|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 10/30/2007 : 08:13:34 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by pleco |
| So, Bill doesn't believe* in some part of ToE because it is speculative (according to him). |
1. I never said that it was speculative, if I did I miss-spoke. What I was trying to say is that speculation and assumption were involved in the final conclusion and this, by definition, equates to a belief that one's conclusion is the correct one.
2. As if I am the only one who states this.
| However, he does believe in god (and a specific flavor) and that this god brought about life/humanity/etc even though it is speculative (according to everyone). |
Again, I would state that yes, I have a belief that God did create life/humanity/etc... , however, I can not perform an experiment to prove that to you, or myself.
In a nutshell.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 10/30/2007 08:14:59 |
 |
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 08:26:15 [Permalink]
|
| Neither Kil nor I said that it never fossilizes. The Burgess Shale shows a great many soft tissued animals. But that is an exceptional, even unique, fossil bed. Unfortunatly, it is from the Middle Cambrian, well before fish became common, and will tell us nothing about lungs. |
I'm just saying that it can fossilise well... and has
I know of mutations and how they're supposed to work, but we're yet to see anything but speculation of how they can accumulate to produce supposed change.
| Hand waving. Lessee, do you have anything of support that would be acceptable to an independent third party? |
Yes, something I like to call the "Design Method", it doesn't specifically prove the existence of god, but provides very good reasons for the belief that god does exist.
I still have to finish my documentary, but it revolves around things such as
Exterior Symmetry and Interior asymmetry...
Marvel and astronomical aspects of the Big Bang
Trusted testimony, the words of Moses, Christ, Mormon and Mohamed.
Fossil Record and the creatures that didn't exist.
Homology, proof of a common designer and genetics.
And some other stuff...
| Nope; quite the contrary. Their orginal design was to suck stuff in. The Matamata Turtle shown feeds by collapsing it's huge neck and sealing it's mouth. When something, anything, containing protine swims by, it expands it's neck and opens it's mouth, scarfing up everything within range of the suction. Surinam Toads, aquatic salamanders, and a great many fish feed in much the same way. |
So you're saying lips on jaws have no use?
| What is your problem with French wine? When I was in France, I found it very palatable. |
Nothing wrong with it in particular, well except the effect it has on you, but it was just a little joke on "foreign media". |
| Edited by - Coelacanth on 10/30/2007 08:35:20 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 08:36:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
1. I never said that it was speculative, if I did I miss-spoke. What I was trying to say is that speculation and assumption were involved in the final conclusion and this, by definition, equates to a belief that one's conclusion is the correct one.
|
Speculative:
1: involving, based on, or constituting intellectual speculation; also : theoretical rather than demonstrable <speculative knowledge>
So you didn't mis-speak at all.
Now, you say "by definition" that if speculation or assumption is involved then this is a belief.
I think that you are constructing a straw man here.
The current theory that humans evolved from other life forms is not absolutely correct in as much as it is the theory with the highest probability of being correct. If new evidence is found that changes this, then the theory is modified or discarded. How could this be described as a belief? No definition of belief to my knowledge fits here.
Does your belief in god change with discovery of evidence to the contrary? Or would your belief in the christian god change if another religion's god performed a miracle? Is your belief in the christian god based on a probability?
You are using the definition of belief and trying to fit it into a scientific theory, and I don't think this works. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 08:40:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Siberia
What I don't understand is the almost irrational (or at least baseless) rejection that things can add up to small changes
|
things can add up to small changes, but then what things?
Bacteria metabolising nylon so much that they grow hands and feet and walk around.
Our cells becoming so sickled that we grow wings and fly away?
What changes have we observed do you think can accumulate into larger changes or the evolution myth we know of today? |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 08:49:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
Originally posted by Siberia
What I don't understand is the almost irrational (or at least baseless) rejection that things can add up to small changes
|
things can add up to small changes, but then what things?
Bacteria metabolising [sic] nylon so much that they grow hands and feet and walk around.
Our cells becoming so sickled that we grow wings and fly away?
What changes have we observed do you think can accumulate into larger changes or the evolution myth we know of today?
|
Any other examples you want to throw out that make your argument appear any more specious?
Nice use of the pejorative.
What have you observed that indicates another explanation with a higher probability of being correct?
