|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 144 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Apr-30-10
 | | OhioChessFan: <whatthefat: Every single piece of evidence you have listed is the result of a carefully controlled and repeatable experiment. > Human observation of the geologic record and animal species in various parts of the world? Observation in nature = a carefully controlled and repeatable experiment? |
|
Apr-30-10
| | OhioChessFan: <Nako: "If you teach children that they evolved from monkeys, then they will act like monkeys"> It's my experience all children act like monkeys no matter what you teach them. I do think if you teach children there are no consequences beyond this lifetime for bad behavior, it has a terrible impact on their human development. |
|
Apr-30-10
| | OhioChessFan: <playground: As to ID: why should any theory have to "reflect the prevailing view of scientists"? I would think scientists, of all people, would object to that! As for not being testable, the same objection applies to Darwinism. > The double standard is remarkable.
<My objection to ID is that it doesn't go far enough, and that some of its practitioners are not being honest about promoting a religious belief. Why should anyone be embarrassed about promoting a religious belief? > I can't quantify it, but I do think some, probably most, are guilty of this. I don't think it's embarrassment so much as feeling beholdened to the legal and school systems that are patently liberal dominated in an Ayn Randesque way. Is it better to get ID in without an appeal to religion than not have a competing viewpoint to Darwinism? Not an easy question to answer. |
|
Apr-30-10
| | OhioChessFan: <whatthefat: The same goes for <OCF>. A few months ago he wasn't clear on how a fossil even forms. > Evidence for this claim, please.
<He's also made it abundantly clear on several occasions that he doesn't understand the scientific method: he has confused the meanings of "fact" and "theory", he has considered Darwinism to be a theory of how non-life evolved into life,> I've denied this already. But I'll let that go now and ask a yes/no question. Can you believe life did not come from nonlife and believe in Darwinism? < and he is fundamentally confused about what constitutes scientific evidence and how a theory is developed.> Vague charge. Speicfics, please?
<Yet he now claims to be sufficiently expert in the fossil record to determine whether it supports Genesis or not, and sufficiently expert in evolution theory to determine the degree of scientific support.> Push comes to shove and you fall back on vagaries. Specific claim I made to the charges laid against me? <Clearly he is ignorant to the field of science. Now that is not a problem in itself - everyone is ignorant about plenty of things. The problem is that he feels qualified to make judgments about things he is completely ignorant about, and that he perpetuates this state by refusing to process information that doesn't conform with his predetermined beliefs (i.e., willful ignorance).> Your homework assignment is to address the points I raised here. I don't mind discussing and disagreeing. I won't have you making false claims against me on this forum. |
|
Apr-30-10
| | OhioChessFan: <whatthefat: ID is *not* a scientific theory, by definition. It is untestable, and unfalsifiable (cf. YouRangism). Honestly, we've been through this, over this, around this, a thousand times over. > Somehow, the miracle of life from nonlife qualifies as testable and falsifiable in your mind. Or else it's not a theory. But it's foundational to your position. Either way, we can start with that idea, though there be no evidence for it whatsoever. Pretending the Bible doesn't exist, could I invent ID as a hypothesis and start working from there? If not, why not? |
|
Apr-30-10
| | OhioChessFan: <To be more precise, scientists assume that there is a natural explanation for life coming from nonlife, and that it evolved according to theory, to what we see now. > They assume in something that is not scientific. They presume that which gets them out of the starting gate, when they otherwise wouldn't be in the race. This is my baseline problem with your viewpoint. If there is any point that stuns me, it's that. I think it takes a world of endoctrination to think that makes sense. |
|
Apr-30-10
| | OhioChessFan: <YouRang: Should science discontinue to search for a true understanding of nature because of some supposed consequence to society based on some correlation of religious beliefs?> I think this is an interesting question. I would say no. I'm not sure if there might be some extreme point at which it may be best to let things go. I wish we'd never discovered the secret of nuclear power, for example. Not sure how that might correlate to the religious beliefs point, but is sort of an example where it might be best not to pursue scientific knowledge too far. |
|
Apr-30-10
| | OhioChessFan: <YouRang: I don't know if you even realize it or not, but you often use sarcasm as a substitute for reason.> I am well aware of my propensity to be sarcastic. I try to comfort myself by thinking I return it when I have been demeaned. Maybe I should let it go entirely. I don't know. Anyway, a substitute for reason? No. |
|
Apr-30-10
| | OhioChessFan: Thought just hit me that theistic evolution might be considered Darwinism or a subset, so that TE believers might not insist life came from nonlife. |
|
| Apr-30-10 | | cormier: Both Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said,
“It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first,
but since you reject it
and condemn yourselves as unworthy of eternal life,
we now turn to the Gentiles.
