 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:43 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Pondering wrote: | | Then as a scientist "shame on you." As a free thinking human being, make your own conclusions....you deride the Christians for blindly following dogma, and yet here you are blindly following "The Word" because a "consensus of scientists" have stated fact A....you believe that may be true, so you take "The Word" as "Truth".... |
Amen.
I've been telling him this for over 3 years now... glad somebody else stepped up and pointed out the obvious.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8334
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Pondering wrote: | | Then as a scientist "shame on you." As a free thinking human being, make your own conclusions....you deride the Christians for blindly following dogma, and yet here you are blindly following "The Word" because a "consensus of scientists" have stated fact A....you believe that may be true, so you take "The Word" as "Truth".... |
Amen.
I've been telling him this for over 3 years now... glad somebody else stepped up and pointed out the obvious. |
I don't "blindly follow dogma". I am aware of the scientific arguments. I talk to climate scientists all the time. I attend lectures and seminars. I have read many papers in the area myself.
I have come to the conclusion that the mainstream consensus view is completely correct.
I'm a logician, and I know how to analyze arguments, and tell the difference between good and bad arguments.
The mainstream arguments have convinced me, and I am happy to repeat and endorse them. You guys should have a little respect for science.
What is it with all of the people on this board attacking science?!? You guys attack evolution and the age of the Earth and the Big Bang, and global warming... Where is all of this distrust and hatred of science coming from?!?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I'm a logician, and I know how to analyze arguments, and tell the difference between good and bad arguments. |
| Quote: | | You guys should have a little respect for science. |
I have the utmost respect for science. I simply don't worship it as the be all, end all.
| Quote: |
What is it with all of the people on this board attacking science?!? You guys attack evolution and the age of the Earth and the Big Bang, and global warming... Where is all of this distrust and hatred of science coming from?!? |
Hmmm.... you attack our spirituality and religions, and you whine when someone attacks yours?
I won't speak for others, but for me I do not attack science but the misapplication of science by dogmatic acolytes. I take science for what it is and what it offers. I do not believe it has all the answers, nor will it have all the answers and I believe that those who claim it does are deluded and just as dangerous as the 'religious fanatics' that you and yours continually rail against.
When one who promotes the reverence to science like you do, makes claims that something is fact and truth when the science doesn't add up, or itself says that something is theory, or probable (even possible); then I feel just as sullied as some religious nut who tells me God says something that clearly is not of God, or that scripture asserts something that it clearly does not.
When someone clings to science yet dismisses independent thought, contravening theory, all applicable or possibly applicable date, in order to promote a narrow point of view; then I see that person as dangerous as the inquisitors of old.
You claim logic and science, yet dismiss the rest of academia in forming your arguments. You reject what y'all refer to as 'soft science' even though the academic truth presented by those sciences is without question, and usually you do so because they present ideas different than your current dogma.
So, for I, I do not 'distrust and hate science', I distrust those who misuse it, and twist it for their own personal reasons. Same as I do any other religious nut twisting scripture.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8334
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: |
Hmmm.... you attack our spirituality and religions, and you whine when someone attacks yours? |
Unfortunately, religion has *serious* problems with it, and even many of the Christians on this discussion board agree that this is the case.
Science isn't a religion or a form of spirituality, but people who attack it are wrong to do so. Science, logic, and critical thinking don't have anything wrong with them. They're the best we've got.
| RevJP wrote: |
I won't speak for others, but for me I do not attack science but the misapplication of science by dogmatic acolytes. |
Unfortunately, your definition of dogmatic acolytes includes anyone who believes that humans evolved from lower primates.
Pondering's definition of dogmatic acolytes includes the scientists who say that global warming is happening and that humans are to blame.
Pete and Dust's definition of dogmatic acolytes includes the scientists who say that the Big Bang happened.
Prysdieheer's definition of dogmatic acolytes includes all scientists who say that the Earth is billions of years old.