And, at what point is deductive reasoning allowed in the scientific method? Has deductive reasoning from (at the time) incomplete data ever worked in other fields of science? If so, then why can this same technique not be applied to ToE, which has a vast amount of data for use? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 10/30/2007 08:51:45 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 08:53:21 [Permalink]
|
Coelacanth:
evolution myth |
Well, let's see. There is no part of creation, which must include a creator, that can't be seen as unevidenced. On the other hand, you yourself have agreed that evolution happens. Just not on the scale that most biologists think it happens. Using "myth" in conjunction with evolution is your way to equalize the explanations. They are not equal in supportive evidence so I find that characterization of what evolution is, even if you mean the parts you do not agree with, dishonest.
I will have to get to a reply to your replies to me later. Must run out to work now…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 08:56:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
Originally posted by Bill scott
1. I never said that it was speculative, if I did I miss-spoke. What I was trying to say is that speculation and assumption were involved in the final conclusion and this, by definition, equates to a belief that one's conclusion is the correct one.
|
Speculative:
1: involving, based on, or constituting intellectual speculation; also : theoretical rather than demonstrable <speculative knowledge>
So you didn't mis-speak at all.
Now, you say "by definition" that if speculation or assumption is involved then this is a belief.
I think that you are constructing a straw man here.
The current theory that humans evolved from other life forms is not absolutely correct in as much as it is the theory with the highest probability of being correct. If new evidence is found that changes this, then the theory is modified or discarded. How could this be described as a belief? No definition of belief to my knowledge fits here.
Does your belief in god change with discovery of evidence to the contrary? Or would your belief in the christian god change if another religion's god performed a miracle? Is your belief in the christian god based on a probability?
You are using the definition of belief and trying to fit it into a scientific theory, and I don't think this works.
|
Nope... no strawman there it is a belief.
Belief
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
That's the definition of belief (as a noun), which means "if speculation or assumption is involved then this is a belief" as the good man originally said.
For better understanding...
1. It is something believed, an opinion and definitely a conviction that many hold.
2. You have confidence it is true, even though it is not susceptible to rigorous proof.
3. There's a lot of faith flowing around here too.
4. The actual speculations you believe in are tenets of the theory. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 09:07:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
2. You have confidence it is true, even though it is not susceptible to rigorous proof. |
The key part here is "of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof".
Modern ToE is susceptible to rigorous proof, as defined the vast majority of scientists and the scientific community and beyond.
Unless you discard all of the accumulated knowledge that makes up modern science and scientific method, and you start redefining to fit the conclusion you want.
This is unfortunate, but an all too common tactic. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 10/30/2007 09:10:05 |
|
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 09:15:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Coelacanth:
evolution myth |
Well, let's see. There is no part of creation, which must include a creator, that can't be seen as unevidenced. On the other hand, you yourself have agreed that evolution happens. Just not on the scale that most biologists think it happens. Using "myth" in conjunction with evolution is your way to equalize the explanations. They are not equal in supportive evidence so I find that characterization of what evolution is, even if you mean the parts you do not agree with, dishonest.
I will have to get to a reply to your replies to me later. Must run out to work now…
|
I don't accentuate the parts I disagree with, I only refer to the parts that are not proven as myth under the following definition.
myth
1.
a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
b. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.
2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.
3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: "German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth" (Leon Wolff).
|
| Edited by - Coelacanth on 10/30/2007 09:26:32 |
|
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 09:19:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
I would enjoy that very much. I hope you do not mind if I run with some of your material.
|
Oh no... feel free to take as much as you want. That's what I'm here for. I'd even endorse plagiarism. |
|
|
|
Coelacanth
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 09:35:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
Originally posted by Coelacanth
2. You have confidence it is true, even though it is not susceptible to rigorous proof. |
The key part here is "of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof".
Modern ToE is susceptible to rigorous proof, as defined the vast majority of scientists and the scientific community and beyond.
Unless you discard all of the accumulated knowledge that makes up modern science and scientific method, and you start redefining to fit the conclusion you want.
This is unfortunate, but an all too common tactic.
|
Actually in essence there is no actual "proof" of evolution, only evidence.
Evidence and proof are 2 separate things apparently.
Proof is evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth(Atheism is enough for some). Whilst there maybe reason to produce belief in evolution, it fails that rigorous or exact and accurate reasoning to establish that it is true.
I think your confusion stems from the half-truth that evolution really is. Some is proven some isn't... It really is amusing to see. It's a common technique to mix truth with falsehood. It's a very effective technique.
