entirely unscientific.

Science deals with the physical world, but science uses inference and philosophy as well.

Not in the way you're doing it. If you disagree, then provide a specific example.

The 2 alternatives to God (aka supernatural) is "nothing+chance+time" did it....... OR........the universe was always here in one form or another.

Why are those "alternatives to God"? Are you saying God cannot create something out of nothing? God cannot create using chance? God cannot create within time?

These alternatives are MORE MAGICAL and fantastical then the God hypothesis due to the fact that from nothing, nothing comes. Also, the coin flippin machine i told you about rules out chance and reveals factors.

Those are interesting assertions, but at this point that's all they are. If you truly think scientists are invoking "magic" in their explanations, provide a specific example (and not just you asserting such, but a link or citation to where we can all directly see them doing so).

Also, the universe being eternal is equally fantastical due to infinite regression of causes would mean all events would take forever to happen, hence never would.

But God could create a universe that from all indications looks eternal, correct?

So, you ask if science deals with magic or the supernatural or the extrordinary. Yes, it does

Your empty say-so is not persuasive. If you wish to compel others to accept what you're saying, you need to support your assertions.

However the God hypotheses is the LEAST "supernatural" due to the fact that God is within himself energy, conciouse intelligence and creates time, this way theres no infinite regression.

And your evidence for this is..............?

Logic puzzles aside, you're kind of missing the point. The alternative to God, "nothing+chance+time" or "infinite regression" is more "supernatural" and is not scientifically testable. Thus, "nothing+chance+time" or "infinite regression" did it, cannot be a scientific explanation. If you can't test it, it's not science.

Nope. Your "hallmarks of the world" are all based on your religious beliefs about the existence of "nothing+chance+time" or "infinite regression" and the nature of those things. That's not science.

Funny, but "I know you are but what am I" type rebuttals won't do you any favors.

Misunderstanding. SIMPLICITY does not HAVE TO BE design. But COMPLEXITY DOES. And, God did not create with simplicity.

Why? Why does complexity have to be design, if God can just as easily create with simplicity? Basically you're contradicting yourself. If God can create with simplicity then complexity cannot be a necessary condition of design.

No, not religious reasons, LOGICAL REASONS.

No, religious reasons. You've made that quite clear.

Can God create a rock so big he cannot lift it?

I don't know. Do you?

You cannot seperate the other 2 alternatives from the God hypotheses discussion. It all goes together within the same subject with all its intricate details.

Nope. You're trying to present God/design as a viable scientific explanation. As such it needs to stand or fall on its own.

Yes, its impossible for God to do in the same way its logically impossible for God to create a rock so big he cannot lift it.

Why? Why is it impossible for God to create something out of nothing? Why is it impossible for God to utilize chance? Why is it impossible for God to operate within time?

 

[Bird123]

Chocolate ice cream is the best is truth for me, but not everyone. Actually, I am torn between chocolate and vanilla. I like them both. I do not eat either very often.

I think there is truth to be found in the world, but some things may always be a mystery. I think we learn new ways to find that truth every day, but there is no perfect route to it so far. About the only truth that I can share is based on evidence, and even that is contingent on new evidence and what others may learn based on it.

All the secrets and truths Stare us in the face. How long did mankind watch birds fly before mankind discovered how to fly? God hides nothing. Perhaps, it's our vision we all need to work on.

Look at those around you with new eyes. You might be surprised at what new Truth you can Discover. You can learn a lot by watching.

What could one learn from watching God's Actions?? Truth?? Maybe more than one could possibly imagine.

 

[Bird123]

But I don’t see fact and truth to be the same thing.

The difference is this, fact required evidences, and evidences are independent as anyone’s perspective. Evidences are what make fact to be objectively true.

Truth, on the other hand, is dependent on one’s perspective, and even one’s experience.

Sometimes fact and truth are aligned with each other, collaborated with each other. But sometimes they are not.

In the case of the high rise building example. We know for fact that if we can drop any number of objects, it will fall to the ground, including you or I. That the fact, which Newton was able to explain regarding to gravity, and they are based on evidences, and you can do experiments.

