Posted on 03/25/2009 9:29:08 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
What's dishonest is misrepresenting my arguments.
An "actual scientist" is someone who does actual scientific work and can publish results in recognized scientific journals.
In my football analogy, "actual scientists" are the ones down on the field playing. You and I are fans in the stands, rooting for our respective teams. But ID-Creationists are not on the field playing, because they don't qualify as scientists. They are all over on a different ball-field -- one called theology-philosophy.
Again and again you accuse scientists of having "philosophical beliefs." Of course they do, and many are highly religious, including Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. But science itself has only one belief I know of, and that is "methodological naturalism."
Yes, I know, you keep saying "philosophical naturalism," and you even claim "all of science" supports this. But you have not offered evidence of even a single instance of it. So I think your claim is just rubbish.
"Um, those aren't 'records'. Those are interpretations based on philosophical naturalism. That's what you are incapable of understanding."
Nonsense. I understand perfectly well. The scientific interpretations of ice-cores are based not on "philosophical naturalism" but rather on "methodological naturalism." And these are every bit as obvious as tree rings.
Ice-core "rings" can be, and have been, observed forming every year for many decades. Methodological naturalism simply insists that natural processes we see happening today happened the same way in prior years -- baring physical evidence to the contrary.
And there is no evidence -- none, zero, zip, nada -- suggesting that ice-core "rings" have not formed the same way every year for many hundreds of thousands of years.
Important point: this has NOTHING to do with "philosophical naturalism," it is strictly methodological naturalism -- aka SCIENCE -- in action.
"Didn't misrepresent you at all. You used arithmetic and simple mathematics because you need the fallacy of equivocation to equate arithmetic and simple math to macroevolution. I simply called you on it. And you simply don't understand what is methodological naturalism and what is not."
Utter nonsense. I didn't equate simple mathematics to macroevolution. The issue here was-is: can we speak of science as telling us things? You insist, NO. Science, you claim, says nothing because there is no such thing as science, only a bunch of "philosophical naturalists" making various atheistic claims. I was simply demonstrating that one branch of science -- mathematics -- teaches us many things.
When you challenged that, I provided other simple examples from other branches of science.
As to which one of us better understands definitions of terms, let us note yet again, that I have been very thorough in providing definitions whenever that seemed appropriate, whereas you have consistently REFUSED to define ANY of your terms.
So I think a reasonable person would conclude that you know nothing real about what your saying.
"Astronomy doesn't 'tell' us anything. You are personifying an inanimate methodology again. Methodological astronomy evidence is only of the relative rotation of the earth and the universe. Men with geokinetic beliefs say that the earth rotates. It could just as easily be the universe that rotates. Methodological astronomy evidence is only of the relative motion of the earth and sun. Men with geokinetic beliefs say that the earth orbits the sun. Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis all recognized that geocentric models are equally valid under GR. That is a concept you cannot grasp. "
Big-time nonsense. I fully understand what you said, and it's all 2:00 AM chemically-enhanced sophomoric cr*pola. It's not only "geokinetic beliefs" which say the earth revolves around the sun -- people can go look and see, take pictures, watch and measure it happening.
Sure, any astronomer worth his salt can reconstruct the models to show the whole Universe revolving around Earth, but that's just a useless exercise in nonsense, because it doesn't show reality as we can easily see it.
And, Astronomy does tell us many things, in the same sense that Christianity or conservatism teaches certain things.
"...And you think it no big deal that theories constantly change, as thought that is a strength. It is a weakness and a warning not to accept philosophical naturalism as being real. It will change tomorrow."
Yes, there are many competing scientific hypotheses and theories, and over time these change as new data and ideas work their way through the scientific community.
You claim this is a "weakness and a warning not to accept philosophical naturalism as being real." But NO scientific theory depends on "philosophical naturalism," so your warning is invalid. If you dispute this, then demonstrate even one example.
"Settled science" has nothing to do with how many people agree with it -- even Al Gore. "Settled science" simply refers to questions where there is no real debate amongst SCIENTISTS. There can be all kinds of public debate, or theological controversy, but if SCIENTISTS don't debate it, then it's "settled," at least for now. And yes, of course, any "settled" matter can instantly become "unsettled" when there is some new SCIENTIFIC reason.
"Even things that you think are 'settled' are not and you merely believe them because lots of other people do, the fallacy of argumentum ad populum."
Another false accusation. No serious person believes anything just because "lots of other people do." Nor have I ever made that the basis of any argument, contrary to your repeated false claims.
What's true is: science has discovered many things which work. I flip a light switch and the light comes on. Of course, I don't fully understand it, but have a lot of confidence in those who do.
"And again, since macroevolution does not exist there is no way to define something that does not exist."
This has been your repeated standard response. And so, why do you keep using that word? Why do you keep fantasizing projected beliefs about it on me? I am perfectly happy to talk about micro-evolution, or adaptation, or just evolution -- and never mention "macro-evolution." But you keep bringing it up-- why?
"Nope. Wrong again. Adaptation is clearly defined and I use the standard dictionary definition of it."
According to Webster's: "adaptation: ...2b: modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment."
evolution: ...4b:a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations."
So we say that by adaptation generations become modified, then naturally selected to better survive their environments. Over many generations, adaptation becomes micro-evolution, and over many more generations it becomes some word that we must not speak or define, right?
"Adaptation is observed and wrongly referred to as 'micro-evolution'. Macro-evolution does not exist except as a philosophical belief."
Wrongly? Wrongly?? By whose standard do you say "wrongly"?
And now you claim that "macro-evolution" DOES exist, as a "philosophical belief," right? And just what is that "belief"? Can you describe it for us all?
"Nope, not in the context you were using it. You simply moved the goalposts so that you could be 'correct' and then re-commit the same fallacy by defining the ID scientists out of your reality. In doing so, you re-commit the fallacy that you just denied that you committed. "
More nonsense. I don't define "out of reality" ID-Creationists, that's ridiculous. I have merely reported FACTUALLY that they are not SCIENTISTS. They are theologians, or philosophers, or whatever else you wish to call them, but they are not scientists because they don't meet the qualifications.
You know, pal, if this were a theological discussion about the Second Coming of Christ versus the anti-Christ, you'd have no trouble whatever understanding the difference. Well, of course it's too extreme, but in a small small sense, our ID-Creationists are to real science what the anti-Christ is to Christians -- false as false can be.
"You clearly engaged in the fallacy of poisoning the well and the fallacy of special pleading with your use of the term 'serious' in an attempt to argue that your particular belief in opposition to global warming is 'scientific' while opposition to macroevolution is not."
Clearly it's ID-Creationists who "poison the well" of science by pretending to be scientists, when in fact they are anti-science.
The debate over "global warming" IS scientific because recognized scientists debate it. This particular debate over ID-Creation is NOT scientific because ID-Creationists are not recognized scientists, and they clearly suggest but can't confirm non-natural causes for some adaptations and/or evolution.
"Another 'defined truth', how convenient. Since ID scientists do not subscribe to philosophical naturalism, their articles cannot be published in philosophically natural journals, thereby making them unscientific 'by definition'. It's a small little logical circle, but one you enjoy running. "
Rubbish. Once again: the correct term is "methodological naturalism," not "philosophical naturalism." Your charge of "philosophical naturalism" is a lie, and you need to stop making it -- or PROVE IT.
The process of becoming a recognized scientist is pretty simple: you go to school, get really good grades, get hired doing scientific work, publish in recognized scientific journals, maybe teach science at a university, etc. In short, you become an expert and meet all the standards set by science.
If you refuse to do these things, then you are not a scientist, it's that simple. Sure, you can be lots of other things, and still be taken seriously, but you can't honestly pretend to be a scientist.
This logic is not circular, it's factual. It is what it is.
"No, that's the fallacy of equivocation for equating observed adaptation with macroevolution through a definition and extrapolation. You really should learn to distinguish such philosophical beliefs from reality."
False again. I said nothing about "macro-evolution." I said short term and long term micro-evolution. I could as easily have said short-term and long-term adaptation. So it's only you who keep throwing out that word "macro-evolution," first acting as if it means something important, but then refusing to define what that might be.
"Again, since there are no human observations and records, these things are interpretations of observations made currently. You simply can't distinguish between reality and philosophical belief based on assumption and extrapolation. "
Rubbish. My comments referred to ice-core "rings," which have been clearly observed forming for many decades. So extrapolating the process back into pre-history is simply a matter of asking: what physical data do we have to suggest the process was different before we could observe it? Answer: none. Question: do we have other methods to confirm the data from ice-cores? Answer: yes, many.
That's science in action. It's what science does. If you insist the world worked differently before humans could observe it, they you must provide scientific evidence for that. Otherwise, it's not science you claim.
"What you fail to realize is that those same arguments apply to your belief in macroevolution. The only difference is that you philosophically accept the evidence that supports what you already believe and philosophically reject the evidence that doesn't support what you already believe. The only constant is what you already believe."
Nonsense. And just what exactly is MY belief in "macro-evolution"? You won't tell us what YOU think "macro-evolution" is. You won't tell us what science thinks "macro-evolution" is. But maybe you can be persuaded to tell us what MY belief is in "macro-evolution"?
And if, just possibly, you don't really know what it is, then why do you keep saying it?
"Except that 'descent w/ modification' could also be observed in an adaptive biology that is not 'evolving' consistent with macroevolution. Yet you reject that because you philosophically believe in macroevolution. And again with the reliance on 'defined truth' and argumentum ad populum. You have nothing but philosophical beliefs and fallacy."
More nonsense. "Descent with modification" is exactly what occurs under the concepts of "adaptation," "evolution" and "micro-evolution" -- short-term and long-term. I reject none of that. And since we are agreed that the term "macro-evolution" is meaningless, we won't even discuss it.
So your argument here is false from beginning to end, and you ought to cut it out, pal. ;-)
Nope, completely on-target. What's wrong with you, pal?
"Anther false accusation, and I'll explain why: pal, when you write stuff which is flat wrong, you leave me wondering, is that because you are too stupid to know the truth, or because you are lying? Well, when you use fancy foreign words, that tends to eliminate the argument of simple stupidity, and adds weight to the argument for lying. That's why I highly recommend the KISS rule: Keep It Simple Stupid."
Nope, what you don't understand you refer to as 'fancy foreign words'. Those 'fancy foreign words' are simple concepts. I kept it simple for you and you still didn't get it.
"Well, look at that: an actual argument, what do you know?"
So, after denying that you personify science you now admit it. Good for you.
"And to your argument there's a simple answer. Does Christianity teach us anything? Or is it only some people claiming to be Christians who make statements regarding their religious beliefs? Or, indeed, does the Bible teach us anything? Or are there only certain people who claim to have read the Bible as the basis for their own religious teachings? And how do we even know for sure if those people and their supposed ideas are even real? What if they are not?"
So, after admitting that you personify science after having denied it you present a rant. Is that how you handle being called on poor thinking skills?
"It's stupid questions like this which caused me to introduce you to our 2:00 AM philosophical sophomores, whose chemically enhanced perceptions lead them to conclude that all of reality is just illusion and deception."
Personifying science is where the lack of critical-thinking skills shows most clearly. You consistently make this mistake and deny it as well. Just before admitting it and going on another rant.
"In fact, that's all just nonsense. In ordinary usage and simple language, we do speak of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, science, biology, physics, etc., etc., as teaching us certain doctrines, principles, laws, facts, and so on."
Trying to justify your mistake of personifying science now? After having denied that you do it you now try to justify it?
"The doctrines of science include methodological naturalism, which you insist on calling "philosophical naturalism," though you refuse to define either term, or explain the difference, all the while falsely accusing me of not knowing or misrepresenting them."
Nope, you simply show that you fail to understand the problem while personifying science, then denying that you do so, then admitting that you do so, then justifying doing so...
"I do know the difference, I know that science is fundamentally based on methodological naturalism. and that your claim of "philosophical naturalism" is just another false accusation."
Nope. People use the claim of 'methodological naturalism' to cover for the foundation of philosophical naturalism that they use to filter their interpretations of evidence gained through methodological naturalism. That's how philosophically-natural theories are formed.. Were there any theories not based on philosophical naturalism, you would present them. They don't exist. It's not an 'accusation', it just a factual statement. You just characterize a factual statement as an 'accusation' so that you have grounds for rejecting it in your own mind. That's weak thinking.
"In fact, there is such a thing as "science," which does have committees, in the same sense as there is Christianity, or Conservatism, Liberalism, Communism, and so on. More to the point: what is your particular problem with this? You seem seriously hung up on it. I'm telling you, you sound like a bunch of 2:00 AM sophomores on this. Why?"
No, 'science' has no committees. Organizations of people have committees. You personify science again. Science is not a person. It does not 'have' anything.
"Sorry, now I'm out of time. I will come back and finish up later."
No need to apologize. I haven't placed a time-constraint on you.
Again with characterizing honest statements of observations as 'attacks'. You certainly do personalize the conversation.
"Sure you might well claim that you just love science, and it's only me trying to defend science that you attack. But to say that, you'd first have to confess that there IS such a thing as "science," which so far you've refused to do. Indeed, we might then logically ask, how can you pretend to "love" a subject (science) which you deny even exists?"
I do love methodological naturalism. Why would you think otherwise. It's people who personify science as having human attributes and misrepresent philosophical naturalism as methodological naturalism that are deceiving the world.
"All of it. That's because, by definition, methodological naturalism (science) has no place for supernatural interventions (God). By contrast, religion -- Christianity especially -- is all about the acts and purposes of God as they relate to mankind. In other words: by definition, all of the Bible disagrees with science -- every word of it. So any part of the Bible we hold true is, in a sense, in contradiction of science."
That's what I thought. You believe evolution over Genesis because man says that the earth is older than 6,000 years. No room for the supernatural anyplace where you believe man over the Bible.
"I'll put this as simply as I can: the Bible is not about science, it's about God and mankind. Science is not about God or anything else supernatural. It's only about the natural world, and natural causes which govern it."
I'll put this as simply as I can: you believe the word of men over the Word of God where it pleases you and invoke the supernatural where it pleases you. There's nothing empirical about that and therefore nothing empirical about your faith in science.
"Baloney. The discipline science claims for itself is "methodological naturalism." The charge of "philosophical naturalism" is usually just a pejorative, thrown by anti-science theological-philosophers claiming that science is nothing but atheism."
Nope, philosophical naturalism is the foundation of science. Were it not, you could present a theory not based on philosophical naturalism. You can't. They don't exist, you just won't admit it.
"The truth is, some scientists do subscribe to "philosophical naturalism" -- also known as "metaphysical naturalism" or "ontological naturalism." And you could easily call that belief their religion -- or more properly: their denial of religion."
The truth is that all scientific 'theories' are proposed by people who adhere to philosophical naturalism. Philosophical naturalism is the religion of people who use methodological naturalism to promote their beliefs.
"However, many other scientists reject philosophical naturalism as the basis of religion, and instead believe in Christianity or some other traditional teaching."
Those are the YEC's.
"But let us note carefully the distinctions between methodological and philosophical naturalism."
Let us note carefully that the distinctions are not presented when philosophically natural theories are presented by people who accept philosophical naturalism 'a priori'.
" Philosophical naturalism denies the very existence of a supernatural realm, saying: the natural world is the ONLY world there is."
Yes, I know. Science is based on it. Were it not, you could point to a theory not based on philosophical naturalism. You can't.
"Methodological naturalism does not deny the existence of a supernatural realm, but says instead: by definition, science can only deal in the natural realm with natural occurrences."
Yes, I know. Origins theories like the Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution do not rely on methodological naturalism. They rely on philosophical naturalism 'a priori' and the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
"In other words, where methodological naturalists can be scientists during the week and still go to church on Sunday, philosophical naturalists, by definition don't go to church. Is that clear enough for you?"
IOW, you are back to mistaking 'truth by definition' for reality. Is that clear enough for you?
"Another false accusation. I have redefined nothing."
You said above that you deny any Biblical exegesis that disagrees with philosophical naturalism. That is redefinition.
"And of course you DO "condemn" science -- that's what this whole exchange is all about. If you did not condemn-reject-dispute-mock-etc science, then we'd have nothing left to discuss."
What's clear is that you must characterize me as 'condemning' science or you would have to admit that I am correct and you would have nothing to discuss.
"Further, there is ONLY a public debate about this subject at all because of the ID-Creationists' decades and decades long efforts to get their religious ideas taught in public school science classes."
You support letting the philosophical naturalists present their religious beliefs in public school science class. How can you deny anyone else the same privilege?
"So, do I understand you to now say that you reject those efforts to get ID-Creationism taught in public school science classes?"
I'd say that you understand almost nothing at all.
"I speak of "science" in the same way we speak of "Christianity" of "conservatism," or any other ideas-based teachings."
So, you are back to personifying science again?
"A most curious assertion, and as usual for GourmetDan, without explanations or evidence provided to support the claim."
It's a simple statement. A methodology cannot be controlled. It's not my fault that you find that difficult to understand.
"Nonsense. I've admitted no such thing. I'm afraid of no such thing. And unlike you, who mock and attack me at every opportunity, I've never mocked, much less "demonized" you. Do you disagree? Go find an example, pal."
You constantly accuse me of 'attacking' you, science and anything else you want to believe in. You just did so above, pal.
"I think your paragraph above betrays some pretty serious misunderstanding on your part. You should think hard about what those are."
I think your posts betray some pretty serious misunderstandings on your part. You should think hard about what those are.
"Your mistake, not mine. The word "science" refers to the disciplines of methodological naturalism, as well as to the doctrines of "settled science," as well as to the debates of (how shall we say it?) "un-settled science," plus the however loosely knit groups of people who work in fields of scientific study, research, development, etc."
Back to personifying science after denying that you do so?
"What "science" does NOT include are those people and ideas who reject the fundamentals of methodological naturalism."
Like assuming philosophical naturalism 'a priori' and committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent?
"Utter nonsense. All truly scientific theories (which excludes ID-Creationism) are based on methodological naturalism. None that I know of require the further "leap of faith" into philosophical naturalism."
Utter nonsense. All truly scientific theories are based on assuming philosophical naturalism 'a priori' and committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Like the Big Bang, abiogenesis and macroevolution.
"And as always for GourmetDan, you've here refused to define your terms, or supply any supporting evidence for your claims. That makes this claim of yours bogus."
Retreating back into your 'truth by definition' hideout again? It has nothing to do with reality, despite your valiant attempts to equate it.
"Wrong again. I've assumed nothing regarding "macro-evolution." I've made no claims about it whatsoever, beyond "long-term micro-evolution," or if you prefer, "long-term adaptation." It's only YOU who continually use that word "macro-evolution" -- as a weapon against evolution and science in general. And against me. You make all kinds of crazy claims about what I supposedly believe regarding "macro-evolution." But at no time have you defined what YOU mean by that word."
Let's see. You say you've made no assumptions beyond 'long-term micro-evolution'. Does that mean that you have made an assumption or not?
And get over the 'weapons' talk and the 'crazy claim's talk. All you do is demonize my position so that you can misrepresent it. That's weak thinking.
"Here you are wrong yet again. None of science substantiates your claims. But you can easily prove me wrong on that point by citing an example."
You can easily prove me wrong by showing what of science invalidates my claim.
"AND, BTW, WHY ARE YOU YOURSELF NOW PERSONIFYING SCIENCE?? ;-)"
No, that's your position. Simply replace the word 'science' with methodological naturalism and show what of methodological naturalism invalidates my claim?
"Rubbish. You use fancy foreign words just like you use every other word -- without defining your meanings or providing evidence of support. Instead, you apparently hope that I should believe true whatever you say. Well... I'll tell you what I do believe: the fancier and more foreign a term, the less likely it is in the ordinary sense to be true. So, if you fill your arguments with nonsensical terms, I reject them for what they are: rubbish."
Rubbish. You characterize anything you can't understand as 'fancy foreign words'. You retreat into 'truth by definition' as a substitute for reality. You fill your posts with nonsensical arguments, I reject them for what they are: rubbish.
"What's easy to see is that you continually make false accusations. In fact, beyond "personifying science" (which you do too, whenever it suits your purposes!), I've done none of those things."
Nope, I point it out each time you do so. Even when you deny it, or admit it, whichever is the case.
"I've also reported FACTUALLY, that there ARE debates amongst scientists about various aspects of so-called global warming. That is not disputable."
What's not disputable is that you characterize scientists according to your beliefs. Those who reject long-ages and a young-earth are not serious scientists. More truth by definition. Again, it has nothing to do with reality.
"I've also reported FACTUALLY, that there are NO debates amongst scientists regarding claims of ID-Creationists. That's because, by definition, ID-Creationists -- whatever they may claim about themselves -- are not scientists."
Yep, more 'truth by definition'. That which you don't want to discuss you simply define as 'not scientists'. That's weak.
"As for supposed "argument ad populum" let's see you quote an example of such inappropriate argument. Are you perhaps referring to questions of just what may be "settled science" or "unsettled science"? I've said those terms refer to whether there is actual debate amongst real scientists over a particular subject. And it is not inappropriate "ad populum" to report the FACTs of such debate or no debate."
Again, 'argumentum ad populum' is arguing that a thing is true because x number of people believe it is true.
"This is more than enough response for one post. But it seems I'm barely half way through your arguments. Will complete the rest later."
I thought I didn't have arguments. Now you say I do. Which is it?
Nope, that's just more 'truth by definition'. You have a definition of who is an 'actual scientist' and who is not. You should not confuse that with reality, however.
"In my football analogy, "actual scientists" are the ones down on the field playing. You and I are fans in the stands, rooting for our respective teams. But ID-Creationists are not on the field playing, because they don't qualify as scientists. They are all over on a different ball-field -- one called theology-philosophy."
How cute. You have an analogy for your 'truth by definition'.
"Again and again you accuse scientists of having "philosophical beliefs." Of course they do, and many are highly religious, including Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. But science itself has only one belief I know of, and that is "methodological naturalism.""
Personifying science again, huh? Again, science is not a person, it does not have 'beliefs' like scientists do. Still going to claim you don't personify science?
"Yes, I know, you keep saying "philosophical naturalism," and you even claim "all of science" supports this. But you have not offered evidence of even a single instance of it. So I think your claim is just rubbish."
You have failed once again to present a single scientific theory that is not based on philosophical naturalism. They all are and it all supports my claim. So I think your claim is just rubbish.
"Nonsense. I understand perfectly well. The scientific interpretations of ice-cores are based not on "philosophical naturalism" but rather on "methodological naturalism." And these are every bit as obvious as tree rings."
Nonsense. You understand nothing. The scientific interpretations of ice-cores are based on assumptions, not observations. Tree rings also 'match up' non-living wood found lying around.
"Ice-core "rings" can be, and have been, observed forming every year for many decades. Methodological naturalism simply insists that natural processes we see happening today happened the same way in prior years -- baring physical evidence to the contrary."
No they haven't. What scientist has sat out on an ice-sheet for years and observed one ice-core ring being formed each year much less hundreds of thousands. Zip, nada. They interpret them. "And there is no evidence -- none, zero, zip, nada -- suggesting that ice-core "rings" have not formed the same way every year for many hundreds of thousands of years."
You have it backwards. There is no evidence that they have. The evidence is all assumption since the 'rings' are not observed, but interpreted.
"Important point: this has NOTHING to do with "philosophical naturalism," it is strictly methodological naturalism -- aka SCIENCE -- in action."
Nope, you already admitted that you assume the current processes can be extrapolated back into unobserved time frames. That's philosophical naturalism. It is an assumption, not methodological naturalism.
"Utter nonsense. I didn't equate simple mathematics to macroevolution. The issue here was-is: can we speak of science as telling us things? You insist, NO. Science, you claim, says nothing because there is no such thing as science, only a bunch of "philosophical naturalists" making various atheistic claims. I was simply demonstrating that one branch of science -- mathematics -- teaches us many things."
Utter nonsense. You tried to use arithmetic and simple mathematics to support macroevolution. You misrepresent what I say because you don't understand. You use invalid examples because you don't understand. It just goes on and on.
"When you challenged that, I provided other simple examples from other branches of science."
And I explained how each one was based on philosophical naturalism.
"As to which one of us better understands definitions of terms, let us note yet again, that I have been very thorough in providing definitions whenever that seemed appropriate, whereas you have consistently REFUSED to define ANY of your terms."
Back to your 'truth by definition' refuge again, I see. You simply must disabuse yourself of the notion that 'truth by definition' represents reality. It does not.
"So I think a reasonable person would conclude that you know nothing real about what your saying."
So I think a reasonable person would conclude that you know nothing real about what your saying.
Big-time nonsense. I fully understand what you said, and it's all 2:00 AM chemically-enhanced sophomoric cr*pola. It's not only "geokinetic beliefs" which say the earth revolves around the sun -- people can go look and see, take pictures, watch and measure it happening."
Big-time nonsense. You can't see, take pictures or measure the earth going around the sun. You believe in 2:00 AM chemically-enhanced sophomoric cr*pola.
"Sure, any astronomer worth his salt can reconstruct the models to show the whole Universe revolving around Earth, but that's just a useless exercise in nonsense, because it doesn't show reality as we can easily see it."
No, reality as you can easily see it is geocentric. You don't even know what you can see and what you can't.
"And, Astronomy does tell us many things, in the same sense that Christianity or conservatism teaches certain things."
So now you are personifying astronomy as you personify science. Or not.
"Yes, there are many competing scientific hypotheses and theories, and over time these change as new data and ideas work their way through the scientific community."
And you think that being wrong is a virtue and place your trust in what you know will be proved wrong.
"You claim this is a "weakness and a warning not to accept philosophical naturalism as being real." But NO scientific theory depends on "philosophical naturalism," so your warning is invalid. If you dispute this, then demonstrate even one example."
Every scientific theory depends on philosophical naturalism. There are no exceptions. Pick any one you want. It is a weakness to you, you just are incapable of realizing it.
""Settled science" has nothing to do with how many people agree with it -- even Al Gore. "Settled science" simply refers to questions where there is no real debate amongst SCIENTISTS. There can be all kinds of public debate, or theological controversy, but if SCIENTISTS don't debate it, then it's "settled," at least for now. And yes, of course, any "settled" matter can instantly become "unsettled" when there is some new SCIENTIFIC reason."
Yes, more 'truth by definition'. I know it's your favorite refuge. Confusing it with reality is your error.
"Another false accusation. No serious person believes anything just because "lots of other people do." Nor have I ever made that the basis of any argument, contrary to your repeated false claims."
Sure you did. You claimed that macroevolution was true because so many Christians believed it. You believe that macroevolution true because what you consider 'true scientists' believe it. That's argumentum ad populum.
"What's true is: science has discovered many things which work. I flip a light switch and the light comes on. Of course, I don't fully understand it, but have a lot of confidence in those who do."
Again, you personify science. Science doesn't 'discover' anything. People discover things using methodological naturalism. They then interpret those things through their 'a priori' belief in philosophical naturalism and give you the Big Bang, abiogenesis and macroevolution, which you believe because you consider them 'true scientists'.
"This has been your repeated standard response. And so, why do you keep using that word? Why do you keep fantasizing projected beliefs about it on me? I am perfectly happy to talk about micro-evolution, or adaptation, or just evolution -- and never mention "macro-evolution." But you keep bringing it up-- why?"
Again, using a word doesn't mean that something exists. I can use the words 'invisible pink unicorn', but that doesn't mean that they actually exist. Why do you keep bringing it up--why?
"So we say that by adaptation generations become modified, then naturally selected to better survive their environments. Over many generations, adaptation becomes micro-evolution, and over many more generations it becomes some word that we must not speak or define, right?"
Wrong. Nothing that is observed becomes macroevolution. The only place macroevolution exists is in your mind.
"Wrongly? Wrongly?? By whose standard do you say "wrongly"?"
Are you suggesting that I use argumentum ad populum? That's your area.
"And now you claim that "macro-evolution" DOES exist, as a "philosophical belief," right? And just what is that "belief"? Can you describe it for us all?"
Only if you think that beliefs are reality and actually exist. I might believe in invisible pink unicorns, but that doesn't mean that they actually exist.
"More nonsense. I don't define "out of reality" ID-Creationists, that's ridiculous. I have merely reported FACTUALLY that they are not SCIENTISTS. They are theologians, or philosophers, or whatever else you wish to call them, but they are not scientists because they don't meet the qualifications."
More nonsense. You define ID-Creationists as not being 'true scientists'. That is 'truth by definition'. You must stop confusing this with reality.