You guys are all making the same mistake: You have preconceived notions and you disagree with the experts, even though you shouldn't because they know a lot more about these topics than you do.
| RevJP wrote: |
I do not believe it has all the answers, nor will it have all the answers
|
I agree.
| RevJP wrote: |
and I believe that those who claim it does are deluded and just as dangerous as the 'religious fanatics' that you and yours continually rail against.
|
I don't think there is anyone who claims that science has all the answers or that it ever will have all the answers. This isn't how science works.
| RevJP wrote: |
When one who promotes the reverence to science like you do, |
Science isn't something to be worshiped; it is a tool and a way of thinking which is much more sound than blind faith.
| RevJP wrote: |
makes claims that something is fact and truth when the science doesn't add up, |
The science on global warming, the age of the Earth and Universe, the Big Bang, and evolution ALL adds up, and adds up VERY well. Anyone who disagrees has lost their perspective or objectivity.
| RevJP wrote: |
When someone clings to science yet dismisses independent thought, |
This is a contradiction in terms. Science demands independent thought. Why do you think there are more atheists among scientists than in any other segment of the population?
| RevJP wrote: |
You claim logic and science, yet dismiss the rest of academia in forming your arguments. You reject what y'all refer to as 'soft science' |
No I don't! The soft sciences have their time and place.
| RevJP wrote: |
even though the academic truth presented by those sciences is without question, |
This isn't true; the soft sciences give conclusions which are much more subjective than the natural sciences.
| RevJP wrote: |
So, for I, I do not 'distrust and hate science', I distrust those who misuse it, and twist it for their own personal reasons. Same as I do any other religious nut twisting scripture. |
I have news for you: Claiming that evolutionists misuse science and twist if for their own personal reasons IS you distrusting and hating science!
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1512
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
so..no comment to my post from the bottom of page 20 of this thread???
_________________
Links of note:"Review for Doubting Christians"
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs
“You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong...You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” - Ronald Reagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank P123... you've proved my point splendidly.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theseldomscene
Banned
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 7817
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i am soooo hapy i started this thread...this is some good stuff all the way around...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
King of the Jungle
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1512
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| theseldomscene wrote: | | i am soooo hapy i started this thread...this is some good stuff all the way around... |
I agree! Like this National Palestinian...I mean Public Radio segment...
"Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them."
 
_________________
Links of note:"Review for Doubting Christians"
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs
“You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong...You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” - Ronald Reagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P123... wrote: | | I have news for you: Claiming that evolutionists misuse science and twist if for their own personal reasons IS you distrusting and hating science! |
This is the most erroneous statement I read from you in a while. What I said was:
| Quote: |
I do not 'distrust and hate science', I distrust those who misuse it, and twist it for their own personal reasons. Same as I do any other religious nut twisting scripture. |
It is extremely clear in this statement that my distrust lies with those who misuse and misrepresent science. That you could possibly take a clear and concise statement of who I distrust and try to make it mean something entirely different is a shinning example of my meaning. You distort the facts in order to promote your own agenda.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8334
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | You distort the facts in order to promote your own agenda. |
RevJP, I don't even think that you know what a fact is.
That humans evolved from lower primates is a scientific fact. That the Earth is warming and humans are the primary cause is a scientific fact. That black holes and neutron stars exist, and that the Big Bang happened are all scientific facts. That the Earth is billions of years old is a fact.
In fact, they are all issues on which there is mainstream scientific consensus. Virtually all of the respective experts agree about these things! And yet for some reason I'm *CONSTANTLY* having to defend these facts from assault in multiple threads and forums.
Do you even realize that this is the main thing I do on this forum? I spend most of my time here defending ESTABLISHED science from unscientific attack. This seems to be my primary function here, and that's scary.