It is also be the truth, that if I was to push you off the building, or you were to jump off the ledge or you accidentally tripped, you would fall and hit the pavement. If I was to give a testimony as to what happened, then that one of those scenarios would be the truth.

That you will fall and died from the fall, will be fact. But my testimony of how it happen would either be truth or lie, would be told from my perspective. But how would the police and court decide what I said to be true. The only way that they can determine if my testimony to not only truth but fact too, would be we were not alone on the roof, and how you fall were caught on cameras or with some people’s mobiles, or there are security footage of the event.

Do you see the differences between truth and fact in me elaborating on your example?

I see no difference between Truth and Fact. Perspective might narrow the box by limiting variables. Beliefs also play an important part.

Determining truth is another thing. That is why Truth Must always be questioned. There was a time when it was a fact that the atom was the smallest particle of an element. Having created a limited box, this fact seemed to be the Truth. When the parameters expanded through the acquisition of knowledge, what happened to the truth about the atom? It was no longer true. It was only a Belief.

Perspective was the factor for defining that truth, however the Real Truth existed even when the belief that an atom was the smallest particle of an element was defined as truth.

Can you see that perspective is not really a factor in the Real Truth?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All the secrets and truths Stare us in the face. How long did mankind watch birds fly before mankind discovered how to fly? God hides nothing. Perhaps, it's our vision we all need to work on.

Look at those around you with new eyes. You might be surprised at what new Truth you can Discover. You can learn a lot by watching.

What could one learn from watching God's Actions?? Truth?? Maybe more than one could possibly imagine.

I think there is a lot of truth that we see, but do not see. I know that sounds cryptic, but I think it is obvious when you think about it and fits with old saying like "the forest for the trees" and the like.

The problem that people have is that we do not always want the truth. We want a truth that fits our world view.

As a scientist, I am trained to observe and to minimize bias in those observations and the conclusions that I draw from them. This is something that has to be considered in every experiment set up and every measure taken. If I expect a certain result, the design of the experiment is set up so that I do not guide the experiment to that result, but if it is going to that result, it arrive there naturally and without my help. The work is submitted to the scrutiny of other scientists trained in and working in the same field so that bias and adherence to an established methodology are maintained.

In what I think about regarding my religious philosophy, I do not know of a means to police and maintain truths that arise from there. The only means I have for review are my own ethics and that of others I may discuss what I have seen, learned or concluded. I must place trust in others to help me find truth in that arena, but there is no mechanism I know to verify the findings or a peer review to determine if the findings are real or just what another believes or wants others to believe. It is not an easy road, but life never has been.

How do I determine if what I am watching are God's actions and not just some natural phenomenon with no guidance in place? Now I have felt things that I think are true, but I have no way to verify that or to broadcast it to another in a way that they too can say that it happened and is true. In that, it comes to trust and even there, it is not guaranteed to be a truth. I see beauty in the world and I have my personal belief as to the origin of that beauty, but I also know some of the facts of science that lead to what I perceive as beauty and explain it in terms of what others have found. I do not see that the latter has to cancel out the former, but I can use the latter to convey information to others in ways that I cannot with the former.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Exactly. As long as God can create with simplicity, then complexity cannot be a necessary outcome of "design", which means "design" cannot be falsified on the basis of complexity or simplicity.


And as before you're just imposing your philosophical preferences onto your proposal, which is entirely unscientific.


Not in the way you're doing it. If you disagree, then provide a specific example.


Why are those "alternatives to God"? Are you saying God cannot create something out of nothing? God cannot create using chance? God cannot create within time?


Those are interesting assertions, but at this point that's all they are. If you truly think scientists are invoking "magic" in their explanations, provide a specific example (and not just you asserting such, but a link or citation to where we can all directly see them doing so).


But God could create a universe that from all indications looks eternal, correct?


Your empty say-so is not persuasive. If you wish to compel others to accept what you're saying, you need to support your assertions.


And your evidence for this is..............?


Funny, but "I know you are but what am I" type rebuttals won't do you any favors.


Why? Why does complexity have to be design, if God can just as easily create with simplicity? Basically you're contradicting yourself. If God can create with simplicity then complexity cannot be a necessary condition of design.


No, religious reasons. You've made that quite clear.


I don't know. Do you?


Nope. You're trying to present God/design as a viable scientific explanation. As such it needs to stand or fall on its own.


Why? Why is it impossible for God to create something out of nothing? Why is it impossible for God to utilize chance? Why is it impossible for God to operate within time?

His main assumption is that everything he thinks about God is true without benefit of explaining and supporting how it is true. He regards evidence the same way. It all reveals design to him, but he does not explain how it does this.

In my opinion, your opening statement destroys his claims about complexity and how it figures into his redefinition of design. I know from the work of others and my own observations that complexity is not a requirement of evolution and not always the result of it either. Parasites are an excellent example of a polyphyletic group of organisms that have tended toward simplicity due to the environments in which they exist.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If I step off a High Rise Building, it doesn't matter what others claim to be the Truth. I am going to fall. Religions claim to have truth but do they? Why do you think they teach others to value Beliefs above all else? Until they have Real Evidence, they only have Beliefs.

The good news is that Real Truth does not change. Further, some Truths started as Beliefs. As I stated before, Beliefs only point the direction by which one might search for the Truth. If one Really Values Truth. One can not stop at mere Beliefs.

Of course, Discovering Real Truth takes much more work. It's so much easier to value Beliefs then argue who is right. On the other hand, what do you really have when you are done?

I have used that "falling off a high rise" example in similar discussions before, myself. All the evidence and theory predicts that we would fall and every experiment to date has upheld that prediction.

I am not here to discuss in great detail, what I believe, but you are taking a very philosophical approach that I confess, curries my interest. I believe, but do not know, that there are things that are universal truths. What I do know is that it does not appear we have to find them through religion alone and the diligent seeker can find them in many places. I know many atheists that hold the exact same values as I do with regards to life and liberty, but did not arrive at them through the exact same means I did. Since there are so many paths that each of us can trod, it would be simple to say that having values arises from one source, but there appears to be many coordinating sources and some that are independent of each other that lead to the same value space. Since, most of the atheists I know personally, are from the US, there is going to be some basis for the similarity, having grown up in the same country with the same laws and protected rights. But I do wonder how similar positions can be arrived at from different starting points and through different experiences. I wonder about how some things may be universal regardless of what you believe religiously or not. I cannot, for example, say that some of our morals do not arrive in our culture due to evolution through our cooperative natures. Perhaps this is why you can arrive at them from different philosophical positions. I recall from my earliest memories, that my church and family were the primary sources of my moral basis, but I can only claim that as true for me and reflect that it does seem true for some others.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You misunderstand why i said "God COULD" create with simplicity.

This dont mean he will or did, or wants to or even intertains the idea too. This means he has the POWER to create simply.

I have the ability to chop my hand off, but i wont, i dont want to and on so many levels its rediculious.

So yes, God COULD have created the universe as one massive simple blob of bla. It would be one blob of just one part all the way through, no complexity at all. Then after making this pointless blob of bla, look at it forever and say "boy God, you are some genius of an engineer, arent you?"

On a philosophical level, this is absurd. Absurd for 3 reasons.

1: the universe is not a blob.
2: its pointless to make it as a blob.
3: the complexity of the universe indicates what real design simulates.



Yes, we can do this. Science deals with the physical world, but science uses inference and philosophy as well.

The way God COULD have made the universe a blob is the same way engineers could have made vehicles to look like basketballs driving down the road. COULD have is one thing, did? No. Like to? No. A point to it? Heck no.



The 2 alternatives to God (aka supernatural) is "nothing+chance+time" did it....... OR........the universe was always here in one form or another.

These alternatives are MORE MAGICAL and fantastical then the God hypothesis due to the fact that from nothing, nothing comes. Also, the coin flippin machine i told you about rules out chance and reveals factors.

Also, the universe being eternal is equally fantastical due to infinite regression of causes would mean all events would take forever to happen, hence never would.