The sad thing about evolution is that it seems to be done so honestly.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 09:45:12 [Permalink]
|
More imbecilic handwaiving...
Until you start that thread and explain why and how a specific bit of evidence for evolution is "speculative", then you have nothing.
Your continued refusal to do so is noted.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 09:52:00 [Permalink]
|
Somewhat off topic but it applies to some things that were said earlier in the tread:
In regards to "Supernatural". Coelacanth has argued that things that were once considered supernatural have since been explained by science and are (thus) now considered natural. Obviously.....but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? It can be argued that "Supernatural" anything does not exist and never will......which leads to my next argument:
Not only is/are god(s) highly unlikely to exist but I can see no possible evidence that could ever convince me that he(they) do. Try and name any evidence that could not otherwise be explained? I can't think of anything. If a Jesus looking fellow suddenly appeared from thin air and announced that he was indeed Jesus.....would that be evidence of gods existence?.......NO. There would always be a better (even if extremely improbable)natural explanation for the observed phenomenon. Just remember Arthur C Clarks description of a technologically advanced race being indecipherable from magic. Q from from Star Trek (while extremely improbable) would always be a more likely explanation that the existence of a literal god(s). |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 10:10:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
Originally posted by Dave W.Okay, so for you personally, "speculation" is a synonym for "science," and so it is quite literally impossible to present to you any science of any sort which is not speculative, because they're the same thing to you. I understand now. Even science in favor of God's existence must be speculative, it's some other kind of something in support of God's existence which isn't speculative, which you won't talk about.
Was it, or were you looking deeper than what I'm actually asking? |
No... not really that's actually another strawman. |
What can I say? You said that speculation includes the same things that science does, making them identical. Now, you say that's a strawman. I'll chalk this up to your intentional ambiguity, which is becoming rather hostile.| Many sciences are not speculative. Like gravity... There are speculative aspects of how it works, but there is plenty observational non-speculative evidence in science. |
How is evolutionary biology different from gravitational physics in regard to how much speculation there is?Originally posted by Dave W.
A hypothesis is a (very) tentative conclusion based upon basic observations, so there is no "as opposed to." |
Exactly... so you don't have a point. |
Good job dodging my original question.Originally posted by Dave W.
I fail to see how this snippet from a discussion of the scientific method supports your assertion that the "definition of science" is "people are wrong all the time" or "realigning with the facts." After all, the mechanisms through which one does science are not synonymous with science itself. If things were otherwise, then a map would be the same as the terrain. |
Would it be science for someone to ignore new facts and continue basing their research on blatant falsities? No science is based off observatons and aligning your hypothesis with those observations. "Realigning with the facts" is very much a definition of science as is observation. |
No, "realigning with the facts" is very much a part of the scientific method, it is not a part of the definition of science.Originally posted by Dave W.
Oh, right: you've redefined "science" to equal "speculation," and so if God isn't scientific then God isn't speculative. If you'd publish your personal dictionary, it would be helpful to this discussion. |
Oh right, you're going to try and misrepresent my position and then argue against you misrepresentation instead of my argument. |
It is impossible to correctly represent your argument when you are being purposefully ambiguous.Then show me which definition of "speculation" includes "testing."Originally posted by Dave W.
Say what to the who? Your response doesn't make sense even in light of your personal definition of the word "science." |
You're obviously not reading properly, I didn't even used the word science. |
I never claimed that you used the word science, and don't know why that would be important to your clarification of what you'd said.Originally posted by Dave W.
How hard something is to prove is utterly irrelevant to whether it's amenable to scientific exploration - the phenomenon in question need simply be testable in principle for it to be scientific (using everyone else's definition, here, not yours). |
Exactly... which makes science easily flawed in that respect. Because you only need to speculate on a method you think could happen instead of what actually did. |
Oh, I see: now you're substituting the noun "science" for the adjective "scientific" inappropriately. Again: science is not speculation. Whether something is testable in principle is not speculative. Nothing I said has anything to do with speculation.Originally posted by Dave W.
For example, since God can change what we know of as "reality" on a whim, that means that there is no conceivable test which could in principle distinguish a universe in which God exists from one in which God does not exist. God is thus not something that science could ever investigate. |
But god doesn't do that. |
Prove it.| Omnipotence can not be used to dismiss questioning god's existence. |
How could it not be?| There are plenty of ways one could investigate the involvement of a creator... |
Describe one.| ...regardless of how much your indoctrination has taught you otherwise. |
Are you really going to start that sort of insult with me? Apparently you are.Originally posted by Dave W.
