Now, here's metaphysical for you!
Posted on 06/22/2006 1:28:41 PM PDT by Tim Long
You posted it before and I responded before:
"You post a definition that applies directly to the metaphysical nature of evolution and then merely pretend that it doesn't. Course, none of the little evos will 'get it' cause you told them what to think with your glib remark.
So what part of that definition did you not understand?
Do we need to go over the difference between *evidence* and 'interpretations of evidence' again?"
I'm not calling everything metaphysical, although I understand your need to characterize it as such to avoid admitting to the truth.
True science stays totally away from the metaphysical. It describes what can be observed and does not venture into speculations on unobservable past events. You are confused about what is science and what is not.
I'm all in favor of the scientific method has nothing at all to do with 'apes for ancestors'. That's pure metaphysics.
Again, I understand why you need to characterize my position as though it is 'against the scientific method'. You need to characterize it as such in order to preserve your mental paradigm.
Now, here's metaphysical for you!
Sorry bud.
What you describe as 'evolution being observed' is not *uniquely* supportive of evolution to the exclusion of all other explanations. That's the key point that evos don't understand. The evidence must *uniquely* support evolution before it's *not* metaphysical.
And if you see a virus that isn't 'resistant to antibiotics', you give me a call. You don't even understand that all viruses are unaffected by antibiotics.
And the 'coded information' argument you present is lame. It is based on the prior existence of a replicating coding system. It doesn't explain how such a system arose. Can you not see that?
Glad you cleared that up for us. It is now obvious how ignorant you really are.
That's usually how it goes w/ evos, though, and is why they present so few arguments. They really don't understand 'evolution' and quickly degenerate into psychobabble that is devoid of content and ignorant of basic biological reality.
As you demonstrate, evolution is totally metaphysical. You have all your facts wrong, yet still believe.
There is no need to go further in your post. Name another scientific theory that explains Evolution.
Again, I understand why you need to characterize my position as though I believe 'everything is metaphysical' in spite of my constant explanations of the differences between evidence and metaphysics with examples that clearly distinguish between evidence and metaphysics.
I also understand why you feel a need to post irrelevant pictures; you are out of arguments and need to maintain your mental paradigm so you grasp at any tactic available.
This is exactly why the creation movement is growing and evolution is failing. You're on the wrong side with impotent arguments.
You continue to try to paint your opponents with the same old brush and it just isn't working anymore.
You look foolish.
Name another scientific theory that explains a scientific theory (evolution)?
We have covered this previously. 'Evolution' isn't scientific because it is overwhelmingly metaphysical. Evos claim 'scientific' status and merely insist it is true in the face of clear metaphysical arguments embedded in the 'theory'. This makes the ToE 'non-scientific'.
No evo will ever admit such because the theory would collapse like a house of cards were the metaphysical nature of the theory ever admitted.
Truth by definition. The hallmark of evolution.
Jump: See Goto
Goto: See Branch
Branch: See Jump
I have summed up your "argument." Keep your silly circular logic. At least it is novel and mildly amusing.
If you understood, you would know why that picture is not irrelevant.
To expand upon your argument: When only things that you can detect now with the five senses are real, and everything else is metaphysical, then all things of the distant past, like that lovely centaur, are equally "real."
You just pretend to have summed up my argument.
You didn't address it at all.
That's pretty typical though.
I understand that you need to pretend that all things are 'equally real' and that your centaur picture is 'relevant'.
You merely want to disguise the basic metaphysical nature of evolution by pretending that people either believe that evolution is 'scientific' or believe in centaurs.
A foolish position, but ultimately where you must go to preserve 'evolution as science'.
That pretty well sums it up. Evolution sis scientific regardless of whether it is the last and final description of its subject. Evolution could be completely wrong and still be the current best explanation for the available evidence.
You use circular reasoning. Get your argument together and then we'll talk.
Yes, abstract thought is the devil's tool
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
- Martin Luther (famous creationist and pre-Hitler German antisemite)
You use unsupported assertions as though they are arguments.
Get some rational arguments together and we'll talk.
This is how evolution deceives people. Leave out key qualifiers and pretend that 'current best explanation' implies some reliability. It doesn't.
In order to be correct, the qualifiers that should have were that it was the 'best' "naturalistic explanation", which is really all it is and doesn't really mean much. Intelligent design explanations are excluded 'a priori', but no evo will ever mention that up front.
Then you would be correct in saying it "could be completely wrong and still be the 'current best' explanation limited to naturalistic explanations".
I do like the way the qualifiers start flying when evos try to be 'accurate'. Those are generally missing at the start of a set of assertions for good reason. They would drastically reduce the impact of the assertions if you put all the 'maybes', 'possibles', 'coulds', 'a priori naturalistic-explanations only', etc at the front of the argument where they belong.
If you are looking at a supernaturally-created universe and biology and you limit your acceptable explanations to 'naturalistic methodologies only', you are *guaranteed* to get the wrong answer.
Since creation/naturalism is the basic question, those who limit acceptable explanations to 'naturalistic methodologies only' and then think those arguments are 'superior' are missing the point.
The circular reasoning takes place in the assumption that you can require a natural (read 'scientific') answer to a supernatural reality.
Not something that evolutionists typically understand or acknowledge.
I think the distinction is that a supernatural created biology could look like anything. Therefore you cannot disprove such an explaination. Therefore you can't test it. And therefore it is not science. Also noone is suprised or impressed that the explaination is still around.
However the theory of evolution requires, by way of it's very mechanisms, that biology look a certain way. The theory of evolution only remains standing and is thought highly of, because the biological world does look that certain way that evolution requires.
Well, a naturally-created biology could look like anything too, so you couldn't disprove such an explanation either and couldn't test it therefore it is not science.
What requirement do you think the ToE places on biology?
The ToE only remains standing because a naturalistic explanation is required 'a priori' in order to be 'scientific'. That was the point.
If you are looking at a supernaturally-created universe and life, to limit your explanations to 'naturalistic-only' guarantees that you will get the wrong answer.
That's what evolution is... the wrong answer.
No, it's just that it take a psychotic to seriously to maintain geocentrism as a description of reality. I assume you are playing a game with us.
No, but it does take an astronomer with the stature of Sir Fred Hoyle to admit that geocentrism and heliocentrism are dynamically equivalent according to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.
Sir Fred Hoyle wrote:
"The relation of the two pictures and heliocentricity is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view ... . Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is 'right' and the Ptolemaic theory 'wrong' in any meaningful physical sense."
You'd be surprised what you 'believe' to be true that can't be proven. Heliocentrism is one of those beliefs.
I think you are woefully uninformed. That's why you ridicule that which you don't understand.
Aren't we clever and Soooooooooo much better informed than everyone else. How old are you? Tewlve?
http://www.csc.twu.ca/byl/modelstest.doc
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.