So, you ask if science deals with magic or the supernatural or the extrordinary. Yes, it does, its FORCED too due to all three options being extrordinary. However the God hypotheses is the LEAST "supernatural" due to the fact that God is within himself energy, conciouse intelligence and creates time, this way theres no infinite regression.



Logic puzzles aside, you're kind of missing the point. The alternative to God, "nothing+chance+time" or "infinite regression" is more "supernatural" and is not scientifically testable. Thus, "nothing+chance+time" or "infinite regression" did it, cannot be a scientific explanation. If you can't test it, it's not science.



Nope. Your "hallmarks of the world" are all based on your religious beliefs about the existence of "nothing+chance+time" or "infinite regression" and the nature of those things. That's not science.



Misunderstanding. SIMPLICITY does not HAVE TO BE design. But COMPLEXITY DOES. And, God did not create with simplicity.



No, not religious reasons, LOGICAL REASONS.

Can God create a rock so big he cannot lift it?



You cannot seperate the other 2 alternatives from the God hypotheses discussion. It all goes together within the same subject with all its intricate details.



Yes, its impossible for God to do in the same way its logically impossible for God to create a rock so big he cannot lift it.

Simplicity does not mean without form. A simple universe does not have to be some sort of blob and I am not sure why you would expect that is the only outcome for simplicity.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evidence isn’t “inference”, Jollybear.

There is more to science than “inference”...more than just a series of implies (eg complexity implies design, order implies design, design implies designer, etc, etc, etc)...and more than just “philosophy” or “philosophical” hogwash.

All you are doing is making meaningless noises, none of which is science.

You seriously don’t understand how science and you don’t understand what “scientific evidence” is.

Scientific evidence isn’t inference of anything or implying anything.

You can use inferences all you want, but none of them are evidences, Jollybear. You can use your circular reasoning with the series of implies of “design” or “designer” until you are red or blue in the face, but none of these implying have anything to do with evidences.

The rest of your reply about the Designer, like your first two paragraphs, are nothing more than your display of ignorance to what constructed as evidences, sophistry, hosts of fallacies and just more hogwash.

My experience is that creationist think that what they believe is evidence. That believing is evidence of what is believed. If you believe in ESP, then anything that could be ESP is ESP regardless of other possible explanations or causes. Even those that are more likely to be the real result over what one could perceive to be ESP.

It is another example of how creationist view science as a set of malleable opinions and a philosophical position rather than a body of knowledge expressed in logical theories and conclusions based on evidence. They think a conclusion in science is opinion or propaganda.

 

[gnostic]

I see no difference between Truth and Fact. Perspective might narrow the box by limiting variables. Beliefs also play an important part.

Determining truth is another thing. That is why Truth Must always be questioned.

And I agreed with all that. Yes, truth needs to be questioned, as fact should also be challenged.

Both fact and truth are attempts to find what is true and what isn’t true, but as I said before, truth don’t necessarily require evidences, but fact strictly requires evidences.

Evidences provide a mean to determine something that is true, independent of what we like or dislike, what we want or need or don’t want or need.

Whereas truth can be determine either objectively or subjectively, or with evidences or without evidences, or by reasoning or by feeling.

Truth relate to someone’s perspective, while fact allow evidences to determine what is true or not.

 

[SonOfElElyon]

In mathematics, a proof is an inferential argument for a mathematical statement. In the argument, other previously established statements, such as theorems, can be used. In principle, a proof can be traced back to self-evident or assumed statements, known as axioms,[2][3][4] along with accepted rules of inference. Axioms may be treated as conditions that must be met before the statement applies. Proofs are examples of exhaustive deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning and are distinguished from empirical arguments or non-exhaustive inductive reasoning (or "reasonable expectation"). A proof must demonstrate that a statement is always true (occasionally by listing all possible cases and showing that it holds in each), rather than enumerate many confirmatory cases. An unproved proposition that is believed to be true is known as a conjecture.

ELEMENTARY!

 

[gnostic]

My experience is that creationist think that what they believe is evidence. That believing is evidence of what is believed.

Yes, there are creationists like that, here and elsewhere.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Take it easy. Take it slow. No fuss.

First question. Is it okay for me to reject evolution while accepting other tenets of science?

No. That would be irrational.