And it's not just one or two people who are attacking science here. It's A LOT of people. I don't know if it's fair to say that religious people hate science, but you folks sure have an unhealthy distrust of it. I get the impression that the religious people here spend just as much time thinking about how wrong science is as they do thinking about God.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1566
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
And it's not just one or two people who are attacking science here. It's A LOT of people. I don't know if it's fair to say that religious people hate science, but you folks sure have an unhealthy distrust of it. I get the impression that the religious people here spend just as much time thinking about how wrong science is as they do thinking about God. |
The very best part of that is the mode of communication they're using - one of the pinnacles of scientific advancement!
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth.
Ana's Bananas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P123... wrote: | | That humans evolved from lower primates is a scientific fact |
It is a theory, as yet irrefutably proven.
| Quote: | | That the Earth is warming and humans are the primary cause is a scientific fact |
Part fact, part hypothesis. The earth IS warming, the science indicates that humans are the primary cause but the proof is still debatable. The best that science can offer at this point is that the evidence indicates humanities involvement. It is those like you who do not understand the difference between fact and opinion, who promote the idea that human cause is a fact.
| Quote: | | That black holes and neutron stars exist, and that the Big Bang happened are all scientific facts. |
Why should I care?
| Quote: | | That the Earth is billions of years old is a fact. |
So what?
| Quote: | | In fact, they are all issues on which there is mainstream scientific consensus. Virtually all of the respective experts agree about these things! |
and there it is in a nutshell: You, who profess to be a logician, constantly support all, or most, of your assertions, on a logical fallacy - appeal to authority.  You present a theory as a fact and then state that because a lot of smart people believe it it has to be true. I'm sorry, but that is the most unscientific, illogical, approach I've ever had the misfortune to witness.
| Quote: | | And yet for some reason I'm *CONSTANTLY* having to defend these facts from assault in multiple threads and forums. |
Perhaps because the data is not conclusive? If something were undeniably true and all the evidence supported it as fact, then you wouldn't have to *CONSTANTLY* defend your assertions.
| Quote: |
I don't know if it's fair to say that religious people hate science, but you folks sure have an unhealthy distrust of it. I get the impression that the religious people here spend just as much time thinking about how wrong science is as they do thinking about God. |
Maybe, just maybe you could spend less time trying to make science prove the bible wrong then, and perhaps take an opposing paradigm and see how science supports scripture? For instance: you started a thread on 'Scientific Errors In the Bible', a thread in which you misrepresented what the bible actually said, repeatedly and intentionally, in order to try and prove and unprovable point. You ignored linguistics, literary academics and who knows what else to insist that the scriptures said something that it just doesn't say. All to prove a point that was wrong from the beginning.
What I personally would have loved to have seen is you, a claimed adherent to the sciences, to actually have looked at what scripture stated, considered what scientific evidence was available, and explore the possibility of there being a joining of the two. In other words: How would science explain, and or support, what scripture said?
In this thread I clearly stated that I do not distrust and hate science, but that I do distrust those who misuse and misrepresent science. You ignored that statement and asserted something quite different. That assertion was simply a misrepresentation of what I stated, and so logically inconsistent that it amazes me that you could do such a thing and still claim to be adept at critical thinking, logical analysis, and whatever else. I wonder; does recognizing and stating the truth come into play in your concept of logic and critical thinking?
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8334
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | It is a theory, as yet irrefutably proven. |
It is a theory AND it has been irrefutably proven, at least as much as science can prove anything.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | That the Earth is warming and humans are the primary cause is a scientific fact |
Part fact, part hypothesis. The earth IS warming, the science indicates that humans are the primary cause but the proof is still debatable. The best that science can offer at this point is that the evidence indicates humanities involvement. |
Fifteen years ago you could have said this and gotten away with it. That is no longer the case.
| RevJP wrote: |
It is those like you who do not understand the difference between fact and opinion, who promote the idea that human cause is a fact. |
It's not an opinion; humans being the primary cause of global warming really is a fact. It has been conclusively demonstrated scientifically.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | That black holes and neutron stars exist, and that the Big Bang happened are all scientific facts. |
Why should I care?
