Re: Thanks.

All-seeing-I wrote:
On Nov 6, 9:27 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All-seeing-I wrote:
On Nov 6, 6:16 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All-Seeing-I wrote:
" I would like to thank everyone that responded to the thread
entitled: A few serious Questions for the Evolutionist." I was amazed
at the thoughtfulness of some of the replies. Many of you are quite
intelligent and articulate. Again thanks.
Likewise, i was not suprised to see a few of the same old characters
posting the same old crap.
Anyway. My sincerest thanks to those that took the time to give the
thoughtful and thought provoking replies.
Next.
The tone that many of your posts shared was that there is no evidence
for God but, there is in fact evidence for evolution using science.
This was a main point made over and over.
While I respect science for all of the great things it has given
mankind; science has flaws. Science has flaws because humans have
flaws, Sciencentific ability will only go as far as mankinds ability
to percieve and interpretate data will go. But there are many animals
that have a higher level of perception then the average human.
So there is no evidence for God. But science offers data. Data that
may be incomplete or even incorrect due to the flaws in mankind's
abilities to percieve and interpretate data.
Basically one has to use the same kind of faith (call it trust if you
like) that a creationist uses to believe God created, to believe
scientific theories such as evolution.
it seems to be THAT simple.
It all comes down to a question of epistemology. If you consider
revelation to be the most important source of knowledge, one that trumps
empirical data, then your beliefs follow directly. (You have the
additional problem that you need further revelation do determine which
among many conflicting revelations are the correct ones, but that's a
comparatively minor problem.)
Then again, if you consider empirical data important, my beliefs follow.
None of your objections apply without that assumption that revelation
trumps evidence. Sure, our data are incomplete, but they're all we have
to go by. There is no other source of knowledge.
And faith doesn't enter into it, except for the assumption (which I
would not call faith) that empirical evidence is meaningful.
Empirical data is very important. Dare I say, "Science" is very
important. That does not mean your beliefs follow.
Not just from that, no. However, it happens that the data do support my
beliefs. In fact, that's where my beliefs come from in the first place.
They aren't a priori positions.

Sure they are. Knowledge is cumulative. So you have to take a priori
position if you have not made a direct scientific observation
yourself, The same holds true for believing the bible and miracles.
One has to accept the fact that the cumulative knowledge of past
events as described are true. This is why many say it takes the same
kind of faith to believe man evolved that it takes to believe God
created.

I don't agree. There are important differences. In science, you can test prior results, and in the normal course of doing science an incorrect prior result will cause contradiction in the structure of knowledge that will invite re-examination. Consistency with other results and new data provides a constant check. Again, no faith required. I can go out and check human evolution within a few minutes, just by downloading some randomly selected DNA sequences from GenBank, aligning them, and doing a phylogenetic analysis.

But here is the catch. Mankind's data is based on observations while
using abilities that are not perfect. How do you know your data is
accurate if you cannot trust your own perceptions of the observation
being made?

That's nihilism. We do indeed assume that we are not hopelessly wrong about every perception, and that a misperception will generate inconsistencies. But that objection applies to all knowledge whatsoever, including yours. How do you know your ancient texts are right, or that you are reading them correctly? I can at least test my knowledge against the world.

For instance. Many animals can percieve frequences that mankind cannot
percieve.

For a long time those frequences did not exist from man's perspective
without a device. The frequences would still not be percievable and
therefore nonexistant from man's perspective without such a device.

With that in mind, man's interpretation of the data could be
incomplete or even inaccurate based on mankind's limited perception
ability alone.

It's always possible. But if such frequencies exist and have any effects, they will generate inconsistencies in our explanations of the data. And so we will have to postulate them.

Even evolutionary science has furthered mankind's knowledge regarding
such things as disease. But that does not mean your beliefs follow.
Well, some of my beliefs follow from that.

The problem as I see it: There are too many that will /only/ accept
empirical data.
And the problem as I see it is that there are too few.

But there are other forms of data and other types of
evidences that can be equally as valid.
I disagree. What are they, and how do we know they're valid?

How can you lay claim to validity when, the very senses you posses to
gather and interpret data are limited? If your data is not 100%
correct then there could be other data that is equally as valid.

That is just common sense.

