[quote]schmichael wrote:
I’m trying to show that the ToE has scant evidence at best.[/quote]
Oh good Lord, the stupid hits back even harder!
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Does anybody else find it humourous that creationists(of all people) are getting, for lack of a better word, “pissed off” about evidence?[/quote]
Matty, you seem like a reasonable guy. Why resort to ad hominem’s? I’m not pissed off about evidence I’m pointing out that it is lacking.[/quote]
You ignoring =/= lacking
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
This is creationism:
-
Biological systems are complex
-
Complexity requires an intelligent designer
-
Therefore biological systems have to have an intelligent designer.
No there isn’t anymore to it than that.[/quote]
No that’s not creationism, that’s a horribly butchered version of the ‘Intelligent design’ argument. Creationism is a literal reading of the book of Genesis, dare I say out of context.[/quote]
Intelligent design = Literal creationism in a cheap rented tux.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
I’ll give you an example, the fossil record. Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, the creation model predicts that we will find animals appearing in the fossil record fully formed.
What do we observe? Animals appearing in the fossil record fully formed! Puncuated equilibrium was postulated in order to avoid this inconvenient fact.[/quote]
Now you’re just lying.
Seriously, go to a museum.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
Astrology, as in horoscopes etc? I don’t believe that is science.
I presume you are trying to compare creationism with astrology? Creationism has evidence (in spite of your insistence to the contrary) but astrology does not.
The evidence for creationism includes many sources including geology, biology, chemistry and physics. Actually the evidence is exactly the same for evolution, it is the interpretations that differ.[/quote]
ROFLCOPTERSAURUS.
If you could show evidence for creationism, as described by the bible, the simple fact is that everyone would believe you.
Unfortunately for you, astrology, homeopathy, chiropractic nonsense, creationism, leprechauns, pink teapotsat the bottom of my garden all share something in common. There is absolutely no proof that any of these belief systems contain any factual matter whatsoever.
Oh, and my PhD in chemistry allows me to be pretty definitive that there is no proof of creationism contained within the subject matter.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
Fletch, I agree with you. I will say that I think you are very loose with your definitions though. When you say “the scientific method and the presuppositions it’s based on are the best for making discoveries about the natural world”, it would be good if you would define those presuppositions and why they are valid under your worldview.
E.g. the christian worldview provides the necessary preconditions for doing science by establishing a basis for things such as laws of logic, uniformity of nature and reliability of our senses and memory. These are all required in order to learn anything about the universe. According to the naturalistic worldview, however, the universe is an accident, and there is no intelligence, plan or purpose behind it. In that worldview, therefore, there is no logical reason why any of these preconditions should be true. Furthermore, if the human brain is merely the product of random chemical accidents, why should we trust its reasoning?
I realise that you are positing some other, pantheistic type of intelligence. But the problem is that you haven’t really articulated it so I can’t interact with you on it.[/quote]
As far as the presuppositions of science, to tell you with concrete definitions and a good explanation, I’ll have to dig up some resources and notes. It’s not quite as simple as a list although that’s a start. In fact, many books have been written by brilliant people on the subject so basically what I could do for you is give some quick cliff notes and the names of the authors and books. I’ve read summaries of them but still haven’t finished reading all the books in their entirety yet.
Now for your last words, I think you would love the epistemology and meta-physics thread. The pantheism I believe is very similar to Kamui’s because I learned so much from him and based largely on Spinoza whom I’ve done and am doing reading on but not entirely although the differences are rather small. At least in those threads, Kamui’s philosophies are the only non-Christian consistent views so that’s why I adopted so much of it. If you have particular questions about that, maybe post in the one of those threads as it more appropriately belongs there. It’s a lot of reading but kind of crash course and give you enough to look for more resources on the subject. At least it was for me.
I’ll be honest with you and tell that that philosophy of that type is a field that’s newer to me and I’m still learning a lot. Basically, the concrete of my philosophical foundation hasn’t quite hardened and set to speak metaphorically.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
…Punctuated equilibrium…
[/quote]
The “OMG, We’ve Gotta Come Up With Something!” theory.[/quote]
No, its the “why should there be any selection when there is no outside pressure” theory.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
Professor Richard Lewontin,
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that [b]we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes[/b] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [/quote]
It is true that the scientific method, at least as far as natural sciences are concerned, are firmly committed to materialism.
You however, and everyone else for that matter, can make of that what you will.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
I’ll give you an example, the fossil record. Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, the creation model predicts that we will find animals appearing in the fossil record fully formed.