| Quote: | | That the Earth is billions of years old is a fact. |
So what? |
Many of your fellow Christians on this discussion board would disagree with these statements.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | In fact, they are all issues on which there is mainstream scientific consensus. Virtually all of the respective experts agree about these things! |
and there it is in a nutshell: You, who profess to be a logician, constantly support all, or most, of your assertions, on a logical fallacy - appeal to authority. |
First of all, an 'appeal to authority' is considered a fallacy if it is an authority speaking outside of his/her area of expertise. Appealing to authorities speaking INSIDE their area of expertise is not a fallacy, especially not when there is overwhelming consensus among the authorities. And ESPECIALLY not when I REPEAT THEIR ARGUMENTS, which I do almost constantly.
When I talk about global warming, do I just say, "The experts say so, so it must be right?", or do I ALSO repeat many of the scientific arguments and reference important research papers?
| RevJP wrote: |
You present a theory as a fact
|
I don't think you know what 'theory' means. You realize that a theory can also be a fact, right? The theory of gravity is a good example. The theory of relativity is another good example. The theory of evolution is yet another good example.
Theories are well-developed explanations for physical phenomena.
So yes, I present theories as facts all the time, and there is nothing wrong with that, because they ARE facts.
| RevJP wrote: |
and then state that because a lot of smart people believe it it has to be true. |
No, if the overwhelming majority of the relevant experts agree that it is true, then it is almost certainly true. Contrary to what you might believe, this is a sound argument. But I don't stop there; I also give many of their arguments. Unfortunately, many people here don't find them to be convincing.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | And yet for some reason I'm *CONSTANTLY* having to defend these facts from assault in multiple threads and forums. |
Perhaps because the data is not conclusive? |
That's the problem: Evolution, the Big Bang, the age of the Earth, black holes, and neutron stars ARE based on conclusive, compelling scientific arguments.
| RevJP wrote: |
If something were undeniably true and all the evidence supported it as fact, then you wouldn't have to *CONSTANTLY* defend your assertions. |
Look, there are two possibilities here. Either the people on this forum, many of whom are not very-well educated in science, and in fact distrust science as well as have strongly misguided religious biases against science are wrong, or humanity's scientific experts are wrong.
I know who I'm betting on.
| RevJP wrote: |
What I personally would have loved to have seen is you, a claimed adherent to the sciences, to actually have looked at what scripture stated, considered what scientific evidence was available, and explore the possibility of there being a joining of the two. In other words: How would science explain, and or support, what scripture said? |
I've done this lots of times here, but the problem is that it doesn't get very far. On more than one occasion I have pointed out in exasperation that the Big Bang theory basically says the same thing as the Bible: That the Universe had a beginning. But for some reason many of the Christians here keep on bashing it. I just don't get it.
On other occasions I've pointed out that you guys should use science to better understand scripture. For example, science has showed us exactly HOW God created all of the creatures on Earth: He used evolution. But you guys still reject evolution.
Believe me, I've tried what you're suggesting, but it just doesn't get very much traction.
| RevJP wrote: |
I wonder; does recognizing and stating the truth come into play in your concept of logic and critical thinking? |
Yes, that's the whole point of science and logic and critical thinking: To figure out the truth.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It is a theory AND it has been irrefutably proven, at least as much as science can prove anything. |
cognitive dissonance.
It is a theory that has the support of much of the scientific community, but there is in existence no irrefutable proof that the theory is a fact.
THEORY: a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
FACT: a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true.
Evolutionary theory is definitively NOT fact, no matter how hard you try to do semantic gymnastics.
| Quote: | Fifteen years ago you could have said this and gotten away with it. That is no longer the case.