"You know, pal, if this were a theological discussion about the Second Coming of Christ versus the anti-Christ, you'd have no trouble whatever understanding the difference. Well, of course it's too extreme, but in a small small sense, our ID-Creationists are to real science what the anti-Christ is to Christians -- false as false can be."
You know, pal, if this were a theological discussion about the Second Coming of Christ versus the anti-Christ, you'd have no trouble whatever understanding the difference. Well, of course it's too extreme, but in a small small sense, your philosophical naturalists are to real science what the anti-Christ is to Christians -- false as false can be.
"Clearly it's ID-Creationists who "poison the well" of science by pretending to be scientists, when in fact they are anti-science."
Clearly it's philosophical naturalists who "poison the well" of science by pretending to be scientists, when in fact they are anti-science.
"The debate over "global warming" IS scientific because recognized scientists debate it. This particular debate over ID-Creation is NOT scientific because ID-Creationists are not recognized scientists, and they clearly suggest but can't confirm non-natural causes for some adaptations and/or evolution."
Back to your 'truth by definition' again. You simply must stop confusing it with reality.
"Rubbish. Once again: the correct term is "methodological naturalism," not "philosophical naturalism." Your charge of "philosophical naturalism" is a lie, and you need to stop making it -- or PROVE IT."
Rubbish. Once again: the correct term is "philosophical naturalism," not "science." Your charge of "methodological naturalism" is a lie, and you need to stop making it -- or PROVE IT.
"The process of becoming a recognized scientist is pretty simple: you go to school, get really good grades, get hired doing scientific work, publish in recognized scientific journals, maybe teach science at a university, etc. In short, you become an expert and meet all the standards set by science."
Back to your 'truth by definition' again. You simply must stop confusing it with reality.
"If you refuse to do these things, then you are not a scientist, it's that simple. Sure, you can be lots of other things, and still be taken seriously, but you can't honestly pretend to be a scientist."
Back to your 'truth by definition' again. You simply must stop confusing it with reality.
"This logic is not circular, it's factual. It is what it is."
It's absolutely 'truth by definition' and that is circular logic. That's a fact.
"False again. I said nothing about "macro-evolution." I said short term and long term micro-evolution. I could as easily have said short-term and long-term adaptation. So it's only you who keep throwing out that word "macro-evolution," first acting as if it means something important, but then refusing to define what that might be."
Hey, if you want to renounce your belief in macroevolution that's alright w/ me.
"And if, just possibly, you don't really know what it is, then why do you keep saying it?"
Again, I can say 'invisible pink unicorn' all day long but that doesn't mean that they actually exist.
"Rubbish. My comments referred to ice-core "rings," which have been clearly observed forming for many decades. So extrapolating the process back into pre-history is simply a matter of asking: what physical data do we have to suggest the process was different before we could observe it? Answer: none. Question: do we have other methods to confirm the data from ice-cores? Answer: yes, many."
Rubbish. Ice-core 'rings' haven't been 'clearly observed forming for many decades'. What scientist sat there on that ice sheet and observed those ice-core rings form? Nobody. And you have no other methods to 'confirm' any data.
"That's science in action. It's what science does. "
That's belief in action. It's what belief does. Extrapolating observations that wouldn't generate the belief in the first place, yet claiming that they would isn't scientific either. Therefore you must provide scientific evidence that it could. Otherwise, it's not science you claim.
"Nonsense. And just what exactly is MY belief in "macro-evolution"? You won't tell us what YOU think "macro-evolution" is. You won't tell us what science thinks "macro-evolution" is. But maybe you can be persuaded to tell us what MY belief is in "macro-evolution"?"
Hey, if you want to deny that you believe in macroevolution that's fine w/ me. It doesn't exist and admitting that would be progress for you.
"And if, just possibly, you don't really know what it is, then why do you keep saying it?"
And if, just possibly, you really don't believe in it, why do you keep saying it?
"More nonsense. "Descent with modification" is exactly what occurs under the concepts of "adaptation," "evolution" and "micro-evolution" -- short-term and long-term. I reject none of that. And since we are agreed that the term "macro-evolution" is meaningless, we won't even discuss it."
More nonsense. You extrapolate adaptation into unobserved time-frames and invoke 'truth by definition' as support for macroevolution, a thing you now believe is meaningless.
So your argument here is false from beginning to end, and you ought to cut it out, pal. ;-)
From the beginning, when you first raised the charge of "personifying science," I've responded the same way: science is legitimately "personified" in the same sense as any other broad idea-set, like Christianity, conservatism, theology, philosophy, Marxism, libertarianism, etc., etc.
Now from your persistent criticism and mocking of me on this, I gather that destroying the very word "science" is critical to your own theology/philosophy.
But since you refuse to directly answer my response, I conclude your argument is probably false.
"So, after admitting that you personify science after having denied it you present a rant. Is that how you handle being called on poor thinking skills?"
You obviously think very highly of your own "thinking skills." I'm less impressed with them, and even less with your pretense of intellectual honesty. I am most impressed with how quickly you misrepresent my arguments and how flatly you refuse to honestly answer them.
"Nope, you simply show that you fail to understand the problem while personifying science, then denying that you do so, then admitting that you do so, then justifying doing so... "
Another false accusation. I've said the same thing from the beginning. You just don't like my answer, so you misrepresent it and mock me for it.
"People use the claim of 'methodological naturalism' to cover for the foundation of philosophical naturalism that they use to filter their interpretations of evidence gained through methodological naturalism. That's how philosophically-natural theories are formed.. Were there any theories not based on philosophical naturalism, you would present them. They don't exist. It's not an 'accusation', it just a factual statement. You just characterize a factual statement as an 'accusation' so that you have grounds for rejecting it in your own mind. That's weak thinking."
Here is the fact: people who work in scientific fields say their work is based on "methodological naturalism," meaning, they assume natural causes for natural occurrences. Some, but not all, also believe in what you call "philosophical naturalism," meaning they claim there is no supernatural reality beyond the "natural world."
But few that I know of would further assert that your "philosophical naturalism" is a NECESSARY foundation for methodological naturalism.
My opinion on this is, "methodological naturalism" should be more than adequate explain every scientific theory I know of. I see no need to ever sink down to the level of "philosophical naturalism."
So your charge of "philosophical naturalism" is not self-evidently true, and therefore should require you to provide some proof, demonstration or evidence for it.
And can you define for us YOUR understanding of the difference between "methodological naturalism" and "philosophical naturalism"? Can you cite examples of each?
"That's what I thought. You believe evolution over Genesis because man says that the earth is older than 6,000 years. No room for the supernatural anyplace where you believe man over the Bible."
First of all, I'd challenge you to prove the Bible says the earth is only 6,000 years old. And I would draw your attention to both Old and New Testament verses which say that to God a day is like a thousand years, or that a thousand years is "like a watch in the night." How long is a "watch" -- four hours? Would that not suggest a "day" could be as long as 24/4*1,000 = 6,000 years?
I would next draw your attention to Genesis language of "evening and morning of the first day... second day...etc." Did you ever notice that the sun and moon were not created until the FOURTH DAY? That can only mean the lengths of those first three days have nothing to do with how long it takes the sun to "rotate" through the sky. So, logically, those first three days could be thousands, or millions, or billions or trillions of years long. The Bible doesn't tell us, so maybe science can provide some clues?
