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, 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. ;-)