Posted on 06/01/2006 1:12:18 PM PDT by Sopater
accreditation ping
Because I haven't answered all your questions doesn't mean that I haven't looked into both sides. I did explain the basic theory of evolution but for some reason you called it history. Some of the evidence that is proposed is concerning micro-evoltution. There has never been any macro-evolution observed. Of course if there was all would be forced to agree that it is true.
The dishonest part of your argument is to downgrade the creationists points and facts as not science. That simply isn't true and I think you should know that. You have one box for science and truth and all else that may point to creationism is denegraded. You even stated that science doesn't do God. What if certain discoveries are pointing to a designer such as our dna code as I had mentioned. That is part of science...there is so much observable phenomenon that is shown scientifically that demonstrates another dimension. Please be at least a little more open minded and not so haughty in your knowledge. I don't think you are a demon...I don't believe any human can be.
Hey, Fabian -- how ya doin'. Still fighting the good fight, I see, instead of studying the science.
First -- I want to congratulate you for not repeating your two false claims this time -- about "no transitionals" and about "evolution just wants to do away with God." Maybe we're getting somewhere, finally. But -- looking at what you DID write this, time, I'm pretty sure we're still playing tag around that old mulberry bush.
"Because I haven't answered all your questions doesn't mean that I haven't looked into both sides."
You're right. I doesn't mean that. What I said was that, if you would TRY to answer them accurately, you wouldn't have any choice but to abandon all that creationist propaganda and do some reading in real science.
I concluded that you had not really looked at both sides, not on the basis of your continuing refusal to answer the questions, but on the points you do try to argue about. The fact is that your arguments have clearly come from creationists, who are infamous for their distortions and straw men. We've seen them all a hundred times already.
It's as easy to notice as a black eye.
"I did explain the basic theory of evolution but for some reason you called it history."
The reason I call it history is that you did not really explain it. All you did was say, in essence, that evolution teaches that we evolved over time. But again -- using the word you are supposed to be defining is a fatal flaw in giving a definition. You still haven't explained what evolution ITSELF really is. Why are avoiding doing that?
The reason I keep asking is that your arguments make it very clear that you are continuing to oppose a straw man of evolution. I have no reason to believe that, if you knew what evolution was, you would accept it -- but as I keep saying, at least you would know what it is you are opposing, instead of relying on creationist straw men. Understanding the thing you presume to refute is the first step in refutation -- and clearly, you ain't there yet.
"Some of the evidence that is proposed is concerning micro-evoltution. There has never been any macro-evolution observed. Of course if there was all would be forced to agree that it is true."
So now we are going to shift to yet another ridiculous creationist straw man. [big sigh] Now see, Fabian -- this is what I am talking about. Instead of going to the source -- science -- to see what that source actually says -- you keep turning to those creationist crap sites and their straw men, canards, distortions, and outright lies. There is nothing I can do to help you if you insist on sticking with those as your source of scientific information, in defiance of what science actually does say.
So now you are saying that speciation has never occurred. Do you have any idea what that word "speciation" even means? Do you have any idea why science says it has happened? Do you have any idea about the actual evidence? Of course not -- you are just parroting another creationist canard.
I would like to show you why you are wrong in this claim, too -- but it appears that you have never even bothered to check on the last links I provided for you concerning transitional fossils. What good is it to try to explain anything to you, if you are just going to ignore it and jump to yet another false claim. If I answer that one, you will most likely ignore it and just move on to another one.
"The dishonest part of your argument is to downgrade the creationists points and facts as not science."
Ah, so now we are back to "dishonest." First I was dishonest -- then I was confused -- then I was brainwashed -- and now I am dishonest again. I wish you would study the dictionary and logic a little before continuing to embarrass yourself like this. And I really wish you could understand that all this pop-psychologizing and personal attacks are less than worthless, and are making you look like an idiot. They have NEGATIVE value in terms of persuasion, because they are based, not on my faults that you seem to think you know so much about, but on your own subjective, emotional reaction to the fact that I won't accept your staw men as "science."