Finally, I believe the Supernatural (God) underlies and invades every aspect of the natural world, from the smallest to the largest, from shortest to the longest term, no aspect of the natural world is independent of God. The Bible tells us what God has to say. Science tell us what God left for us to figure out on our own, imho.
Nonsense, likely just a baseless projection of your own state of mind.
"Nope, philosophical naturalism is the foundation of science. Were it not, you could present a theory not based on philosophical naturalism. You can't. They don't exist, you just won't admit it."
I've seen no evidence, certainly not from you, that any scientific theory requires your "philosophical naturalism" as its basis. So I'm guessing you're just projecting your own state of mind onto the theories of science.
Do you have evidence to support your claim? If not, why should I believe it?
"The truth is that all scientific 'theories' are proposed by people who adhere to philosophical naturalism. Philosophical naturalism is the religion of people who use methodological naturalism to promote their beliefs."
Philosophical naturalism is the religion of SOME people who use methodological naturalism to promote their beliefs, BUT NOT ALL. Christianity is the religion of many people who use methodological naturalism to promote their beliefs. And your problem with this is what?
"Those are the YEC's. "
A minuscule minority of Christians are YEC's.
"Yes, I know. Science is based on it. Were it not, you could point to a theory not based on philosophical naturalism. You can't."
I know of no scientific theory requiring "philosophical naturalism" as its basis. Perhaps you could provide "proof" that at least some are?
"Yes, I know. Origins theories like the Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution do not rely on methodological naturalism. They rely on philosophical naturalism 'a priori' and the fallacy of affirming the consequent."
So you claim, but as in everything else you assert, provide us no evidence. Makes me wonder about your "critical thinking skills."
"IOW, you are back to mistaking 'truth by definition' for reality. Is that clear enough for you?"
Nonsense. You are merely denying common accepted word definitions.
"You said above that you deny any Biblical exegesis that disagrees with philosophical naturalism. That is redefinition. "
I said no such thing.
I note how quick you are to accuse me of "poor thinking skills." But look what you did here: first you made a false accusation against me, then put your own false accusation words into my mouth, accusing me of saying them!
I surmise from this that your own "thinking skills" are not quite as rich as you imagine them.
Of course, you could avoid this kind of embarrassment if you simply stopped with the false accusations, and concentrated your arguments on providing us with data and reasons supporting them.
"What's clear is that you must characterize me as 'condemning' science or you would have to admit that I am correct and you would have nothing to discuss."
If, as you claim, EVERY scientific theory is based on "philosophical naturalism," how could you NOT condemn all of science? Are you now telling us that you support "philosophical naturalism" when it suits you to?
"You support letting the philosophical naturalists present their religious beliefs in public school science class. How can you deny anyone else the same privilege?"
I support the teaching of science in public school science classes. Your pathetic efforts to redefine science as "just another religion" are ludicrous, imho.
By the way, even some public schools do offer courses in religions - theology - philosophies, etc. I have no problem with those at all, and have never known anyone to confuse those subjects with science.
"So, you are back to personifying science again?"
You refuse to answer my argument. I take it you have no answer.
"A methodology cannot be controlled."
Can you cite even one example?
"You constantly accuse me of 'attacking' you, science and anything else you want to believe in. "
Your posts are full of false statements about science and false accusations against me. If you don't like being called on it, then stop doing it.
"Like assuming philosophical naturalism 'a priori' and committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent?"
No.
"All truly scientific theories are based on assuming philosophical naturalism 'a priori' and committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Like the Big Bang, abiogenesis and macroevolution."
So, in what way is your false claim here NOT an attack on all of science? In what way are you not anti-science?
"Retreating back into your 'truth by definition' hideout again? It has nothing to do with reality, despite your valiant attempts to equate it."
Sorry pal, but we can't communicate without words, and words of necessity have definitions. Since you so much enjoy distorting or ignoring word definitions, I've hoped to bring you back to reality by reminding you what certain words mean.
Obviously these reminders only inflame your passions for further false accusations.
"Let's see. You say you've made no assumptions beyond 'long-term micro-evolution'. Does that mean that you have made an assumption or not?"
I'll take for granted what you don't deny: adaptation aka micro-evolution, beginning when life began and continuing through today. The debate then is, when did it start. For answers you go to the Bible and tell us, "6,000 years ago." Scientists examine natural evidence and tell us "looks like some billions of years."
By the way, your accusations to the effect that scientists started with an old age in mind and then went looking for evidence to support that is simply false. In fact, they started back in the 1800s with young age ideas, then slowly slowly extended their estimates back as new evidence developed.
"What's not disputable is that you characterize scientists according to your beliefs. Those who reject long-ages and a young-earth are not serious scientists. More truth by definition. Again, it has nothing to do with reality."
Can you prove your claim that the Bible tells us the earth is only 6,000 years old?
Can you cite a single work of scientific argument, evidence, or scientist, supporting your claim the earth is only 6,000 years old?
Can you demonstrate in what way your arguments are "methodological naturalism"?
"Again, 'argumentum ad populum' is arguing that a thing is true because x number of people believe it is true."
I have not made such an argument. I have reported such relevant facts as: only a small minority of Christians belong to churches which teach Young Earth Creationism; and no recognized scientific journal has published a peer-reviewed article defending such ideas. These facts don't make your arguments right or wrong, but they do tell us how seriously, or not, most people take them.
From the beginning, when you first denied the charge of 'personifying science', I've responded the say way: science is not legitimately 'personified' in any sense because that allows you to ignore the 'a priori' beliefs of the people, yes people, who make statements that you attribute to 'science'.
"Now from your persistent criticism and mocking of me on this, I gather that destroying the very word "science" is critical to your own theology/philosophy."
Persistently pointing out your inappropriate personification of science is not criticism or mocking you and you have no basis for attacking me as trying to 'destroy the word science'. You simply misrepresent the truth because it is inconvenient for your argument.
"But since you refuse to directly answer my response, I conclude your argument is probably false."
But since you refuse to directly answer my response, I conclude your argument is probably false.
"You obviously think very highly of your own "thinking skills." I'm less impressed with them, and even less with your pretense of intellectual honesty. I am most impressed with how quickly you misrepresent my arguments and how flatly you refuse to honestly answer them."
You obviously think very highly of your own "thinking skills." I'm less impressed with them, and even less with your pretense of intellectual honesty. I am most impressed with how quickly you misrepresent my arguments and how flatly you refuse to honestly answer them.
"Another false accusation. I've said the same thing from the beginning. You just don't like my answer, so you misrepresent it and mock me for it."
Another false accusation. I've said the same thing from the beginning. You just don't like my answer, so you misrepresent it and mock me for it.
"Here is the fact: people who work in scientific fields say their work is based on "methodological naturalism," meaning, they assume natural causes for natural occurrences. Some, but not all, also believe in what you call "philosophical naturalism," meaning they claim there is no supernatural reality beyond the "natural world.""
Here is the fact: people who work in scientific fields propose theories that are based on an 'a priori' commitment to philosophical naturalism through the fallacy of affirming the consequent. All of them. Without exception.
"But few that I know of would further assert that your "philosophical naturalism" is a NECESSARY foundation for methodological naturalism."
That would be the fallacy of anecdotal evidence.
"My opinion on this is, "methodological naturalism" should be more than adequate explain every scientific theory I know of. I see no need to ever sink down to the level of "philosophical naturalism.""