What do we observe? Animals appearing in the fossil record fully formed! Puncuated equilibrium was postulated in order to avoid this inconvenient fact.[/quote]
Now you’re just lying.
Seriously, go to a museum.[/quote]
Another brilliant fact-free assertion from Makavali!!
Why don’t you demonstrate where I lied?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
…Punctuated equilibrium…
[/quote]
The “OMG, We’ve Gotta Come Up With Something!” theory.[/quote]
No, its the “why should there be any selection when there is no outside pressure” theory. [/quote]
No, it’s the “how are we gonna explain the lack of transitional fossils” theory.
Or the “Cambrian explosion; now we’re really gonna have to make some stuff up” theory.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
Professor Richard Lewontin,
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that [b]we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes[/b] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [/quote]
It is true that the scientific method, at least as far as natural sciences are concerned, are firmly committed to materialism.
You however, and everyone else for that matter, can make of that what you will.
[/quote]
All I make of it is that there is bias on the side of the evolutionists/atheists, contrary to what some (possibly most??) of them propose.
I am not anti-bias because we all have it. I am just pointing out that it exists on both sides.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:<<< If God knew he’d have to eventually send Jesus, why didn’t he send him in the first place? [/quote]The cross of Christ is THE reason for God’s creating at all in the first place. It wasn’t an afterthought cuz stuff went wrong. It was the plan from the foundation of the world. The glorious triumphant virgin birth, incarnation, sinless law abiding life, bloody substitutionary atoning death and death defeating resurrection of the man born God the Son, Jesus of Nazareth, are THE reason for the existence of every last particle of this universe. THAT is Christianity. NOT, be nice to your neighbor and learn how to live in peace together and God will make you happy because He’s a groovy fun lovin dood.
[quote]schmichael wrote:<<< Another brilliant fact-free assertion from Makavali!! >>>[/quote]That was Mak. You’ll learn to love em, but you’ll never get used to these jaw dropping gems of his. He’s a card carrying champion of the “because I like it that way so there” school of anti Christian apologetics.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
…Punctuated equilibrium…
[/quote]
The “OMG, We’ve Gotta Come Up With Something!” theory.[/quote]
No, its the “why should there be any selection when there is no outside pressure” theory. [/quote]
No, it’s the “how are we gonna explain the lack of transitional fossils” theory.
Or the “Cambrian explosion; now we’re really gonna have to make some stuff up” theory.[/quote]
This is just nonsense, if the theory states that characteristics are selected by outside pressure it stands to reason that if there is no outside pressure there is not much going on.
I find it astonishing that reasonably intelligent people entertain the notion of god creating the heavens and earth in its current state a mere 6000 years ago as being equal to what we know about the universe and our existence based on scientific research.
Flabbergasted is the appropiate word here, I guess.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
I find it astonishing that reasonably intelligent people entertain the notion of god creating the heavens and earth in its current state a mere 6000 years ago as being equal to what we know about the universe and our existence based on scientific research.
Flabbergasted is the appropriate word here, I guess.[/quote]I do NOT find it astonishing or flabbergasting that most people don’t, when the Word of almighty God says they won’t.
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
I’ll give you an example, the fossil record. Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, the creation model predicts that we will find animals appearing in the fossil record fully formed.
What do we observe? Animals appearing in the fossil record fully formed! Puncuated equilibrium was postulated in order to avoid this inconvenient fact.[/quote]
Now you’re just lying.
Seriously, go to a museum.[/quote]
Another brilliant fact-free assertion from Makavali!!
Why don’t you demonstrate where I lied?
[/quote]
Why don’t you go to a museum. And try not closing your eyes, I wouldn’t want you walking into an exhibit.
I’m flabbergasted that people expect that Darwins theory should have been flawless from the beginning, or that is must be it now.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
I find it astonishing that reasonably intelligent people entertain the notion of god creating the heavens and earth in its current state a mere 6000 years ago as being equal to what we know about the universe and our existence based on scientific research.
Flabbergasted is the appropriate word here, I guess.[/quote]I do NOT find it astonishing or flabbergasting that most people don’t, when the Word of almighty God says they won’t.
[/quote]
Thenagain, I was talking about reasonably intelligent people.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
I’m flabbergasted that people expect that Darwins theory should have been flawless from the beginning, or that is must be it now.[/quote]
And inspite of their objections they continue to benefit from the various fields of science that were born from Darwin’s theory.