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


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.







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.



so, feel free to tell me how faith works and why kent hovind is not
allowed to apply it to evolution.





what prevents this other route from also concluding evolution to be
false?

The fact that it says nothing about the subjects science has chosen to
study.

you cant say this until you describe the method itself.


Now, I know we discussed this. You even responded while ignoring the point
and repeating the error here. There may be no method to religious belief.
Some people may just believe. What is the method of falling love? The
question doesn't make sense.

if there is no method, then why do you not join me in agreeing to their
insanity?


I said there may be no method. Some claim direct mystical experiences.
That you are lacking in the ability to perceive a spirit world is not
incumbent on others.



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".)


<snip>


the very word "non-natural" implies falsity. nature is all that is.


That is your metaphysical belief. But I would point out that you can't
demonstrate this empirically. It probably doesn't even make sense as a valid
scientific hypothesis. You must be deriving this belief from somewhere else
in your psyche.

no, it is not a metaphysical belief, it is a definition.


Natural. Assuming your conclusion. Again.


natural: having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one
that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious.

supernatural: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the
visible observable universe.

Merriam-Webster
http://www.m-w.com


Zachriel
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/



anything that
exists is natural. if any gods exist, they are natural. when youre
ready to show me how the existence of gods can be demonstrated, whether
by science, faith, or some other method, i am all ears.

<snip>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: bats flew before echolocation
    ... What "quality conflicting evidence"? ... there is no evidence that the first humans were "ultra ... Creationists have always disagreed with one another, ... Evolution, however is quite true. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...
    ... Calling "strawman" at ever example you don't know how to ... 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, ... any empirical evidence, yet people claim there is some other route to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Birds didn?t come from dinosaurs,
    ... I'm not saying they're creationists. ... Premise-driven science does this to you; ... beliefs on faith. ... to go by evidence when it comes to things at the research level. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Can any Darwinist in this Forum....
    ... evidence for X", I can hardly provide my nonexistent evidence. ... I don't give creationists a pass. ... You have said that evolution is "just a theory", ... fossil record is ubiquitous and sudden appearance of species ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Can any Darwinist in this Forum....
    ... evidence for X", I can hardly provide my nonexistent evidence. ... I don't give creationists a pass. ... You have said that evolution is "just a theory", ... fossil record is ubiquitous and sudden appearance of species ...
    (talk.origins)