But you will never understand why I dismiss these creationist points until you actually get around to reading something about science BESIDES those points! I have been trying to get you to understand this all along.
"You have one box for science and truth and all else that may point to creationism is denegraded."
You have not shown me anything that points to creationism. You have only been spewing talking points and straw men from the creationists. Their whole game is not "evidence" -- it's apologetics -- which involves, primarily, distorting science to make it appear that it really does not support evolution. They don't do any real research and follow the evidence. They have a foregone conclusion already, and they are determined to mold the evidence to fit. That is about as far from science as you can get.
Even if you were able to completely destroy evolution as a theory -- that would not suddenly make scientists default to "creationism." Destroying one theory does not make another one automatically right. First -- creationism is not even a theory -- it's a religous dogma. And second -- any theory must have evidence that supports it, not just evidence that negates another theory.
"You even stated that science doesn't do God. What if certain discoveries are pointing to a designer such as our dna code as I had mentioned."
The DNA code does not point to a designer. ID is not science, any more than creationism is. ID has no theory; it has no predictions that can be tested scientifically; and it cannot be falsified. Remember -- THOSE are elements of any decent scientific theory. ID cannot be falsified, because there has never been a scientific test that can determine "design" or "God." This is why science does NOT "do God-stuff." That's outside its bailiwick.
And what's so funny about your reference to a "designer" is that up to now you have been preaching "God." Now it's just a "designer." So I guess you would have no problem if the so-called "designer" were aliens form the planet Xorx -- or invisible pink unicorns circling Uranus -- or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. No -- all those are fine with you, just so we believe in a "designer"? Don't bull**** me, Fabian.
You are aware, are you not, that the leading scientists in the ID movement accept common descent and the ancient age of the earth and the universe -- right? You are fine with that, are you? Again -- don't bull*** me.
"That is part of science...there is so much observable phenomenon that is shown scientifically that demonstrates another dimension."
Maybe even eleven dimensions or even twenty-six of them. Oh -- you weren't talking about string theory there, were you? Never mind, then -- because science never has detected anything "spiritual." I am not claiming that it doesn't exist -- but it is clearly outside the purview of science and scientific testing. Science says nothing -- yea or nay -- about "God-stuff." Sorry if you don't like that -- but it's the truth. Science doesn't care who does or does not like the evidence or the process. It just cares about the evidence.
"Please be at least a little more open minded and not so haughty in your knowledge."
To be accused of being closed-minded by a creationist is like being accused of being hateful by a terrorist. The hypocrisy takes the breath away! Hahahaha!! The most closed-minded people in the world are creationists. As you have so amply illustrated for us, you won't even bother to read the science, preferring to rely on straw men, misdirection, and personal attacks on people's character and motives.
Why won't YOU demonstrate your "open-minded" approach to me? How? Well -- why not start by reading those links I gaveyou on transitional fossils? And why not go to the library -- you know, the big building in the middle of town, with all the big books in it? -- and go to the science section, pick out a few books designed to explain evolution, and do some reading. You still have not bothered to see "the other side" -- that is obvious from the kinds of arguments you keep wanting to bring forth.
The other thing you can do to demonstrate your open-mindedness is to attempt to answer my questions. Here they are again, since you seem to have misplaced them yet again. Remember -- I want the scientific answers to these questions -- not creationist straw men.
As I said back when I first asked you these questions -- five of six times ago now? -- I have yet to have one single creationist get past the first question without distorting what science actually says. And none of them ever even bothered to look at anything about the last three.
The leading creationist organizations even have statements of faith -- and they clearly state that NO EVIDENCE that they think contradicts the Bible is to be accepted.
There's your hard-core open-minded creationist for ya.
Why don't you be the one who breaks the mold? Why don't you just stop firing off creationist straw man arguments -- and just answer the questions?
I have the same set of four questions ready concerning creationism -- but no one has ever gotten that far, yet. First -- I want to see if they understand my side -- before showing that they don't even understand their own side.