It's not an opinion; humans being the primary cause of global warming really is a fact. It has been conclusively demonstrated scientifically. |
Are you even aware that there currently exists a strong debate on this issue? You should be since you have been debating on this board yourself. The truth of the matter is this:
Some scientists currently believes that humans are the primary cause for global warming. However science does not have sufficient data for the history of climate change on this planet and its potential or probable causes. Historically, humans have been an insufficient element to cause climate change and yet science recognizes that climate change has indeed occurred in the past. Subsequently, it is definitively NOT a fact that humans are the primary cause for climate change, but the evidence that this may be true is certainly worth examining.
| Quote: | | Many of your fellow Christians on this discussion board would disagree with these statements. |
So what, why should I care?
| Quote: | | First of all, an 'appeal to authority' is considered a fallacy if it is an authority speaking outside of his/her area of expertise. Appealing to authorities speaking INSIDE their area of expertise is not a fallacy, especially not when there is overwhelming consensus among the authorities. And ESPECIALLY not when I REPEAT THEIR ARGUMENTS, which I do almost constantly. |
when you ignore or dismiss contravening arguments and evidence though, you most certainly are committing a logical fallacy. You basically say: Many smart people think this and it agrees with what I think so it must be true.
| Quote: | | I don't think you know what 'theory' means. You realize that a theory can also be a fact, right? |
Apparently I understand the difference much better than you. A theory encompasses facts related evidence and provides coherent explanation of those facts and evidences. A theory is not a fact in any way shape or form. When the evidence is so apparent, or observation is supplied which is repeatable and demonstrable, the theory then becomes a law or rule dependent upon the field of study.
| Quote: | | The theory of gravity is a good example. |
I think you are reaching for something but sadly you missed the mark. Are you referring to gravitational theory? To the best of my knowledge the explanation of gravitational forces has long since moved into the realm of physical law. The only theories still out there concerning gravity are aspects of theoretical physics like quantum gravity and general relativity.
| Quote: | | The theory of evolution is yet another good example. |
Completely offbase. The main point of evolutionary theory, in terms of the many discussions around here, is the idea of macro-evolution, that man could have evolved from lower primates. TOE simply does not have irrefutable proof of this hypothesis. The most the theory can give us is: Observation of micro-evolutionary changes in animals and other forms of life + enough time (which we cannot document or observe) = macro-evolutionary changes.
Because such changes have not been observed, have not been irrefutably documented in any way, the idea that the theory could be considered 'fact' is definitively absurd.
| Quote: | | So yes, I present theories as facts all the time, and there is nothing wrong with that, because they ARE facts. |
As I said before: cognitive dissonance.
| Quote: | | No, if the overwhelming majority of the relevant experts agree that it is true, then it is almost certainly true. Contrary to what you might believe, this is a sound argument. |
I'm sure this is what people told Galileo.
| Quote: | | I also give many of their arguments. Unfortunately, many people here don't find them to be convincing. |
um... Sherlock... this should give you a clue. If people aren't necessarily convinced by what is presented, it probably means that what has been presented isn't all that convincing. Kind of hard to believe that reasonable people would deny that 2+2=4 because the evidence proving that equation is irrefutably true. What you accept on faith as fact, isn't altogether convincing for those who choose to keep an open mind.
| Quote: | I've done this lots of times here, but the problem is that it doesn't get very far. On more than one occasion I have pointed out in exasperation that the Big Bang theory basically says the same thing as the Bible: That the Universe had a beginning. But for some reason many of the Christians here keep on bashing it. I just don't get it.
On other occasions I've pointed out that you guys should use science to better understand scripture. For example, science has showed us exactly HOW God created all of the creatures on Earth: He used evolution. But you guys still reject evolution.
Believe me, I've tried what you're suggesting, but it just doesn't get very much traction. |
I have to agree with you somewhat, and tell you in the same breath that what you think has happened only happened in your mind.
"Lots of times" equals 2-3 times at most, and what is more telling is what your arguments actually stated and how they were presented.
Here's the thing: the Big Bang could most certainly have been the result of God speaking the universe into existence. Science has a handle on what physically happened when God spoke. Good stuff, I do not disagree at all.
