Re: if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...


"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154983699.636174.5130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:
snex wrote:
Zachriel wrote:
snex wrote:
Zachriel wrote:
"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154925554.926761.245210@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
snex schreef:
<snip>


what prevents these methods from being applied to origins,
as
creationists are wont to do?

The great stupidity of creationists is that they _don't_ use
those
methods. If they did, they would _easily_ see that their line
of
reasoning (attempting to validate a creation-myth using a
perverted
version of science and resorting to blunt lies to do it) is
not only
doomed to be fruitless, but also counterproductive. It
actually keeps
them from using those methods.

if you want to let "faith" in the door as a valid method of
reasoning,
then you have no grounds to critisize creationists, for faith
is what
they use.


Faith <> Reasoning. Assuming your conclusion again.

show me how faith works, and why it cannot be applied to evolution.


Asked and answered several times. But for the record, "evolution"
refers to an empirical observation or to a scientific theory which
explains those observatoins.

where answered? i want to see the process of faith, and applied to some
kind of double blind data so i can know it is valid. then i want you to
explain why it cannot be applied to evolution.


I didn't claim faith was a "process", or that it could be applied to
"double blind data". I did not say you should adopt a faith, or that
you could know it is "valid".

then in what way is a belief in non-natural entities justified? saying
"they just believe" doesnt answer the question. when a man believes
something, he holds that thing to be a true statement about reality. i
am asking you what grounds he has for this.


Many people just believe and don't require your type of justification for
their own personal beliefs. I know you find it incomprehensible, but it's
true. Some people even claim to have direct mystical experiences.

As long as she promises to fix your pipes using naturalistic methods, you
should give Hillela a chance. I hear she's a good plumber.




However, when we use the word "evolution" with regards to biology, we
are making a scientific statement, and scientific support is expected.

the idea that modern life is related through common ancestry is a claim
about the past. creationists use faith to come to the conclusion that
this idea is false.


Maybe the world was really created Last Thursday.


they use the same faith that is used by somebody
who comes to the conclusion that souls exist. if faith is valid in the
latter, why is it not valid in the former?


For the umpteenth time, because they claim to have scientific support when
they do not. They either redefine words (as you have done repeatedly), or
wave their hands.













evolution appears true because the
great spirit wants you to think it appears true.


The Theory of Evolution is a strongly supported scientific
conclusion
based
on empirical evidence.

The Theory of God is not supported at all by the scientific
method or
any empirical evidence, yet people claim there is some other
route to
come to believe in him.

There is. The fact that you don't see it does not prevent
others from
seeing it. Oh and before you ask, it is _not_ susceptible to
scientific
reasoning. That is reserved for other avenues of
understanding.

then explain how it works and why it cant be applied to
evolution.


Evolution is either a specific empirical observation, or a
scientific theory
which explains a variety of empirical data.

so what? if kent hovind has FAITH that evolution is false, and you
agree that FAITH is valid, then either kent hovind is applying
faith
incorrectly, or you have no grounds to critisize him.


Maybe evolution is false. All scientific conclusions are considered
tentative and subject to revision in the light of new evidence. Maybe
the world is recreated in every moment by each conscious observer.
But
there is no scientific evidence of this. Intelligent Design claims to
have scientific evidence of intelligent intervention in the history
of
life, but they do not.

if somebody can claim that the universe is recereated in every moment
by each conscious observer on the grounds of faith, then intelligent
design advocates can claim thta they have scientific evidence on the
grounds of faith.


That is not a valid syllogism. The phrase "scientific evidence" has a
specific meaning. Intelligent Design advocates conflate and confuse
this meaning for political purposes.

ID advocates are using faith the conflate and confuse that meaning for
political purposes, therefore, since you hold faith to be valid, you
have no grounds to critisize them.


There is nothing dishonest about believing in God's influence in the world.
But there is no scientific evidence to support that belief. Claims to the
contrary are false.


<snip>



falling in love definitely has a method; if you think it does not,
i
pity the fact that you have never fallen in love.


If you require a method to fall in love, then I pity you that you
have
yet to fall in love. (An uncontrolled tumble, without choice, hence
the
analogy to "fall".)

the fact that *i* do not control it does not mean there is no method.


If you claim there is a method to falling in love, then you have
redefined that term as well.


every single neuron in my brain is following perfectly natural laws
when i fall in love.


That is not the proper use of "method". Tripping and falling may follow
natural law, but it is not a "method", but a "mistake". Again, you want
to redefine words.

method: a way, technique, or process of or for doing something.

Perhaps you are conflating it with the art of seduction, which does
entail methodology.

no, im not conflating anything. the flip of a coin appears to be random
to me, but if i could analyze every last force acting that coin, i
could predict its flip every single time. you are conflating ignorance
of method with lack of method.
<snip>


It's like arguing with a creationist. I even provided you a definition.
Walking is a method of transportation. Falling is not a method. It is what
happens when you lose your balance.

fall, to leave an erect position suddenly and involuntarily. <slipped and
fell on the ice>

method: a way, technique, or process of or for doing something.



--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...
    ... The great stupidity of creationists is that they _don't_ use those ... if you want to let "faith" in the door as a valid method of reasoning, ... and why it cannot be applied to evolution. ... any empirical evidence, yet people claim there is some other route to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...
    ... if you want to let "faith" in the door as a valid method of reasoning, ... and why it cannot be applied to evolution. ... there is no scientific evidence of this. ... philosophia naturalis, is a term applied to the objective study of ...
    (talk.origins)
  • if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...
    ... if you want to let "faith" in the door as a valid method of ... But for the record, "evolution" ... not dispute the evidence of evolution or accuse scientists of ... there is no scientific evidence of this. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT How to stump dem evilooshunusts
    ... evolution, and a third are unhappy schools teach it." ... concept of time is like St. Augustine's (present-present, ... The problem comes when scientific evidence is posited as a competing faith and then perceived as failing as a faith when contrasted with scripture. ... I don't care if someone "believes" in evolution, so long as they acknowledge the scientific evidence and what it points to and what it means in historical terms. ...
    (rec.music.classical.guitar)
  • if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...
    ... The great stupidity of creationists is that they _don't_ use those ... if you want to let "faith" in the door as a valid method of reasoning, ... and why it cannot be applied to evolution. ... there is no scientific evidence of this. ...
    (talk.origins)