Anyone else out there wanna bet me he actually will answer them this time? It's a sucker bet every time! But -- hope springs eternal in the human breast -- so -- here ya go, Fabian:
1) What IS evolution?
2) What evidence is put forward to support it?
3) What are some of its predictions -- and how have they fared?
4) How can it be falsified?
If you don't KNOW the answers to these questions -- the REAL answers -- you are not ready to refute anything.
I did answer a couple of your questions but it wasn't to your satisfaction. O well...remember, I am a product of the public school system so I did have to learn all about TOE about 30 years ago. It's trully strange that you say ID is not a theory. It may not fit into your box of theory definition but it is recognized as a theory. here's an amazing article about the complexity of the dna code. It does point to a designer just the same as your computer programs point to a designer. I hope you will take a look. Take care. http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode.htm
<< I did answer a couple of your questions but it wasn't to your satisfaction. >>
It's not my "satisfaction" that matters. What matters is the scientific information you would need to know to be able to answer those questions accurately. If you don't have that information in your noggin -- you can acquire it -- but you have to understand the problem in order to do something about it. That's why I keep asking them.
You only tried -- half-heartedly -- to answer the first question, and all you said was that evolution says we evolved over a long period of time. Yes, evolution says that -- but that is not what evolution IS. That is a tautology -- not a definition of evolution.
<< It's trully strange that you say ID is not a theory. It may not fit into your box of theory definition but it is recognized as a theory. >>
No, it is not recognized as a theory. What's strange is that you seem to really believe it is. It is trying to GET that recognition through apologestics and sophistry -- but it is not a theory at all, and scientists do not accept it as one -- not yet. At this point -- the best that can be said is that it is an untested hypothesis. And as I said already -- unless it can be tested and falsified -- it's not a scientific theory.
And again -- you are wasting your time trying to post articles for ME to read -- when you won't read anything about science that I am sending you and asking you to read. It doesn't matter how many articles you post that agree with you about a designer. No scientific test has ever been devised to test for a designer -- and until one is devised, it's not a scientific question at all.
NOW PLEASE NOTE CAREFULLY --> This does NOT mean that I do not believe in the possibility of a designer, nor does it mean that I do not personally believe in a god. It just means that science, so far, has not devised a way to test for a designer, or for a god, so the whole idea is unscientific and does NOT deserve a place in science class. Maybe philosophy -- or comparative religion -- but not science.
In addition -- the major organization pushing for ID -- the Discovery Institute -- revealed its true motive to be religious -- about "God" -- not about some unknown designer -- in its "Wedge Strategy" document. And I noticed you had no response concerning the fact I gave you in my last post -- that the leading "scientists" in the ID movement accept common descent and the ancient universe and earth. It becomes obvious, when considering these facts, that creationists are only glomming onto ID because their "scientific creationism" has been shot down time and again in the courts -- and rightly so, because there is no science in it.
And BTW -- what about my questions? Why do you keep wasting time with all your stalling tactics and misdirection -- instead of just answering these four simple questions. This is the seventh time I have asked them -- and if you had answered them the first time, it would only have taken a few minutes. Instead, you have written about half a dozen posts -- all the while carefully avoiding the questions. Why is that?
Is it because you don't really know the answers? There's no shame in admittign ignorance. Ignorance can be cured -- the only hindrance is motivation. Is it because you are afraid to admit that your only "exposure" to the evidence has been from creationist arguments? There's no shame in admitting that, either -- certainly not as much shame as there is in continuing to avoid the issue and post one straw man after another.
The real shame is in continuing to make these unscientific arguments and pretending -- or really believing -- that they ARE scientific. The real shame is that, in these last few days that you have been arguing with me, you could have educated yourself enough to at least answer the questions accurately -- and that would have helped you in your own argument, even if you did not accept the things you read. At least you would know what it is you are arguing against -- instead of flailing about with all these straw men.
Why not just answer the questions? Here they are, again -- for the seventh time:
1) What IS evolution?
2) What evidence is said to support it?
3) What are some of its predictions, and how have they fared?
