[quote]pushharder wrote:
I love Family Guy. One of my favorites but it’s no secret that Seth McFarlane is an avowed atheist - another religious guy. Everybody is is some respect or another.[/quote]
How does lack of belief work as a religion?
[quote]pookie wrote:
pushharder wrote:
I love Family Guy. One of my favorites but it’s no secret that Seth McFarlane is an avowed atheist - another religious guy. Everybody is is some respect or another.
How does lack of belief work as a religion?
[/quote]
In the same way that not stamp collecting is a hobby.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
pookie wrote:
pushharder wrote:
I asked him why he opposes Christianity and creationism so fervently?
Christianity has nothing to do with science.
Creationism is “opposed” (more aptly, “laughed at”) because it cannot back anything it proposes with evidence. It has a written-in-stone story and all the “research” consists in trying to fit scientific evidence to it, usually by mangling science until it’s unrecognizable.
Simple, no? Not too sharp, that Morris guy.
So do you deny that science does not involve faith? Theory upon theory that has not been disproved, is what you call ‘evidence’? Yet, the things you are discussing are not things easily testable if at all. So how can they be disproved? They can’t! And that is the ‘rub’.
So what you are so confidently resting on is for the most part an idea or concept with theory and rationale behind it based on a close system of inquiry.
Sounds like faith is involved my friend. Welcome to religion…
Ok. I have said all along that faith is belief in the absence of facts; everything else is open to inquiry. Evolutionary theory must be at least falsifiable, if not verifiable.
And you, Friend Lorisco, imply that science, or in this case, evolution, can not be disproved.
Jab suggests that evolution will be found false when Push finds a pre-Cambrian rabbit. This will prove exhausting, even for Pushharder’s considerable energies.
Well, here I suggest the experiment which would falsify evolution.
- Many genomes are now known in their entirety, or the structures of 50,000 enzymes are known and their DNA code can be inferred.
- Find a gene in one species which has no precedent in another species.
- Then show that this special gene’s DNA code has no precedent in another species’ DNA code (introns, exons, and all that stuff).
If one can do this, an evolutionist may say there are missing forms in transition.
But if one can show that this be the case repeatedly, and randomly, only Intelligent Design would be left as an answer.
It hasn’t been done yet.
No one at the peripatetic ICR has suggested anything so elegant.
(I suppose the obvious examples would be lactate dehydrogenase, or phosphofructokinase, or other enzymes which separate aerobes from anaerobes, but that may be a stretch open to too much conjecture. Let’s keep it restricted to aerobic species.)
None of this requires faith, just work.
None of this requires hypotheses about tree root balls and tilted whales, and 10 million divine interventions. Just work
On the other hand, if we find the Easter Bunny with that basket of pterodactyl eggs…
[/quote]
‘inferred’ = to derive by reasoning; to guess; speculate; surmise.
And yet you stated ‘have said all along that faith is belief in the absence of facts; everything else is open to inquiry.’
Sorry, but to guess, speculate, even derive by reason IS an absence of fact. Because if facts were available these means would not be necessary.
So your example just further emphasizes that people use a belief or ideas in the absence of fact all the time, even when they are unaware of it.
So my point still stands that everyone uses faith or belief in some manner, it’s just based on different paradigms.
As for disproving evolutionary theory, that is an interesting idea, but not consistent with the paradigm of those who believe in creation. Your example assumes that Greek (Western) science is the only source of truth and that it is the standard all forms (systems) of knowledge must be weighed. This is false.
Each system of thought has its own method of validation and should therefore be validated within its own paradigm. Trying to validate or disprove a system of thought with in a different system is not an apples to apples comparison. A good example is Chinese vs Western medicine. Both have been shown to improve the health and longevity of those in the system (obviously the Chinese system has a much longer track record in this regard), but test the modalities of either using the others constructs and the outcome is not always favorable.
In any case, my point is that all systems of thought are valid within their own system paradigm. All of these systems have flaws or areas of vulnerability that they either ignore or create ‘faith’ constructs to bridge the gaps.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
pookie wrote:
pushharder wrote:
I asked him why he opposes Christianity and creationism so fervently?
Christianity has nothing to do with science.
Creationism is “opposed” (more aptly, “laughed at”) because it cannot back anything it proposes with evidence. It has a written-in-stone story and all the “research” consists in trying to fit scientific evidence to it, usually by mangling science until it’s unrecognizable.
Simple, no? Not too sharp, that Morris guy.
So do you deny that science does not involve faith? Theory upon theory that has not been disproved, is what you call ‘evidence’? Yet, the things you are discussing are not things easily testable if at all. So how can they be disproved? They can’t! And that is the ‘rub’.
So what you are so confidently resting on is for the most part an idea or concept with theory and rationale behind it based on a close system of inquiry.
Sounds like faith is involved my friend. Welcome to religion…
Ok. I have said all along that faith is belief in the absence of facts; everything else is open to inquiry. Evolutionary theory must be at least falsifiable, if not verifiable.
And you, Friend Lorisco, imply that science, or in this case, evolution, can not be disproved.
Jab suggests that evolution will be found false when Push finds a pre-Cambrian rabbit. This will prove exhausting, even for Pushharder’s considerable energies.
Well, here I suggest the experiment which would falsify evolution.
- Many genomes are now known in their entirety, or the structures of 50,000 enzymes are known and their DNA code can be inferred.
- Find a gene in one species which has no precedent in another species.
- Then show that this special gene’s DNA code has no precedent in another species’ DNA code (introns, exons, and all that stuff).
If one can do this, an evolutionist may say there are missing forms in transition.
But if one can show that this be the case repeatedly, and randomly, only Intelligent Design would be left as an answer.
It hasn’t been done yet.
No one at the peripatetic ICR has suggested anything so elegant.
(I suppose the obvious examples would be lactate dehydrogenase, or phosphofructokinase, or other enzymes which separate aerobes from anaerobes, but that may be a stretch open to too much conjecture. Let’s keep it restricted to aerobic species.)
None of this requires faith, just work.
None of this requires hypotheses about tree root balls and tilted whales, and 10 million divine interventions. Just work
On the other hand, if we find the Easter Bunny with that basket of pterodactyl eggs…
‘inferred’ = to derive by reasoning; to guess; speculate; surmise.
And yet you stated ‘have said all along that faith is belief in the absence of facts; everything else is open to inquiry.’
[/quote]
For clarity I should have used the word “deduced” in stead of “inferred.”
And in this case it would have been correct. From the amino acid sequence we can absolutely deduce the DNA sequences–the 3-letter codons direct absolutely which aa is chosen, and one or two codons direct each of the 20-odd aa’s.
You have presented your “feelings” about faith and belief in science. I understand them. This is not about a “thought paradigm,” and I am not asking anyone to verify their beliefs. The limits of my belief seem to be somewhat stricter than yours, since I want to falsify propositions by direct observations.
So my proposition still stands.
Evolutionary theory is falsifiable, and there, I presented the experiment to falsify it. Be my guest, do so!
If one cannot accept that “paradigm” of inquiry, then there is no acceptable standard for the veracity of any observation.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Here’s why it gives me pause. From my perspective most of the time when I “brag” it’s meant as a message to married men young and old alike. The message? Marriage does not have to be a rut or an anvil and chain or boring or regretful. I have been with my wife for 26 years and I love her up one end and down the other. We do all kind of things together. Always have. Sex quality and quantity is not receding one bit even though I am 48 years old and she is 44.
I see marriage and commitment beat up constantly on this site and everywhere for that matter. I think the positives should be emphasized and not just the negatives.
So I “brag” from time to time as sort of a catalyst, an encouragement, more than anything else. But I do understand that it can be taken in a way that is unintended hence the pause.[/quote]
Ah, maybe I missed it because I’ve been with my wife for 20 years and we’re still nuts about each other. Although in my case, I prefer to keep the sex life and the pics of the wife as my own private thing.
Guess we finally found something we can sorta agree on.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
pookie wrote:
pushharder wrote:
I asked him why he opposes Christianity and creationism so fervently?
Christianity has nothing to do with science.
Creationism is “opposed” (more aptly, “laughed at”) because it cannot back anything it proposes with evidence. It has a written-in-stone story and all the “research” consists in trying to fit scientific evidence to it, usually by mangling science until it’s unrecognizable.
Simple, no? Not too sharp, that Morris guy.
