if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...


Zachriel wrote:
"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154994099.264587.234130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:
"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.

if they feel that there are some beliefs about the world that they can
maintain without justification, then why should i respect them? why
should i trust them when they say they adhere to naturalistic methods
when plumbing?


Maybe you could just ask Hillela. She says she's a master plumber. (That
means she knows which way "it flows".) But I understand you don't hire
Jewish plumbers.

By the way, why should anyone trust you? Are you trolling or what?

they should trust me because i dont abandon reason. if i make a claim,
i am willing to demonstrate it or abandon it if i cannot.



if they can sit there and tell me with a straight face
that naturalistic methods are the only known methods to work, and yet
still maintain beliefs in non-naturalistic objects, i am talking to
somebody who belongs in a mental institution.


Is that what you believe? Well, that would be a majority of the population.
And what draconian method of reeducation would you suggest to enforce your
edict - for their own good, of course.

you can start by having children learn critical thinking early in
schools, instead of the rote memorization that leads them to accept
arguments on authority alone. or is that too draconian to you?








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.

so you agree that it is possible to have faith that such an idea is
true? if you do, then you also agree that faith can lead you to reject
evolution, because evolution is incompatible with last thursdayism.


Evolution is a scientific theory. It depends on empirical evidence. The
Earth has the appearance of great age, even if it was created Last Thursday.

Last Thursdayism is not a valid scientific theory or hypothesis. It's not
falsifiable. Last Thursdayism is a metaphysical belief. Last Thursdayists do
not dispute the evidence of evolution or accuse scientists of
misrepresenting the facts as do IDers.

so what? their faith does not lead them to do this. the faith of IDers
does. you have yet to tell me why one application of faith is correct
and the other is not.






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.

who says they have no scientific support, and why?


I do. As does the National Academy of Sciences and virtually every other
leading scientific organization.

NATIONAL ACADEMY of SCIENCES: "The theory of evolution has become the
central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many
related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science
lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."
http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/

sounds like they are using naturalistic means to make these claims.




*you* say they have no scientific support, and you say that because you
are using naturalistic methods to determine what exactly scientific
support is. they are not.


Science is a specific inductive method of matching empirical evidence and
theory, data and the generalizations about the data. From the application of
the scientific method, this is what we have determined:

NATIONAL ACADEMY of SCIENCES: "The theory of evolution has become the
central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many
related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science
lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."
http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/

Intelligent Design advocates claim to be using the scientific method, but
either redefine the term, or camouflage the evidence with scientific jargon.

so? their faith tells them that what they are doing is correct science.
why do you accept faith when it leads to belief in gods, but not the
way IDers use it?

















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.

if i can use faith to believe that god influences the world, then i can
also use faith to believe that there is scientific evidence that god
influences the world.


Scientific evidence is objective by definition. Hence, it is not enough to
claim that you have scientific evidence. There is a process to create,
analyze and validate such evidence.

so you say, but from where do you derive this authority? why cant IDers
apply faith as to what they think scientific evidence is if theists are
allowed to apply faith to declare that gods exist?




if you disagree with this, you will need to start explaining how faith
works, when it works, and why it cant be applied to certain things.



<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.

irrelevant. there is a method of falling in love, and it can be studied
and measured.


You just said the definition of "method" is irrelevant to a discussion of
whether there is a method of falling in love. Incredible.

Ok. I'm calling "troll". Reveal yourself.

no, im saying your quoting the definition of "method" is irrelevant. we
all know what a method is. you have not explained how there is no
method behind falling in love.




--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
Member AMF, Angelic Motive Force: Pushing planets on celestial spheres - one
epoch at a time.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/






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


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Commentary: Living with the Darwin Fish
    ... finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I ... bolster my faith in Christ-whether that evidence came in the form of ... doubts about evolution. ... scientists have hailed "missing links" before, ...
    (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 ... 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: Evolution is not a fact
    ... what one observes in the world. ... historical process of species change we call 'evolution'. ... scientists to the 'evolution model'. ... scientific evidence to support evolution of species as fact (nor any other ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution is not a fact
    ... what one observes in the world. ... historical process of species change we call 'evolution'. ... scientists to the 'evolution model'. ... scientific evidence to support evolution of species as fact (nor any other ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution is not a fact
    ... what one observes in the world. ... historical process of species change we call 'evolution'. ... scientists to the 'evolution model'. ... scientific evidence to support evolution of species as fact (nor any other ...
    (talk.origins)