Evolution does not explain HOW God created life on this planet simply because of the insistence of TOE adherents to embrace the whole of the theory and not look at it with a critical eye. Do things evolve? Certainly. Do dogs evolve out of fish or men out of apes? No proof of that, just theory. what we do have proof of is a common blueprint for all life on this planet - DNA. The problem here is that this discussion begins to border on ID and TOE acolytes hate that idea more than creation.
The long and the short of it is simply that on the few attempts that you actually made to incorporate science and scripture, you actually tried to do so to make an end run around the scripture rather than to explain how the two compliment each other.
| Quote: | | Yes, that's the whole point of science and logic and critical thinking: To figure out the truth. |
If you understand this concept then why don't you try to embrace it rather than give it lip service? My suggestion is that you take a good hard look at what you do and how you do it because I seriously think that either you have no clue as to the your inconsistencies in your actions and what you seem to think is going on, or you do it on purpose for some bizarre thrill.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8334
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: |
THEORY: a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena |
Thank you! Yes, this is what the word 'theory' means in science, and clearly you get it. So why do you sometimes use it in the 'evolution is only a theory' sense?
| RevJP wrote: |
FACT: a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true. |
NO! You've failed to capture what a fact is in at least two ways:
1. People have 'actual experiences' and observations (as far as they can tell) all the time which are not factual. We call them hallucinations, and humans are absolutely prone to them, so first-hand experience is not a sufficient condition for establishing fact.
2. (And this is the important one) You don't have to have a first-hand observation of something to know it to be a fact. Logical implication can certainly be used to establish fact. For example, if you happen on a murder scene where the victim was stabbed 38 times in the chest, you can conclude with absolute certainty that he was murdered even if nobody witnessed the crime.
| RevJP wrote: |
Evolutionary theory is definitively NOT fact, no matter how hard you try to do semantic gymnastics. |
Yes, it certainly is. By your definition of fact, I agree that you're right. But scientists don't use your definition; they use mine (not that I invented it).
| RevJP wrote: |
Are you even aware that there currently exists a strong debate on this issue?
|
You have been misled by the news media. I agree that the nightly news makes it SOUND like there's a strong debate going on. In fact, there is not, at least not in the scientific community, which is the only debate that matters. You can't see this, because you're not on the 'inside'. I am on the inside. I basically live on campus at a major research university. I talk to real climate scientists on a semi-regular basis. I promise you that things are much different than the reporters would have you believe.
| RevJP wrote: |
Some scientists currently believes that humans are the primary cause for global warming. |
No, almost ALL of the relevant scientists agree that humans are the primary cause for global warming. There really is consensus in the area. The few scientists who dissent tend to have a disturbing record of having been funded by oil companies.
| RevJP wrote: |
However science does not have sufficient data for the history of climate change on this planet and its potential or probable causes. |
Yes, we do, and in fact I have some of the papers. If I send them to you, will you have a look at them?
| RevJP wrote: |
Historically, humans have been an insufficient element to cause climate change and yet science recognizes that climate change has indeed occurred in the past. Subsequently, it is definitively NOT a fact that humans are the primary cause for climate change, |
This is not a logically sound argument. It is absolutely true that there were many past changes in climate which had NOTHING to do with humans. All this shows is that it is POSSIBLE for climate changes to happen without humans being involved. Or put another way: Humans are not a NECESSARY cause in climate change.