So do you deny that science does not involve faith? Theory upon theory that has not been disproved, is what you call ‘evidence’? Yet, the things you are discussing are not things easily testable if at all. So how can they be disproved? They can’t! And that is the ‘rub’.
So what you are so confidently resting on is for the most part an idea or concept with theory and rationale behind it based on a close system of inquiry.
Sounds like faith is involved my friend. Welcome to religion…
Ok. I have said all along that faith is belief in the absence of facts; everything else is open to inquiry. Evolutionary theory must be at least falsifiable, if not verifiable.
And you, Friend Lorisco, imply that science, or in this case, evolution, can not be disproved.
Jab suggests that evolution will be found false when Push finds a pre-Cambrian rabbit. This will prove exhausting, even for Pushharder’s considerable energies.
Well, here I suggest the experiment which would falsify evolution.
- Many genomes are now known in their entirety, or the structures of 50,000 enzymes are known and their DNA code can be inferred.
- Find a gene in one species which has no precedent in another species.
- Then show that this special gene’s DNA code has no precedent in another species’ DNA code (introns, exons, and all that stuff).
If one can do this, an evolutionist may say there are missing forms in transition.
But if one can show that this be the case repeatedly, and randomly, only Intelligent Design would be left as an answer.
It hasn’t been done yet.
No one at the peripatetic ICR has suggested anything so elegant.
(I suppose the obvious examples would be lactate dehydrogenase, or phosphofructokinase, or other enzymes which separate aerobes from anaerobes, but that may be a stretch open to too much conjecture. Let’s keep it restricted to aerobic species.)
None of this requires faith, just work.
None of this requires hypotheses about tree root balls and tilted whales, and 10 million divine interventions. Just work
On the other hand, if we find the Easter Bunny with that basket of pterodactyl eggs…
‘inferred’ = to derive by reasoning; to guess; speculate; surmise.
And yet you stated ‘have said all along that faith is belief in the absence of facts; everything else is open to inquiry.’
For clarity I should have used the word “deduced” in stead of “inferred.”
And in this case it would have been correct. From the amino acid sequence we can absolutely deduce the DNA sequences–the 3-letter codons direct absolutely which aa is chosen, and one or two codons direct each of the 20-odd aa’s.
You have presented your “feelings” about faith and belief in science. I understand them. This is not about a “thought paradigm,” and I am not asking anyone to verify their beliefs. The limits of my belief seem to be somewhat stricter than yours, since I want to falsify propositions by direct observations.
So my proposition still stands.
Evolutionary theory is falsifiable, and there, I presented the experiment to falsify it. Be my guest, do so!
If one cannot accept that “paradigm” of inquiry, then there is no acceptable standard for the veracity of any observation.
[/quote]
What is the point of trying to falsify the system of evolution when it cannot test its most fundamental premise; the big bang? And even worse, the origin of the system that allowed the bang to occur and the inorganic matter to go bang. This is not testable in a controlled way.
So it makes no sense to argue about the progression of life within the system no one can test. In this sense Evolutionary science is like studying the interior of a car without being able to study how and why the care moves. It’s a house of cards.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
pookie wrote:
pushharder wrote:
I asked him why he opposes Christianity and creationism so fervently?
Christianity has nothing to do with science.
Creationism is “opposed” (more aptly, “laughed at”) because it cannot back anything it proposes with evidence. It has a written-in-stone story and all the “research” consists in trying to fit scientific evidence to it, usually by mangling science until it’s unrecognizable.
Simple, no? Not too sharp, that Morris guy.
So do you deny that science does not involve faith? Theory upon theory that has not been disproved, is what you call ‘evidence’? Yet, the things you are discussing are not things easily testable if at all. So how can they be disproved? They can’t! And that is the ‘rub’.
So what you are so confidently resting on is for the most part an idea or concept with theory and rationale behind it based on a close system of inquiry.
Sounds like faith is involved my friend. Welcome to religion…
Ok. I have said all along that faith is belief in the absence of facts; everything else is open to inquiry. Evolutionary theory must be at least falsifiable, if not verifiable.
And you, Friend Lorisco, imply that science, or in this case, evolution, can not be disproved.
Jab suggests that evolution will be found false when Push finds a pre-Cambrian rabbit. This will prove exhausting, even for Pushharder’s considerable energies.
Well, here I suggest the experiment which would falsify evolution.
- Many genomes are now known in their entirety, or the structures of 50,000 enzymes are known and their DNA code can be inferred.
- Find a gene in one species which has no precedent in another species.
- Then show that this special gene’s DNA code has no precedent in another species’ DNA code (introns, exons, and all that stuff).
If one can do this, an evolutionist may say there are missing forms in transition.
But if one can show that this be the case repeatedly, and randomly, only Intelligent Design would be left as an answer.
It hasn’t been done yet.
No one at the peripatetic ICR has suggested anything so elegant.
(I suppose the obvious examples would be lactate dehydrogenase, or phosphofructokinase, or other enzymes which separate aerobes from anaerobes, but that may be a stretch open to too much conjecture. Let’s keep it restricted to aerobic species.)
None of this requires faith, just work.
None of this requires hypotheses about tree root balls and tilted whales, and 10 million divine interventions. Just work
On the other hand, if we find the Easter Bunny with that basket of pterodactyl eggs…
‘inferred’ = to derive by reasoning; to guess; speculate; surmise.
And yet you stated ‘have said all along that faith is belief in the absence of facts; everything else is open to inquiry.’
For clarity I should have used the word “deduced” in stead of “inferred.”
And in this case it would have been correct. From the amino acid sequence we can absolutely deduce the DNA sequences–the 3-letter codons direct absolutely which aa is chosen, and one or two codons direct each of the 20-odd aa’s.
You have presented your “feelings” about faith and belief in science. I understand them. This is not about a “thought paradigm,” and I am not asking anyone to verify their beliefs. The limits of my belief seem to be somewhat stricter than yours, since I want to falsify propositions by direct observations.
So my proposition still stands.
Evolutionary theory is falsifiable, and there, I presented the experiment to falsify it. Be my guest, do so!
If one cannot accept that “paradigm” of inquiry, then there is no acceptable standard for the veracity of any observation.
What is the point of trying to falsify the system of evolution when it cannot test its most fundamental premise; the big bang? And even worse, the origin of the system that allowed the bang to occur and the inorganic matter to go bang. This is not testable in a controlled way.
So it makes no sense to argue about the progression of life within the system no one can test. In this sense Evolutionary science is like studying the interior of a car without being able to study how and why the care moves. It’s a house of cards.
[/quote]
It seems you need to add another restriction: biologic theory now has to explain the origin of the cosmos?
No evolutionist proposes a theory for the very start of “life” (however defined), let alone the origin of the universe. No evolution scientist, no paleontologist, has had to include this in his paradigm until this moment. Why include it now? Because to do so means that you do not have to face–leave alone accept–my premise about reality.
I only asked of Push 2 criteria for this discussion: 1) A theory had to be at least falsifiable (refutable) 2) Ockham’s razor has to apply.
I am certain to respect the place of faith, but that faith cannot be held to the exclusion of every honest thought.
Uhhh…
Biology.
Physics.
These are not the same.
Evolutionary theory.
Big bang theory.
These are not the same.
Easy right?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
What is the point of trying to falsify the system of evolution when it cannot test its most fundamental premise; the big bang? And even worse, the origin of the system that allowed the bang to occur and the inorganic matter to go bang. This is not testable in a controlled way.
So it makes no sense to argue about the progression of life within the system no one can test. In this sense Evolutionary science is like studying the interior of a car without being able to study how and why the care moves. It’s a house of cards.
[/quote]
This was embarrassing to read on so many levels. Please learn what science is before you try and comment on it.
Cool.
…i can’t believe no creationist in this thread quoted Max Planck:
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
and
"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with.
Where Is Science Going? (1932)
Both Religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerationsâ?¦ To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view.
Religion and Natural Science (Lecture Given 1937) Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, trans. F. Gaynor (New York, 1949), pp. 184"
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i can’t believe no creationist in this thread quoted Max Planck:
[/quote]
You are suggesting that Max Planck was a creationist?
[quote]Fergy wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…i can’t believe no creationist in this thread quoted Max Planck:
You are suggesting that Max Planck was a creationist?[/quote]
…it sure looks that way shrugs
So now believing in God makes you a creationist?
[quote]Fergy wrote:
So now believing in God makes you a creationist?[/quote]
I’ve asked this question here before, still don’t get it.