Just goes to show you that evidence can be viewed in different ways, huh? Different conclusions can be arrived at by different persons even when they are looking at the exact same evidence.
Not in matters of faith and the natural sciences. Faith does not need empirical evidence. Since theories about the natural world need to be supported with empirical evidence faith is not a good tool.
To paraphrase Houston Smith, If you could prove God exists then what would be the value of faith?[/quote]
There is no “empirical evidence” for macroevolution. If you disagree, you are ignoring the definition of “empirical”.
[quote]IagoMB wrote:
You need to separate the person from the quote. What the person is noted for has no impact on the truth or lack of truth in what the person says. In other words, a true statement stands on it’s own.[/quote]
In light of your above statement, I’m sure that you are intellectually honest enough not to reject the truths in the Answers in Genesis quotes just because you disagree with their stated mission (or, in other words, “what they are noted for”)?
[quote]throttle132 wrote:
We are discussing theories about the past natural world. Therefore we are also discussing history. We are discussing evidence that was produced a long time ago. Despite claims to the contrary we are discussing evidence that can be viewed in more ways than one. We are discussing theories where scientists with impeccable credentials differ radically as to their interpretations of said evidence. We are discussing theories with ideas that by their inherent nature cannot be confirmed by repeated experimentation. We are discussing theories that require presuppositions on both sides that have to be taken on faith. Sorry, you can deny that all you want but …______________________ (fill in your favorite Mentzer quote here if you wish)
[/quote]
You may be writing about that. I’m writing about how ID is faith based and not a science and backing it up with a ton of evidence. And I think you responded to the wrong post since I don’t see how your statement contradicts “since theories about the natural world need to be supported with empirical evidence faith is not a good tool.”
[quote]throttle132 wrote:
We have also extensively discussed how unobservable evolution (macro) is faith based and not a science…
There is no “empirical evidence” for macroevolution. If you disagree, you are ignoring the definition of “empirical”.
[/quote]
And how the empiral evidence is there to prove macroevolution but there is a time issue so we use other evidence to support it (like how we know about quarks and photons, my unknown disease example) and how it is not needed to be proven in order to support the theory of evolution or the fact of evolution. There has been a great amount of evidence presented to show this and you have not responded to it other than ignoring it.
[quote]throttle132 wrote:
In light of your above statement, I’m sure that you are intellectually honest enough not to reject the truths in the Answers in Genesis quotes just because you disagree with their stated mission (or, in other words, “what they are noted for”)? [/quote]
Those are two different things. Mentzer’s expertise was in body building (yes, I know that’s funny). I would use a bodybuilding quote from him to help an argument about bodybuilding. It’s specific information from an expert in the field. The quote I used is a well known one from him and it has nothing to do with body building. It is not specific information from an expert in a field.
However, the articles written on that site are specific information from experts in the field. But once you also see that what they consider to be science is literal translation of the Bible, it questions their credibility in natural science. I’m rejecting them because they are inaccurate and in some cases logically invalid. Read the transcripts from the Dover case I posted and I had a previous link to a very good news blog on evolution. Someone also posted a link about 29 proofs of macroevoltion earlier.
…And how the empiral evidence is there to prove macroevolution but there …
[/quote]
As has been stated on this post before, even hard-core but intellectually honest evolutionists such as Gould and others have either admitted or implied that the empirical evidence that you so earnestly insist is there IS NOT.
[quote]IagoMB wrote:
There has been a great amount of evidence presented to show this and you have not responded to it other than ignoring it. [/quote]
Before you run hog wild with your pot calling the kettle black take careful measure of all the evidence presented that you have ignored.
…However, the articles written on that site are specific information from experts in the field. But once you also see that what they consider to be science is literal translation of the Bible, it questions their credibility in natural science. I’m rejecting them because they are inaccurate and in some cases logically invalid… [/quote]
Don’t you realize how this very statement could easily be turned around and used against you? Do I need to elaborate?
…And how the empiral evidence is there to prove macroevolution but there …
As has been stated on this post before, even hard-core but intellectually honest evolutionists such as Gould and others have either admitted or implied that the empirical evidence that you so earnestly insist is there IS NOT.[/quote]
There was post earlier about Gould supported macroevolution. Still, even still, it’s not needed to support the theory of evolution or the fact of evolution, which to use Gould again, are two separate things.
[quote]throttle132 wrote:
IagoMB wrote:
There has been a great amount of evidence presented to show this and you have not responded to it other than ignoring it.
Before you run hog wild with your pot calling the kettle black take careful measure of all the evidence presented that you have ignored.
[/quote]
Those are two different things. Mentzer’s expertise was in body building (yes, I know that’s funny). I would use a bodybuilding quote from him to help an argument about bodybuilding. It’s specific information from an expert in the field. The quote I used is a well known one from him and it has nothing to do with body building. It is not specific information from an expert in a field.
[/quote]
I think I understand what you’re trying to say here but it doesn’t change the fact that you are rejecting the truths in the Answers in Genesis quotes (specific information from an expert in a field) just because you disagree with the stated mission of a website that uses their name.
…However, the articles written on that site are specific information from experts in the field. But once you also see that what they consider to be science is literal translation of the Bible, it questions their credibility in natural science. I’m rejecting them because they are inaccurate and in some cases logically invalid…
Don’t you realize how this very statement could easily be turned around and used against you? Do I need to elaborate?[/quote]
Yup I guess you’ll need to. I don’t see how you can compare one group begining with faith and wanting a literal translation of the Bible to another using the scientific method (methological naturalism as Dr. Forrestor in the Dover trial transcripts calls it.)
…And how the empiral evidence is there to prove macroevolution but there …
As has been stated on this post before, even hard-core but intellectually honest evolutionists such as Gould and others have either admitted or implied that the empirical evidence that you so earnestly insist is there IS NOT.
There was post earlier about Gould supported macroevolution. Still, even still, it’s not needed to support the theory of evolution or the fact of evolution, which to use Gould again, are two separate things.[/quote]
Of course he supported it. That’s not my point! He admits the empirical evidence is NOT THERE. Do I need to re-post it?
Those are two different things. Mentzer’s expertise was in body building (yes, I know that’s funny). I would use a bodybuilding quote from him to help an argument about bodybuilding. It’s specific information from an expert in the field. The quote I used is a well known one from him and it has nothing to do with body building. It is not specific information from an expert in a field.
I think I understand what you’re trying to say here but it doesn’t change the fact that you are rejecting the truths in the Answers in Genesis quotes (specific information from an expert in a field) just because you disagree with the stated mission of a website that uses their name.[/quote]
I disagree because it is intellectually dishonest. It goes against the scientific method of inquiry.
Went to your pet website (yes, you have one too) and found this tidbit. Take note because you have been tossing around the words “proof” and “fact” and “truth” like you really knew what you’re talking about.
[i]What is meant by scientific evidences and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish “truth” or “fact” in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to reevaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge.
“Proof”, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics. That said, we often hear “proof” mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes “strongly supported by scientific means”. Even though one may hear “proof” used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term.
Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms “proof” or “prove” in this article.[/i]