No it isn't. It's nihilism. If your argument is correct, you have established that it's impossible for us to know anything whatsoever. I think I'm typing now. But what if my senses are imperfect and I'm really peeling potatoes? What if your revelations are false? How would you know?

Maybe science would have some
new "revelations" if it would consider information that has been
recorded for posterity rather then dismiss everything that does not
fit a scientific framework for acceptable data, Scientific data can be
flawed based on mankind's ability to 1)Find data 2) Interpret ate the
data and 3) Communicate the data.
I don't know what you mean by that.

It is rather amusing to hear the evolutionist invalidate all of the
other unscientific data when science's data itself is flawed. It is
flawed because human understanding and perceptions are flawed. If they
were not flawed we would be able to pinpoint the origins of man with
no need for further revision.
By this you perhaps mean that all our understanding must be provisional,
and that we don't have complete information. Still, that doesn't mean we
know nothing, or that we don't know some things with near certainty. We
may not know exactly which fossils are our ancestors, or by what pathway
(and I'm sure I've mentioned that it's practically impossible to tell
whether a fossil is an ancestor or a cousin), but we do know with fair
confidence that we are closely related to chimps, and with near-total
certainty that chimps and gorillas are our closest relatives.

Of course we are closely related. Man and chimp share common elements
as well as a common design. So long as there is more then one
interpretation for the evidence no one knows exactly what the origins
of man are.

Please don't redefine words. You know what "closely related" means. They share a common ancestor, somewhere around 5 million years ago. There is not more than one interpretation of the evidence, at least not that actually makes sense. Don't take refuge in postmodernist relativism. It's unseemly.

I do not intend to invalidate evolution. I question the authority that
science in general claims over what is and is not acceptable data.
Especially in the light that scientific data itself, is flawed.
Question all you like, but you have provided no reasons why your "data"
should be accepted at all, much less on an equal basis with empirical data.

Any construct of mankind will have an equal chance of being correct.
Religion and science are both man-made explanations.

I deny that any construct has an equal chance. That's just nonsense. Suppose I flip a coin. You say it will come up heads. I say it will come up Cincinnati. Do we have an equal chance of being correct?

It seems reasonable at this juncture in man's history that evolution
takes a faith just like belief in God takes a faith.
It seems reasonable to you. Not to me. And since you seem largely
unacquainted with the evidence for evolution, I'm not sure how you
manage to decide that belief in it takes faith.

Well, first, science has to presuppose it's interpretation of the
evidence is correct. I have shown you how and why interpretations can
be incorrect. So it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the
next step that you have to have faith in your evidence since the
evidence could be wrong or have more then one interpretation.

That is the same kind of faith it takes to believe "God created".

You have hit on something. Science does require a few basic assumptions, and one is that humans are capable of understanding the world; i.e. that evidence can determine truth. If it can't, however, we can know nothing about anything. Now of course you have an alternative source of knowledge: faith. And pure faith would be self-contained: you know the truth because you know it's true because you know it. But you don't really work that way. You don't have a self-contained revelation about everything. You have some documents that you assume are true and properly interpreted, but they don't tell you everything. You too assume that you are typing and not peeling potatoes, and your revelation presumably didn't tell you that. You too rely on empirical data for much in life. So why reject it here and now?

By the way, I have to ask. Are there two of you? This exchange is so unlike the adman of my past experience as to suggest that some other hand has taken over.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Thanks.
    ... The tone that many of your posts shared was that there is no evidence ... there is in fact evidence for evolution using science. ... And faith doesn't enter into it, except for the assumption (which I ... man's interpretation of the data could be ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
    ... Science makes inferences. ... >>Faith is not something I find useful in determining truth. ... the evidence points in its favor so I believe it. ... Some of the most vehement biblical literalists on ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Thanks.
    ... The tone that many of your posts shared was that there is no evidence ... there is in fact evidence for evolution using science. ... And faith doesn't enter into it, except for the assumption (which I ... interpretation for the evidence no one knows exactly what the origins ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... And you take potshots about my faith. ... guise of science, but that does not provide an answer. ... A miracle needs the supernatural. ... The evidence of it, yes. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Thanks.
    ... The tone that many of your posts shared was that there is no evidence ... there is in fact evidence for evolution using science. ... Basically one has to use the same kind of faith (call it trust if you ... man's interpretation of the data could be ...
    (talk.origins)