4) How can it be falsified?
FAbian, can you think of a test that would DISPROVE God?
that's not possible
Then it's not science.
I did some research and did find that creation theory as well as ID theory are accepted as theories. That is well known...it's simply your opinion that they are not. I hope you will do what you are asking me to do and be a bit more fair minded.
actually if you look at the definition of science it does not exclude the study of God. I mean look at the incredibly complex dna code that is more so than our computer codes. That is certainly scientific and does point to a creator of that code. I think sometimes you guys mix up opinions with facts.
<< I did some research and did find that creation theory as well as ID theory are accepted as theories. >>
Nope. Neither one is accepted IN SCIENCE as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. A rule of logic, please: if we are going to debate something, we need to use the same definitions of terms to avoid equivocation. I wonder if you even understand what "theory" means in science. Do you? Maybe I should add that to my list of questions! LOL!
<< That is well known...it's simply your opinion that they are not. >>
No -- it is the overwhelming consensus among scientists -- the people who DO scientific theories. Sorry if you don't like that -- but science doesn't care who doesn't like it.
And what about those questions? For the eighth time now:
NEW QUESTION = What is a scientific theory?
2) What IS evolution?
3) What evidence is said to support it?
4) What predictions does it make, and how have they fared?
5) How can it be falsified?
LOL! Now he's going to throw all those straw men at YOU for a while! Ya got DNA first -- he's saving the "precisions of the seasons" for the coup de grace! LOL!
And all the while, stoutly refusing to look at any of the real science. Pitiful. Truly pitiful.
If something cannot be disproved, it doesn't fall under the realm of science.
And science limits itself to the natural world. It cannot measure a soul, for instance.
Science really is not all that big.
God is bigger than science.
I don't know why you won't admit that creationism and ID are true scientific theories. Come on now...that is well known including in the scientific world. How is one supposed to have a debate when you won't even give the opposition the credibility it is due? I hope you open your mind at least a little. And I have read quite a bit of the science on both sides so you don't need to mischaracterize me anymore.
that's really not true that science limits itself to the natural world. Science is involved in observing and studing alot of supernatural phenomena including scientific studies about out of body experiences in emergency rooms. That's a narrow definition of science that doesn't hold water. I think alot of darwinists come up with their own defintions that are false.
The scientific studies of such things can only attribute such reactions to natural phenomena. If it cannot be attributed to natural phenomena, then it is beyond scientific study.
That's a narrow definition of science that doesn't hold water.
That's the only definition there is, sorry. Science isn't as near as grand or big as you think it is.
I think alot of darwinists come up with their own defintions that are false.
Another thing, I don't base my life or worldview on the ToE, so I don't consider myself a Darwinist. My scientific view is properly referred to as skepticism, my philosophical worldview is based on Theravada Buddhism, and my faith is Monotheistic Gnosticism.
that's just not true that science is only concerned with the natural world. I hope you will look into the true definition. I'm not saying that science is so grand...but it is the study of the grand. Why the grand is attempted to be excluded from science is a bit bizarre. I didn't think that you were a darwinist.
Find me a definition of science that includes the supernatural.
And then tell me how to measure a soul.
Alvin Plantinga:
It is irrational to believe both,
1. That there is no Judeo-Christion-Muslim God, who participates in the direction of the development of the universe.
2. That Darwinian evolution - natural selection with a little genetic drift - fully accounts for the development of humans, including their noetic faculties that supposedly are directed towards seeking truth to the extent that they can be depended on.
These two propositions contain an undercutting self-defeater argument. It is HIGHLY IMPROBABLE that our mostly reliable cognitive faculties would have developed under strictly Darwinian conditions. For that reason, based on the 2 propositions stated above, we cannot trust our faculties to determine the truth content of our propositions, including our view about the kind of god or nogod that exists, and whether Darwinian processes have any validity to them.
When we realize that what we believe undermines the process by which we arrive at these propositions we undercut our own position.
It is irrational to adopt such a position that undercuts the very position that you take.
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.