You also wrote:
This has yet to become a civilized debate. Creating your own definitions of common words but acting as if we should understand what you say is anything but civilized. |
Yes, strawmen are very pathetic attempts at debating... |
You are responsible for the strawmen, because you're the one who is intentionally injecting ambiguity into the discussion and then shouting "strawman" when people get you wrong.| ...but this hasn't become a flame war and yet it is a controversial issue, therefore this is relatively civil. |
Says you, but your hostility is quite clear.Originally posted by Dave W.
I didn't ask you if any experiments had been done, I asked you to describe one. You failed to do so, and instead fabricated a mythical "law of science." |
You're asking me if any experiments have been done to prove the existence of god? |
What part of "I asked you to describe one" says to you that I'm asking if any had been done? Especially after I explicilty told you that I wasn't asking if experiments had been done. And how did the word "prove" work its way into this? Really, you should be careful of accusing others of not comprehending your posts when you're unable to understand a simple question.| What experiments can be done to prove someone exists? |
How is that question relevant?| You're not making any sense. |
You've suggested (twice now) that God is amenable to scientific testing. I'm asking you to describe a possible test for the existence of God. How does that not make sense?| No you're wrong... horribly. |
Only if you missed my point, which you did.I.e.
If creatures A and B have the same trait X, then God exists.
doesn't apply at all... nothing infers the existence of god in that at all.
if creature A has trait X and creature B does not, then God exists,
Again the same
or if creature A has trait X and creature B has trait Y, then God exists.
You're just being silly, what you mean to say is... |
See, you knew what I meant, but you rather than address my point you harp on the silliness of my mistake and then grind it in under your heel. How, again, is this "civilized?" Do you think yourself to be "civilized" simply because you're not calling me names directly?If creatures A and B have the same trait X, then God could exist.
if creature A has trait X and creature B does not, then God could still exist,
or if creature A has trait X and creature B has trait Y, then God could again still exist.
None of them provide evidence of God's existence. They just don't contradict with the existence of god, which doesn't provide anything in support of his being. |
Right, now compare that to the science of evolution.| Also God's Divine Plan is pretty much inked in God's Divine books of which a lot of understanding of the world is derived. |
Oh? Name one.| Traits matching can only be used as a means of showing that they have a connection. In your case it's a common ancestor and in my case it's a common designer. |
Only if you assume that the designer would re-use parts of the design. That's an unsupportable assumption.What you said up there is just as useful as saying
- If creatures A and B have the same trait X, then David Humphrey exists,
- if creature A has trait X and creature B does not, then David Humphrey exists,
- or if creature A has trait X and creature B has trait Y, then David Humphrey exists.
Those don't contradict with the existence of David Humphrey either. |
That's precisely my point.Or I could say...
- If gravity occurs on planet A and B and they have the same trait X, then evolution happened,
- If gravity occurs on planet A and B and they don't have have the same trait X, then evolution happened,
- If gravity occurs on planet A and B and they have different traits, then evolution happened.
They don't contradict with evolution.
Your arguments are VERY weak. |
Yes, that's precisely my point. Your arguments, Coelacanth, are very weak. Perhaps due to your purposeful ambiguity. Maybe if you stopped that, we could reach an understanding. As it is, you appear to be doing nothing more than setting yourself up for "persecution."| Yes Bill you are indeed correct they are indoctrinated... |
And now the ad hominem dismissals begin again.| I believe it stems mostly from their atheism (I could be wrong) which makes them close up their mind to the possibility that evolution could be false so much so that they blindly follow the theory into eventual factualisation within their minds. This is the sad story that can be told for a great many in their predicament. |
All entirely speculative ad hominems designed to inflame. The age of "civilized" debate here is over. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 10:19:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Coelacanth
I know of mutations and how they're supposed to work, but we're yet to see anything but speculation of how they can accumulate to produce supposed change. |
Speak for yourself. I've certainly seen such evidence. If you haven't, that certainly isn't a problem with the theory itself, and suggesting that the theory is somehow flawed because of your admitted ignorance of the evidence is rather nutty. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Fish fin gene gave us the finger
Topic Locked