This is NOT the same as saying that humans cannot be a SUFFICIENT cause of climate change, and in fact the current global warming era which we are in has definitely been caused by humans. The Earth is a lot warmer now than it would be if there were no humans on the planet. That is an absolute fact. Just look at the CO2 levels. We increased the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere by 50%!!! And it's a greenhouse gas.
| RevJP wrote: |
when you ignore or dismiss contravening arguments and evidence though, you most certainly are committing a logical fallacy. You basically say: Many smart people think this and it agrees with what I think so it must be true. |
No, I basically say, "An overwhelming majority if the experts think this, and here are their reasons WHY they think this, and those reasons are compelling." You seriously think I don't give explanations and justify my position? Read my debate about global warming with Pondering. Just look at how many arguments I give! I cite papers; I cut and paste charts; I explain the science! That's NOT fallacious reasoning!
| RevJP wrote: |
When the evidence is so apparent, or observation is supplied which is repeatable and demonstrable, the theory then becomes a law or rule dependent upon the field of study.
|
And who decides when something becomes a 'law'? The experts, maybe? Did you know that almost all expert biologists consider the 'theory of evolution' to be a 'law' rather than a 'theory'?
| RevJP wrote: |
To the best of my knowledge the explanation of gravitational forces has long since moved into the realm of physical law. |
Same with evolution, only it is a biological law. You don't seem to appreciate how mature the entire area of evolutionary biology is. It isn't speculative at all, but rather is extremely well-established and justified.
| RevJP wrote: |
Completely offbase. The main point of evolutionary theory, in terms of the many discussions around here, is the idea of macro-evolution, that man could have evolved from lower primates. TOE simply does not have irrefutable proof of this hypothesis. |
Yes, it really does. We have multiple lines of orthogonal evidence: The fossil record, DNA evidence, and atavisms, to name a few.
| RevJP wrote: |
The most the theory can give us is: Observation of micro-evolutionary changes in animals and other forms of life + enough time (which we cannot document or observe) = macro-evolutionary changes. |
It gives us a WHOLE lot more than that! Apparently you are not aware of all of the experiments they've done with fruit flies. Through selection they've been able to take one species of fruit flies and turn it into two. They don't even reproduce with each other anymore. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
| RevJP wrote: |
Because such changes have not been observed, have not been irrefutably documented in any way, the idea that the theory could be considered 'fact' is definitively absurd.
|
Actually, macroevolution has been observed (see fruit fly example above), but besides, this is using your definition of fact, which is not the one that science uses.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | No, if the overwhelming majority of the relevant experts agree that it is true, then it is almost certainly true. Contrary to what you might believe, this is a sound argument. |
I'm sure this is what people told Galileo. |
Except today there are thousands of Galileos. They're the experts I keep referring to, and they're all on my side of this argument. The people who prosecuted Galileo are on yours.
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | I also give many of their arguments. Unfortunately, many people here don't find them to be convincing. |
um... Sherlock... this should give you a clue. If people aren't necessarily convinced by what is presented, it probably means that what has been presented isn't all that convincing. |
Or it means that people's religious biases and poor science educations are getting in the way.
All of my arguments are standard scientific arguments. I don't think I've EVER given a radical scientific explanation for anything on this board. If you don't find the arguments I give to be convincing, then you don't find science to be convincing, and that means you're making a mistake somewhere in your reasoning.
| RevJP wrote: |
| P1234567890 wrote: |
Believe me, I've tried what you're suggesting, but it just doesn't get very much traction. |
I have to agree with you somewhat, and tell you in the same breath that what you think has happened only happened in your mind.
"Lots of times" equals 2-3 times at most, and what is more telling is what your arguments actually stated and how they were presented.
|
Do you want me to go searching for my old posts and prove to you that I've done this a lot more than 2-3 times?
| RevJP wrote: |
Evolution does not explain HOW God created life on this planet simply because of the insistence of TOE adherents to embrace the whole of the theory and not look at it with a critical eye. Do things evolve? Certainly. Do dogs evolve out of fish or men out of apes? No proof of that, just theory. |
No proof except for the fossil record, DNA evidence, and atavisms, you mean.
| RevJP wrote: |
what we do have proof of is a common blueprint for all life on this planet - DNA. The problem here is that this discussion begins to border on ID and TOE acolytes hate that idea more than creation. |
No, we 'hate' them equally because ID and creation are the same thing.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