Then you haven't looked at the Big Bang, abiogenesis or macroevolution. None of those stand on methodological naturalism, they stand on philosophical naturalism.
"So your charge of "philosophical naturalism" is not self-evidently true, and therefore should require you to provide some proof, demonstration or evidence for it."
My claim of philosophical naturalism is self-evidently true for the Big Bang, abiogenesis and macroevolution. You charge or methodological naturalism is not self-evidently true, and therefore should require you to provide some proof, demonstration or evidence for it.
Unless you prefer to assume philosophical naturalism 'a priori' and invoke the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Same as yours. I've already agreed w/ you.
"First of all, I'd challenge you to prove the Bible says the earth is only 6,000 years old. And I would draw your attention to both Old and New Testament verses which say that to God a day is like a thousand years, or that a thousand years is "like a watch in the night." How long is a "watch" -- four hours? Would that not suggest a "day" could be as long as 24/4*1,000 = 6,000 years?"
In the same manner, I challenge you to prove that the Bible says the earth is billions of years old. I would draw your attention to the clear statements of 'evening and morning' that completely destroy your 1,000 year 'days' and the clear genealogies recorded therein.
"I would next draw your attention to Genesis language of "evening and morning of the first day... second day...etc." Did you ever notice that the sun and moon were not created until the FOURTH DAY? That can only mean the lengths of those first three days have nothing to do with how long it takes the sun to "rotate" through the sky. So, logically, those first three days could be thousands, or millions, or billions or trillions of years long. The Bible doesn't tell us, so maybe science can provide some clues?"
I would draw your attention to the same language, used their to clearly distinguish 24-hour days from general references to 'days'. Did you ever notice that light was created first, and that light is the only requirement for evenings and mornings? Sun and moon are not. The Bible clearly tells us 'evening and morning' are meant to indicate 24-hour days. You also deliberately ignore Exodus 20:11 where it is clearly stated that everything was made in seven 24-hour days. Your deceitfulness is quite transparent.
"Finally, I believe the Supernatural (God) underlies and invades every aspect of the natural world, from the smallest to the largest, from shortest to the longest term, no aspect of the natural world is independent of God. The Bible tells us what God has to say. Science tell us what God left for us to figure out on our own, imho."
Finally, it is clear that you only believe the Scripture to the extent you want, rejecting anything that doesn't fit your own personal beliefs. Just make up your own god, that's what you are doing anyway.
It could be a whig or a pale, too!
Nonsense, you do this regularly. You believe the word of man for any Biblical statement that you don't personallyagree with.
" I've seen no evidence, certainly not from you, that any scientific theory requires your "philosophical naturalism" as its basis. So I'm guessing you're just projecting your own state of mind onto the theories of science. Do you have evidence to support your claim? If not, why should I believe it?"
Rubbish, the Big Bang, abiogenesis and macroevolution are clearly based on an 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism and the fallacy of affirming the consequent. You simply refuse to admit it.
"Philosophical naturalism is the religion of SOME people who use methodological naturalism to promote their beliefs, BUT NOT ALL. Christianity is the religion of many people who use methodological naturalism to promote their beliefs. And your problem with this is what?"
Science, however is clearly based on philosophical naturalism. Were it not, you could easily demonstrate it. You simply can't.
"A minuscule minority of Christians are YEC's."
Those are the only people who meet the definition you proposed that I responded to as YEC's.
"I know of no scientific theory requiring "philosophical naturalism" as its basis. Perhaps you could provide "proof" that at least some are?"
I have been providing you with the Big Bang, abiogenesis and macroevolution as examples of scientific theories based on philosophical naturalism for weeks now.
"So you claim, but as in everything else you assert, provide us no evidence. Makes me wonder about your "critical thinking skills.""
So, you admit that I have been providing examples of the very theories you ignored above, you just wish to claim that there is no 'evidence' that they are based on philosophical naturalism. Since they are unobservable, they clearly cannot be based on methodological naturalism and are therefore based on philosophical naturalism. You just dishonestly refuse to admit it.
"Nonsense. You are merely denying common accepted word definitions."
Nonsense. You are merely invoking your usual deception of 'truth by definition'.
"I said no such thing."
You never say anything.
Claiming a false accusation does not make it so.
"I surmise from this that your own "thinking skills" are not quite as rich as you imagine them."
I surmise from this that your own "thinking skills" are not quite as rich as you imagine them.
"Of course, you could avoid this kind of embarrassment if you simply stopped with the false accusations, and concentrated your arguments on providing us with data and reasons supporting them."
Of course, you could avoid this kind of embarrassment if you simply stopped with the false accusations, and concentrated your arguments on providing us with data and reasons supporting them.
"If, as you claim, EVERY scientific theory is based on "philosophical naturalism," how could you NOT condemn all of science? Are you now telling us that you support "philosophical naturalism" when it suits you to?"
You continue to make false accusations against me. Pointing out that science is based on philosophical naturalism is not a condemnation of anything, it is simply a fact that you refuse to admit. You need to misrepresent a simple statement of fact as an 'attack' in order to invoke the fallacy of reverse ad hominem. That's quite clear.
"I support the teaching of science in public school science classes. Your pathetic efforts to redefine science as "just another religion" are ludicrous, imho."
You support the teaching of philosophical naturalism in public school philosophical naturalism classes. Your pathetic efforts to redefine science as purely 'methodological naturalism' are ludicrous, imho.
"By the way, even some public schools do offer courses in religions - theology - philosophies, etc. I have no problem with those at all, and have never known anyone to confuse those subjects with science."
By the way, confusing philosophical naturalism with methodological naturalism is ubiquitous. That does not make it correct, however.
"You refuse to answer my argument. I take it you have no answer."
You refuse to answer my argument. I take it you have no answer.
"Can you cite even one example?"
If a methodology can be controlled, it is not a methodology, it is a philosophy.
"Your posts are full of false statements about science and false accusations against me. If you don't like being called on it, then stop doing it."
That is, of course, your goal. First mischaracterize statements of truth as 'false statements' and 'false accusations' and then call for censorship of the truth. If you don't like being called on it, then stop doing it.
"No."
Yes.
"So, in what way is your false claim here NOT an attack on all of science? In what way are you not anti-science?"
Truth is not an attack on science unless you are afraid of the truth. In what way are you afraid of the truth?
" Sorry pal, but we can't communicate without words, and words of necessity have definitions. Since you so much enjoy distorting or ignoring word definitions, I've hoped to bring you back to reality by reminding you what certain words mean. Obviously these reminders only inflame your passions for further false accusations."
Sorry pal, but assigning particular definitions to terms such that your position is 'true by definition' is not the same as communicating using commonly-defined words. It is the fallacy of equivocation to equate simple communication with 'truth by definition'. I've hoped to bring you back to reality by reminding you that 'truth by definition' is not the same as reality. Obviously, these reminders only inflame your passions for further false accusations.
"I'll take for granted what you don't deny: adaptation aka micro-evolution, beginning when life began and continuing through today. The debate then is, when did it start. For answers you go to the Bible and tell us, "6,000 years ago." Scientists examine natural evidence and tell us "looks like some billions of years.""