For so the Lord has commanded us,
I have made you a light to the Gentiles,
that you may be an instrument of salvation
to the ends of the earth.”
The Gentiles were delighted when they heard this
and glorified the word of the Lord.
All who were destined for eternal life came to believe,
and the word of the Lord continued to spread
through the whole region. |
|
| Apr-30-10 | | YouRang: <whatthefat><ID is *not* a scientific theory, by definition. It is untestable, and unfalsifiable (cf. YouRangism).> Sadly true. Even *I* can't convince those crazy YouRangists that I was just making an example. ;-) <I think I'm soon going to have to develop a code of symoblic links to previous points to streamline this discussion, e.g., (#) will mean "Science makes no judgment on the occurrence of miracles, since they are untestable and unfalsifiable, and provide no advance in our understanding of nature"; (*) will mean "The same can be said of any mythological account of creation"; etc..> Lol! Good idea! :-)
Maybe lets leave the exclamation mark alone in case we want to express outrage that this simple concept is *still* not being processed. #!!!!! |
|
| Apr-30-10 | | thegoodanarchist: <YouRang:
Meanwhile, I stand by my statement that science has generally proven to be beneficial.> Antibiotics, anyone? How about the electric light, IC engines, computers, telephones, plastic, cellular telephones, chess engines, word processors, super highways, bridges, tunnels, washing machines, food to feed 7 billion people, vitamins, satellites, chemotherapy, dentistry, eye glasses, trans-oceanic cargo ships, railroads, submarines, time dilation, Hubble telescope images, mp3 files, dvds, indoor plumbing, blah blah blah blah blah... |
|
| Apr-30-10 | | YouRang: <OhioChessFan> Regarding this exchange: <<YouRang: I don't know if you even realize it or not, but you often use sarcasm as a substitute for reason.>OCF: I am well aware of my propensity to be sarcastic. I try to comfort myself by thinking I return it when I have been demeaned.> You gave your sarcastic reply to the post below. I presume then that this is the post where where you thought you were 'demeaned': <YouRang: But let me summarize: There is a point where a theory has been so strongly confirmed for so long, that it is perverse to continue to doubt that it will continue to be confirmed. At that point, a scientist will go forward and use it "without doubt".However, there is always *room for doubt* in science, in the sense that one can never rule out the possibility that a future observation will challenge the theory by not behaving as the theory predicted it should. Do you not understand this, do you disagree with it, or are you just unwilling to process it?> This was a perfectly sincere attempt on my part to explain why scientists might express "no doubt" about a theory, and yet still leave "room for doubt" since there is no guarantee that it will always remain unchallenged. In other words, the "no doubt" reflects a position in a moment of time -- it's not a "guarantee forever". Perhaps you were miffed that I suggested at the end that you were unwilling to process it? I can see that, but I hope you can see that I've explained this same point several times now, and yet you keep raising the same objection at me without offering a rebuttal to my explanation. Thus, the possibility that you aren't processing seems to present itself. <Maybe I should let it go entirely. I don't know. Anyway, a substitute for reason? No.> Well, since you didn't offer any reason, but you did offer sarcasm, it sure looked like a substitute for reason at my end. I'll even back up my claim that you've done it before. How about here? OhioChessFan chessforum |
|
| Apr-30-10 | | thegoodanarchist: <OhioChessFan:
It's my experience all children act like monkeys no matter what you teach them. I do think if you teach children there are no consequences beyond this lifetime for bad behavior, it has a terrible impact on their human development.> It is my experience that if you treat children with respect and attention, they are precocious and well-behaved! Also, all the most moral, caring, fair, protective, kind, and upright people I know are atheists. The nastiest, most hate-filled people I know are monotheists. Please note, I am not attributing these traits to you or any posters in this forum. I am speaking of my personal life, that's all... |
|
| Apr-30-10 | | YouRang: <thegoodanarchist> Yes, and I would be normally be almost ashamed to be stating the obvious like that. But some here think that scientists are lying scoundrels, bent on deliberately promoting falsehoods in order to make themselves out to be god. |
|
| Apr-30-10 | | cormier: Genesis 1 (New International Version)
Genesis 1
The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. 6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. |
|
Apr-30-10
