Re: Is Elsberry on-the-run?


"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2358c487-6ade-48fc-8b11-94eb507253d1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 7, 3:37 am, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com> wrote:
Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:9f4e7a82-8ec0-456c-8008-07e06ac7bc3a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Aug 6, 6:03 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:4c4a2d6e-14ca-4a20-b06d-ddfa9e6233d8

@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com





...> On Aug 6, 3:35 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

snip

What, in a sentence or two, is the theory of Creationism, Brave
Sir Robin Martinez?

Observation of design and organized complexity seen in each
organism and in nature as a whole corresponds----directly----to the
work of invisible Designer (= Divine causation operating in
reality).

The problem is, Ray, that the above isn't a theory, it's an
assumption. This assumption of yours is not testable.

It is a logical assumption based on observation, which is the
cornerstone of the scientific method.


I beg to differ. IMHO; observations without testing are without value. I
pbserve the Sun rising every morning, but that observation is FALSE. It is
only by testing the observation that we may arrive at the correct answer:
The Earth is orbitong the Sun.

Ray, that is how science works, and it is beacuse you fail to observe the
strict demands of the scientific method in your thinking that you go so
terribly wrong.

I've had to use my own intellect to become what I am in order to make sense
of the world I live in and to be able to function in it since I was four
years old. I've come to rely 100% on the intellect I was blessed with at
birth.

No crackpot religion or aberration can change that. As for true religion, it
is okay, but like your liver, you do not need to worry much about it as long
as you don't overdo your booze'ing.


[SNIP irrelevant prefacing....] If you reflect even for a
moment, you discover that every last damn scientific advance made in the
last several thousand years results from testing 'logical assumptions
based on observation' and finding those assumptions flawed.

Jim's comment is saying that reality IS deceiving us, and thanks to
Darwinism, "we have foiled and deconstructed the conspiracy."

By advancing this belief Jim's comment is also "admitting" that the
antonym of Darwinism (= Creationism-ID) is true; and that Darwinism is
in the business of explaining reality through the filter of
Materialism, which begins with anti-reality suppositions, like the
observation of design does not indicate the work of invisible
Designer. This means once Materialism and its suppositions are
accepted to explain nature: the conclusions are predetermined.

The true
cornerstone of the scientific method is testing - and the ability and
willingness to discard 'logical assumptions' when those conflict with
reality.

False: the cornerstone and foundation of science is observation.

Now, I'll grant that your reality differs in significant ways
from corroborative reality, but the fact remains, as Dana points out,
that your 'logical assumption' cannot be tested - which means that
everything based on that assumption is not science, Further, since some
of your conclusions (e.g. natural selection does not occur; speciation
does not occur) are shown by observed counterexample to be false, it
follows that either your logical assumption is false, or the chain of
reasoning leading to your conclusions is mistaken, or (as it seems to me
most likely) both.



What useful, testable predictions does it make?

What would falsify it?

If evolution were true, that is, undirected and unguided material
forces operating in reality causing living things, past and
present, to exist.

Is every occurrence of reproduction in living things directed or guided?
How? What suspension of natural laws occurs during mitosis to direct
the outcome?



Then your assumption is falsified. Evolution is true, and
undirected, material forces cause living things, past and present.
Note, please that this does not falsifiy the idea that "divine
causation is operating in reality". It only falsifies the idea
that "divine causation" can be scientifically observed.

But that is exactly what we are talking about whether it was actually
stated or not: scientific reality-observation. Creationism says Divine
causation is operating in reality. The same causes species to exist.

But how do you know this? As far as I can tell, 'Divine causation' is
indistinguishable from 'unguided material forces' in terms of observable
results. If you know Divine causation exists because you assume the
appearance of design in nature reflects Divine causation, it seems to me
that you might just as well forget science altogether and just claim you
know Divine casuation exists because you know Divine causation exists.

<snip.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ray



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is Elsberry on-the-run?
    ... Jim's comment is saying that reality IS deceiving us, ... Designer. ... forces operating in reality causing living things, ... that "divine causation" can be scientifically observed. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is Elsberry on-the-run?
    ... Jim's comment is saying that reality IS deceiving us, ... Designer. ... forces operating in reality causing living things, ... that "divine causation" can be scientifically observed. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is Elsberry on-the-run?
    ... reality). ... forces operating in reality causing living things, ... that "divine causation" can be scientifically observed. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is Elsberry on-the-run?
    ... invisible Designer (= Divine causation operating in reality). ... forces operating in reality causing living things, past and present, ...   ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science is a Philosophy
    ... "Belief in the scientific method is faith, ... He needs to clarify what he means by "an objective" reality. ... The important point to remember is that science constrains itself to ... rely on 'personal revelation', either directly or indirectly. ...
    (talk.origins)