I'll take for granted what you don't deny: adaptation cannot get you from non-life to the simplest self-replicating 'life' nor can it get you from the simplest self-replicating 'life' to the diversity we observe. The debate then is, at what level did it start. For answers, you go to the words of men who have an 'a priori' belief in philosophical naturalism and tell you that it was 'billions of years ago'.
"By the way, your accusations to the effect that scientists started with an old age in mind and then went looking for evidence to support that is simply false. In fact, they started back in the 1800s with young age ideas, then slowly slowly extended their estimates back as new evidence developed."
By the way, your accusations to the effect that philosophical naturalism is the result of men with no philosophical beliefs coming to the conclusion of billions of years is simply false. Paganism held that the earth was incredibly old long before the 1800s and you simply refer to the infusion of pagan beliefs into science. That's not reason, that's philosophy.
" Can you prove your claim that the Bible tells us the earth is only 6,000 years old? Can you cite a single work of scientific argument, evidence, or scientist, supporting your claim the earth is only 6,000 years old? Can you demonstrate in what way your arguments are "methodological naturalism"?"
What's clear is that you refuse to answer the charge that you characterize scientists according to your beliefs. Those who reject long-ages and a young-earth are simply defined by you as 'not serious scientists'. More truth by definition. Again, it has nothing to do with reality.
"I have not made such an argument. I have reported such relevant facts as: only a small minority of Christians belong to churches which teach Young Earth Creationism; and no recognized scientific journal has published a peer-reviewed article defending such ideas. These facts don't make your arguments right or wrong, but they do tell us how seriously, or not, most people take them."
You refuse to admit that you commit the fallacy of argumentum ad populum and then immediately commit it again.
Nonsense
"Persistently pointing out your inappropriate personification of science is not criticism or mocking you and you have no basis for attacking me as trying to 'destroy the word science'. You simply misrepresent the truth because it is inconvenient for your argument."
Ridiculous
"Here is the fact: people who work in scientific fields propose theories that are based on an 'a priori' commitment to philosophical naturalism through the fallacy of affirming the consequent. All of them. Without exception."
Rubbish
"That would be the fallacy of anecdotal evidence."
No.
"Then you haven't looked at the Big Bang, abiogenesis or macroevolution. None of those stand on methodological naturalism, they stand on philosophical naturalism."
Not true.
"My claim of philosophical naturalism is self-evidently true for the Big Bang, abiogenesis and macroevolution. You charge or methodological naturalism is not self-evidently true, and therefore should require you to provide some proof, demonstration or evidence for it."
No it isn't.
"Unless you prefer to assume philosophical naturalism 'a priori' and invoke the fallacy of affirming the consequent."
Outrageous.
Nope, sounds more like my ex sister in law. heh!
Nonsense
"Ridiculous"
Ridiculous
"Rubbish"
Rubbish
"No."
Yes
"Not true."
Yes true.
"No it isn't."
Yes it is.
"Outrageous."
Outrageous
The Bible does not say how old the earth is, but it clearly says the word "day" can refer to something other than 24 hours.
Only science tells us the earth is billions of years old. Of course, you may dispute that, based on your own personal interpretations of the Bible, but you cannot honestly claim that those interpretations amount to some form of "science."
"I would draw your attention to the same language, used their to clearly distinguish 24-hour days from general references to 'days'. Did you ever notice that light was created first, and that light is the only requirement for evenings and mornings? Sun and moon are not. The Bible clearly tells us 'evening and morning' are meant to indicate 24-hour days. You also deliberately ignore Exodus 20:11 where it is clearly stated that everything was made in seven 24-hour days. Your deceitfulness is quite transparent."
Nonsense. The Bible NEVER says each DAY of creation was exactly 24 hours long. It does clearly say that a day to God could be thousands of years. Indeed, until the end of the fourth day, light and darkness had NOTHING to do with a 24 hour solar cycle, because there was no sun. Those "days" could be any length whatever.
"Finally, it is clear that you only believe the Scripture to the extent you want, rejecting anything that doesn't fit your own personal beliefs. Just make up your own god, that's what you are doing anyway."
Nonsense.
Not true.
"Rubbish, the Big Bang, abiogenesis and macroevolution are clearly based on an 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism and the fallacy of affirming the consequent. You simply refuse to admit it."
Baloney.
"Science, however is clearly based on philosophical naturalism. Were it not, you could easily demonstrate it. You simply can't."
And your evidence demonstrating your claim is what?
"I have been providing you with the Big Bang, abiogenesis and macroevolution as examples of scientific theories based on philosophical naturalism for weeks now."
You have provided no evidence or explanation to support your claims.
"So, you admit that I have been providing examples of the very theories you ignored above, you just wish to claim that there is no 'evidence' that they are based on philosophical naturalism. Since they are unobservable, they clearly cannot be based on methodological naturalism and are therefore based on philosophical naturalism. You just dishonestly refuse to admit it."
Rubbish. You've explained or provided evidence of nothing. The definition of "methodological naturalism" does not require a theory be "observable." It only requires that a theory is based on natural causes for natural occurrances.
"You are merely invoking your usual deception of 'truth by definition'."
No.
Ridiculous.
"You support the teaching of philosophical naturalism in public school philosophical naturalism classes. Your pathetic efforts to redefine science as purely 'methodological naturalism' are ludicrous, imho."
Not true.
"By the way, confusing philosophical naturalism with methodological naturalism is ubiquitous. That does not make it correct, however."
False.
"If a methodology can be controlled, it is not a methodology, it is a philosophy."
And your source for this particular definition is?
"That is, of course, your goal. First mischaracterize statements of truth as 'false statements' and 'false accusations' and then call for censorship of the truth. If you don't like being called on it, then stop doing it."
Nonsense.
"Truth is not an attack on science unless you are afraid of the truth. In what way are you afraid of the truth?"
Nothing you've said sounds true to me.
"Sorry pal, but assigning particular definitions to terms such that your position is 'true by definition' is not the same as communicating using commonly-defined words. It is the fallacy of equivocation to equate simple communication with 'truth by definition'. I've hoped to bring you back to reality by reminding you that 'truth by definition' is not the same as reality. Obviously, these reminders only inflame your passions for further false accusations."
Not true.
"I'll take for granted what you don't deny: adaptation cannot get you from non-life to the simplest self-replicating 'life' nor can it get you from the simplest self-replicating 'life' to the diversity we observe. The debate then is, at what level did it start. For answers, you go to the words of men who have an 'a priori' belief in philosophical naturalism and tell you that it was 'billions of years ago'."
False.
"By the way, your accusations to the effect that philosophical naturalism is the result of men with no philosophical beliefs coming to the conclusion of billions of years is simply false. Paganism held that the earth was incredibly old long before the 1800s and you simply refer to the infusion of pagan beliefs into science. That's not reason, that's philosophy."
Rubbish.
"What's clear is that you refuse to answer the charge that you characterize scientists according to your beliefs. Those who reject long-ages and a young-earth are simply defined by you as 'not serious scientists'. More truth by definition. Again, it has nothing to do with reality."
Neither you nor anyone else has ever presented scientific evidence of a 6,000 year old earth. The only "evidence" comes from your particular interpretations of the Bible.
"You refuse to admit that you commit the fallacy of argumentum ad populum and then immediately commit it again."
It's true that very few people take either you or your arguments seriously. That would not make you necessarily wrong, if you had serious arguments to make. But in all your posts, I've seen not even one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.