| | OhioChessFan: <YouRang: You gave your sarcastic reply to the post below. I presume then that this is the post where where you thought you were 'demeaned':> It was in response to this post:
OhioChessFan chessforum <TO SCIENTISTS, doubt is a Good Thing.......TO RELIGIONISTS, doubt is a Bad Thing> But when push comes to shove, the doubt the scientists have that makes you wax so lyrical might as well be a one in a gazillion chance. |
|
| Apr-30-10 | | whatthefat: <OCF: Yes. I think they give an indication of a catastrophic event that caused a lot of life forms to die quickly.> <OCF: Let me start over. "A certain point in time"? No.> If you are unable to date the fossils to a certain point in time then how do they in any way support a catastrophic event? |
|
| Apr-30-10 | | whatthefat: <OCF: Human observation of the geologic record and animal species in various parts of the world? Observation in nature = a carefully controlled and repeatable experiment?> Absolutely, all such experiments have to meet stringent criteria to pass peer review, as you'd be aware if you read any of the scientific literature. Moreover, they are easily repeatable by other scientists. One of the most important elements of scientific writing is communicating the work in a fashion that allows others to replicate the experiment to test for repeatability. |
|
| Apr-30-10 | | cormier: New Living Translation (©2007)
Then God said, "Let the waters beneath the sky flow together into one place, so dry ground may appear." And that is what happened.Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
1:6-13 The earth was emptiness, but by a word spoken, it became full of God's riches, and his they are still. Though the use of them is allowed to man, they are from God, and to his service and honour they must be used. The earth, at his command, brings forth grass, herbs, and fruits. God must have the glory of all the benefit we receive from the produce of the earth. If we have, through grace, an interest in Him who is the Fountain, we may rejoice in him when the streams of temporal mercies are dried up. Psalm 24:2 For He has founded it upon the seas And established it upon the rivers. Psalm 95:5 The sea is His, for it was He who made it, And His hands formed the dry land. Psalm 104:6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters were standing above the mountains. |
|
| May-01-10 | | YouRang: <OhioChessFan: It was in response to this post: <TO SCIENTISTS, doubt is a Good Thing.......TO RELIGIONISTS, doubt is a Bad Thing>> Ah, and how did you see that post as 'demeaning' to you? And why did you decide to get sarcastic only after the SECOND time I tried to explain it to you. <But when push comes to shove, the doubt the scientists have that makes you wax so lyrical might as well be a one in a gazillion chance.> And even now, you ignore my multiple explanations, and keep making the same refuted argument. The pattern I see is that you get sarcastic (if not silent) when your only other choice is to admit that your argument is unsustainable. |
|
May-01-10
| | OhioChessFan: You have a limited time, <whatthefat> to address the charges you made against me. After that, I will block you from this forum. I take very seriously my witness and will not tolerate unfounded charges against my intelligence and position. I hope that's clear enough. |
|
May-01-10
| | OhioChessFan: <YouRang: Sadly true. Even *I* can't convince those crazy YouRangists that I was just making an example. > It wouldn't prove YouRangism is right, but if those people were willing to die for believing in YouRangism, it would as least prove they were sincere in their belief. |
|
| May-01-10 | | cormier: Jesus said = to his disciples:
“If you know me, then you will also know my Father.
From now on you do know him and have seen him.”
Philip said to Jesus,
<<“Master, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.”>> Jesus said _ to him, <“Have I been with you for so long a timeand you still do not know me, Philip> ?
Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.
<How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’>? Do you not <believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me>? |
|
| May-01-10 | | playground player: <thegoodanarchist> None of that scientific/technological progress you cited gets made if "the prevailing view" always prevails. I hope <YouRang> is not saying that it should. <Whatthefat> All you ever do is repeat the mantra that "the evidence is overwhelming"--if you say it enough times, am I supposed to be overwhelmed? Where is the "evidence" that life arose spontaneously from nonlife? How has that been tested in the laboratory? And why is the burden of proof on me to disprove Darwinism by discovering some unique life-form that can't possibly be related to any others? "Unless you can find such a fossil, you gotta shut up! I am right until you prove me wrong!" Since when does science work like that? |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 144 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
rreusser/...