Re: AiG goes after Francis Collins

On May 26, 4:36 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2009 13:56:38 -0700, snex wrote:
stop trying to evade and obfuscate. i asked you a simple and
straightforward "yes or no" question and i want a simple and
straightforward "yes or no" answer. did the resurrection happen? yes or
no.

(You might want to try reading _The Mathematical Experience_.  Your
understanding of mathematics is no better than your understanding of
science or religion.)

oh really? so 2+2 != 4?

For an infinite number of mathematical systems, yes.  For a trivial
example, consider base3 arithmetic.

why would i consider an irrelevant matter? no matter what base you
choose, the values represented by the symbols remain the same.
apparently, you have no understanding of mathematics at all.

can you show me a single mathematician who wont answer with a simple
and direct "yes" if you went up to him and asked "does 2+2=4?"


are you seriously asserting that *i* have no understanding of
mathematics when you are questioning one of the most basic statements of
arithmetic?

Oh, it's not an assertion.  It's a hypothesis that's been validated by
the evidence I have available to me.

and yet you are the one claiming that in base3, 2+2!=4. you are dead
wrong. the symbols may change, but the value of 2(base10) added to the
value of 2(base10) still ends up being the value of 4(base10).

or did you not know this?




quit obfuscating and evading.

If we're not tied to your impoverished definition of evidence, then we
can admit literary and historical evidence.  While this can be useful for
some scientific hypotheses, both the nature of the evidence and the
nature of science are insufficient to allow to state with the finality
you're looking for whether or not the resurrection occurred.  This does
not mean there is no evidence that the resurrection occurred, only that
if we are looking for a naturalistic explanation of the evidence, there
may be more plausible hypotheses.

quit obfuscating and evading. if i built a time machine and went back
to witness the death of jesus, what would i see 3 days later outside
of his tomb?


<snip>

then why do people assert that the resurrection actually happened,

Do you know of anyone who asserts this?  Based on evidence, that is, not
your personal revelation?

1 billion catholics assert it.


and
why are you not criticizing them with the same amount of fervor that you
do so with creationists?

As I don't know who these people are, it's kinda difficult for me to
criticize them.  

then you are a liar.


<snip>

and yet ken miller thinks a resurrection REALLY happened.

Really?  Where does he say this?  Why is what Ken Miller thinks so
important to you?

he is a catholic, and catholics are required to believe it.

Cite, please.

and ken
miller specifically is not important to me.

Then why keep bringing him up?

he is an example of science
and religion being incompatible in a person other than a
frothing-at-the-mouth creationist.

Any time you'd like to get around to demonstrating this, go right ahead.  
His science is exceptional, so I'm not sure what makes you think his
beliefs are incompatible with science.

Is this another personal revelation?

his beliefs include the idea that a virgin gave birth and that a dead
human body got up and walked around. he has no scientific evidence for
either of these beliefs, and he knows that if these assertions were
made about people living today, he would reject them based on his
knowledge of science. yet because they were claimed to happen 2000
years ago by a book esteemed by his religion, he believes them. if a
book based on religious authority somehow changes your conclusions
about events that you would otherwise reject based on science, then
you are behaving in a manner incompatible with science.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: thoughts on Jesus
    ... I have a pretty good understanding of how my wife will ... You said that evidential based science is the ... You seem to be saying that science can't explain human behavior. ... You don't have evidence to support them. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Your Communication Problems
    ... and I will go back and look at the evidence (which may ... >> Mathematics is not empirical science. ... In fact, most scientists do not ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: thoughts on Jesus
    ... I have a pretty good understanding of how my wife will ... You said that evidential based science is ... No I'm not - I'm saying that human behaviour is an example of ... You don't have evidence to support them. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: thoughts on Jesus
    ... I have a pretty good understanding of how my wife will ... You said that evidential based science is ... No I'm not - I'm saying that human behaviour is an example of ... You don't have evidence to support them. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... >>>Science requires REAL evidence and Any theory is tested by the evidence. ... The science and the mathematics are validated by other ... > of quantum mechanics and very deep mathematics in string theory. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading